The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sigma SD1

Dolce Moda

New member
More resolution and better color won't make your photos more compelling...'nuff said.

If you are relying on your camera to make your photos better than the other guy it is time for some serious self-examination.
 

photoSmart42

New member
It's not as simple as that. To me, the resolution seems to be higher even than the D3X, and I would be very surprised if the D4 surpasses that. The D3 is only 12MP. What the 5D3 will offer, we don't know, but Canon haven't performed any quantum leaps lately.
Actually it is as simple as that IMO. Fact is, Sigma has a very small following to begin with, and as a system it's nowhere near as robust as anything Nikon or Canon have to offer. On top of that, Sigma products have been known to have issues, which makes it an even tougher sell. Even if they compete in the digital MF pro market, they have a huge uphill to climb to even make a small dent at that price.

Sigma has (had...) a chance to make inroads into the mainstream up-scale market with a product that's unlike (maybe) anything they've produced before, but that still means they have to allow the market to try it out. $3000 would be a reasonable trade-off between quality and making a dent in the market - that's simple marketing basics. At that price point it still makes it high-end enough to where it maintains an aura of a flagship product, and it also allows a fair amount of early adopters to try it out. Anything higher than that and you lose most of your customer base to a Nikon D3X which comes with a much wider range of quality system products.

I stand by my argument for a $3000 MSRP.
 

Howard

New member
Should I buy 14 Pansaonic G-3's or one SD1? Despite the sharp blowup of the horse's eye, I'll buy 1 G3.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
More resolution and better color won't make your photos more compelling...'nuff said.

If you are relying on your camera to make your photos better than the other guy it is time for some serious self-examination.
Say that to my clients. I shoot motor racing, and increasingly often, I get questions for wall size enlargements for the sponsors, not for a banner high up on the wall, but for decorating the office wall used like a wallpaper. Since the viewing distance can be rather close sometimes, resolution is the name of the game, whatever it does or doesn't do for my photography.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Dragos,
The problem with systems like Sigma, Olympus or Pentax isn't that the systems are too small. Many photographers can get away with just 3-5 lenses for most of what they do. When I do motor racing, I use 4-5 different lenses, the 5th one being a macro. Sigma easily covers that.

The problem for many pro photographers would be support, and that's a real challenge where I live. Even Nikon has had mediocre support in Bangkok until now. That will hopefully improve now, as they take over the distribution themselves. Sigma is out of the question for me, partly due to the lack of support and partly due to price, but I would really love to have one. This looks like a great camera.
 

Kofronj

New member
Well, having heard releases at Photokina---the expectation was that the camera would be released at the upper end of the APS-C market (Canon 7D). So one could imagine a $2500 MSRP at launch (or maybe $2999 and $2500 street). At that level, the IQ would dominate the stuff currently out from Canon, Pentax and Nikon (at APS-C), and one could envision Sigma actually beginning to build market share.

There are 'issues' with competing in that market segment. No video, no live view, no unquenchable buffer to shoot 300 frames at once. But the IQ would trounce. And the IQ might give some of the higher end full frames a run for the money (optimistically, the SD1 might be better in that area). No ISO 128000, not nearly as 'robust' as a D3x or Canon 1D Mk 73 (or whatever they're up to). But low ISO IQ---solid.

When you kick this up to a professional level, you need to have a professional customer support system. You should have tethering (the SD1 doesn't). There's a lot of stuff a pro is going to want that the SD1 isn't going to have. The IQ? That'll be there. I'll even hazard a guess that the lens selection is good enough for most now (50, 85, 70-200, 120-300, 50-500, maybe 8-16), and it's likely to get better. But there's not the infrastructure in place at Sigma to sell this as a pro camera.

I hope that I get a chance to test the camera. From what I've heard from my friends who have had a hands on, the body feels very good, we're back to two wheels on the top for shutter/aperture, the LCD on the top isn't missed because the LCD on the back does the job, AF is better, and ISO 100 is exceptionally clean in later firmware/software builds. I think Sigma will have a winning camera, if they can price it 'reasonably'.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
....I think Sigma will have a winning camera, if they can price it 'reasonably'.
Sigma will have to discount the SD1 substantially in order to reach that reasonable price level. I hope they do.....if not, count me out.

Gary
 

photoSmart42

New member
Dragos,
The problem with systems like Sigma, Olympus or Pentax isn't that the systems are too small. Many photographers can get away with just 3-5 lenses for most of what they do. When I do motor racing, I use 4-5 different lenses, the 5th one being a macro. Sigma easily covers that.

The problem for many pro photographers would be support, and that's a real challenge where I live. Even Nikon has had mediocre support in Bangkok until now. That will hopefully improve now, as they take over the distribution themselves. Sigma is out of the question for me, partly due to the lack of support and partly due to price, but I would really love to have one. This looks like a great camera.
Don't get me wrong - I have nothing to say about the IQ of the SD1 in spite of some of the poor sample images that have been posted. I've been excited about owning [the dream of] this camera since September. My issue is with the "IQ at any price" statement, and my only point is that the best IQ in the world means absolutely nothing if the camera that sports that IQ isn't available (either through a prohibitive pricing strategy, or through poor distribution as in the case of the GH2, or through poor reliability and poor service as you mentioned which is not uncommon to Sigma products).

Hope Sigma comes to their senses, apologizes for the pricing snafu, and releases this camera as a sensible price point. Just read an article on LL discussing just what that kind of strategy would look like - Sigma needs to listen if they want to salvage anything at this point.
 

usathyan

New member
Its funny seeing this thread - seeing people outraged by pricing on this camera. How many of you have seriously considered switching to Sigma even if the camera offered the same quality of 645D?

People! it is their freakin baby! of course they love it more than everyone else! and they are free to name their price! Sigma lovers like all apple lovers will buy it regardless! at least they are generating a lot of talk and chatter over their camera!

I say great PR & marketing on sigma!
 

tom in mpls

Active member
A quote from dpreview's preview: "Because the Foveon sensor captures full color data at each pixel location, it's not susceptible to color moiré."

Huh? I thought moire was a function of the distance between pixels and the width of the pattern being photographed; why would foveon be immune?
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well - I'm not so sure that the pricing is a mistake.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities

1. it doesn't offer better IQ than the D3x 5DII A900 etc.
in which case it's dead in the water . . . . and it'd be dead in the water at $3000 as well.

2. it Does offer better IQ than the D3x 5DII A900 etc.
In which case those who want Foveon, and want that quality, and who aren't necessarily requiring all the bells and whistles of the Canikon big guns might see it as a considerable saving over a MF kit. (especially if you start thinking about lenses).

When these pricing arguments come up nobody seems to remember about costs and production runs. If it costs $2500 to make, and you sell it for $7500 you only have to sell 1 camera for every 10 you would have to sell if it's $3000!
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Question is then I suppose whether the lenses and specifically their poor QC is up to a sensor (if it is) better than a D2X. Add to that the upcoming 30 megapixel plus flagships from the big two which will come in, as usual, at $8000 with pro bodies, full dealer and rental support worldwide, sophisticated accessories to draw upon, etc and the D3X will be still cheaper. I just can't see it happening.

Lets face it, in a year from now if you want 30 megapixels in a DSLR sized mid priced and speced body then you'll be shooting a 5DIII and although mid speced, it will still cream the SD1 in every way.
 

photoSmart42

New member
Its funny seeing this thread - seeing people outraged by pricing on this camera. How many of you have seriously considered switching to Sigma even if the camera offered the same quality of 645D?
I have. And who says anything about switching? At $2000 it's cheap enough as a second/third body alongside a FF camera body, for example. At $9700 it's out even as a primary body when others are way more capable as a system. Lots of people have more than one camera body, and more than one camera brand. They're all tools for the job, that's all. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition (something that Sigma also doesn't get in choosing not to offer multi-mount lenses/cameras).
 

etrigan63

Active member
A quote from dpreview's preview: "Because the Foveon sensor captures full color data at each pixel location, it's not susceptible to color moiré."

Huh? I thought moire was a function of the distance between pixels and the width of the pattern being photographed; why would foveon be immune?
Hi Tom,

In a Bayer pattern sensor color interpolation HAS to occur as full color info is not available for each pixel. This can lead to color moire if de-mosaic algorithms are not very good (or not present). Foveon sensors have red, green, and blue data for every pixel, so no color interpolation is needed.

Sigma's (and Foveon's) argument vis-a-vis number of pixels goes like this: Bayer sensors claim to have a certain number of pixels, however due to the nature of the Bayer sensor 25% are red, 50% are green, and 25% are blue. RGB info is interpolated based on data from nearby pixels. This degrades sharpness. For example, a 10 MP Bayer sensor would have 2.5MP red, 5 MP green, and 2.5 MP blue pixels. Thus in reality you only have 2.5 MP of actual RGB data before interpolation and there is positional shift information you need to take into account which can to mosaicing.

The Foveon's multi-layer design assures RGB info is present for every single pixel without interpolation. However, this means that in truth only 1/3 of the pixels involved are resolved into image data. Since Bayer sensor makers count every individual pixel in the final count, Sigma/Foveon decided to do the same.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The discussion reminds me of what happened when the Leica S2 was launched No, the Sigma is not a Leica, but then, it's not selling at anything near Leica prices. Everything I've seen so far indicates that it's an excellent photographic tool, but the price, like the price of the S2, seems to make it a total no-go. In many ways, it's the opposite of what the mainstream manufacturers offer these days: less features but more image quality. That's what some of us have been wanting since we transferred to digital anyway. It's not a digital FM3A or OM-4, but it's very far from the run-of-the-mill plastic fantastic cameras that are launched more or less every day.

There are still people paying rather healthy prices for cameras like the Kodak SLR/N or Contax 645, cameras that went down and out years ago, and where support is sketchy to say the least. Compared to that, the Sigma is almost mainstream.

Can the Sigma lenses live up to the potential of the sensor? Some can undoubtedly, particularly from 50mm and up. But the price excludes a lot of photographers and then there's the support side. But if the kit prices on the America website are correct, some will buy it, and as Jono points out, it may be better business for Sigma to sell fewer at a higher price. That makes support easier to handle as well.

But I can't afford it... I think :deadhorse:
 

jonoslack

Active member
The discussion reminds me of what happened when the Leica S2 was launched No, the Sigma is not a Leica, but then, it's not selling at anything near Leica prices. Everything I've seen so far indicates that it's an excellent photographic tool, but the price, like the price of the S2, seems to make it a total no-go. In many ways, it's the opposite of what the mainstream manufacturers offer these days: less features but more image quality. That's what some of us have been wanting since we transferred to digital anyway. It's not a digital FM3A or OM-4, but it's very far from the run-of-the-mill plastic fantastic cameras that are launched more or less every day.

There are still people paying rather healthy prices for cameras like the Kodak SLR/N or Contax 645, cameras that went down and out years ago, and where support is sketchy to say the least. Compared to that, the Sigma is almost mainstream.

Can the Sigma lenses live up to the potential of the sensor? Some can undoubtedly, particularly from 50mm and up. But the price excludes a lot of photographers and then there's the support side. But if the kit prices on the America website are correct, some will buy it, and as Jono points out, it may be better business for Sigma to sell fewer at a higher price. That makes support easier to handle as well.

But I can't afford it... I think :deadhorse:
Quite right Jorgen - this is exactly what was said about the S2 - especially around here.

It seems to me that for Leica that had the advantage that they didn't sell too many cameras to start with - which made support and fixing stuff possible, and they did appear to respond pretty well (look at Marc's experience).

Then, a year later, when it's settled down and some sterling images appear . . . Lo and behold, people are buying it and seeing that it's good. I get the distinct impression that it's doing very well.

If you make a niche product, then you can sell it for more. The question here (IMHO) is whether the SD1 qualifies as a niche product? If it does, then fine . . . . if it doesn't . . . .
 
Top