Sigma SD9 Preview

This article is more of a Foveon S3 technology preview than a piece on the Sigma SD9. While the new chip is certainly the most interesting aspect of the camera, the camera itself and its maker should be a concern for those bleeding edge digital buyers who might sign up for the waiting list.

My main concern about Sigma getting the first rights to market an S3 camera is the exclusivity of the Sigma SA lens mount. Only Sigma makes lenses for this mount, so an SD9 buyer has but one source for optics and a tiny market for resale of lenses later on.

Add the rapid depreciation of third party lenses like Sigma's to the inevitable rapid depreciation of any digital SLR and you potentially have quite an economic beating to consider as an SD9 buyer.

Another factor that makes the camera undesireable to me is the 1.7 crop factor - that's high enough to neuter even ultrawide lenses. Sigma's high end lenses are reasonably robust and well made, but I would want some evidence of the quality they put into their cameras before putting three grand into one.

I've read a report the Sigma has a two-year lock on S3 chips for DSLR applications. If this is true, it doesn't bode well for Foveon's market penetration and eventual financial strength. I'm suspicious that Foveon had to launch its technology with all promised quality advantages via a discount niche market camera maker (or more accurately, a third party lensmaker that decided recently to produce cameras). Sigma gets a lot of name exposure in the deal, and if the S3 is as good as the hype it will gain some market credibility as well. Foveon looks like it was desperate for a platform if the Sigma exclusive is a reality.

I agree with the above comment. I would have much rather had an actual preview of the SD-9 instead of the underlying technology - the details of which could be found elsewhere on the web through a search engine like google.

Although the Sigma SD-9 will probably take a severe beating from SLR-hungry buyers from the lands of Nanoc and Nokin, I am looking forward to the use of the Foveon chip inside point and shoot cameras, of which the middle end seems to suffer from bad picture quality and slow image processing times.

At lower resolutions, Foveon definitely wins out, though at higher resolutions, the advantages are not quite so apparent.

Come on camera makers! Let's see some P&S's with Foveon imaging arrays!!

Well, I've never got such a bad picture of the blue shirt using my "mosaic" D30.

It is a really nice technology, but there is no need to put anything other to death like that.

I am finally looking at buying a digital camera for shooting local sports events. The film just doesn't cut it with the deadline press and Internet publishers anymore. I am looking at Nikon, Canon, Olympus (yes, lots of photogs are making a living with E10's and E20, despite what Phil G., thinks of them), and the new Sigma SD-9. On paper the SD-9 looks great, and Sigma has the broadest range of lenses out there now. The 15-30mm works out to 24-48 (35mm eq.) and that ain't bad. The Foveon technology looks like it will beat the pants off of CMOS CCD's.

What about Sigma?

I called them and got to talk with a couple of engineers. I was really interested in shutter lag time, and was told the shutter would fire virtually instantly and the lag time would be consistent, frame to frame in the SD-9. the camera is meant for professional use, although I don't think it will have the feel of a F5. But guess what, didigal camera aren't meant to use for 10 years, rather, 3 years tops. I bet the SD-9 will last 3 years of daily use with ease.

I asked about where Signal was headed in digital, and I was told that Sigma's market strategy was to become the third professional digital camera supplier, along with Canon and Nikon. The exclusive with Foveon is a jump-start. Sigma believes that it can design and engineers digital camera lenses faster, cheaper and better then N & C. They believe value will prevail in the digital arena, I think they are right. To wit, the latest 15-30 and 20-40 lenses. Signal said they were commited to the 24x36mm frame size with their lenses, partly because they have a full frame digitial/Foveon camera in the works. They are committed to the SA mount. More lenses, more digital bodies, great pricing. Not just new stuff at the annual PMA show, but news stuff every few months.

My prediction, in 3 years time all these Sigma nay-sayers will be eating crow, and a big segment of the pro market will be shooting with Sigma gear, and anxious about the latest cool technology Sigma has on the way out.

Signal said they were commited to the 24x36mm frame size with their lenses, partly because they have a full frame digitial/Foveon camera in the works. They are committed to the SA mount.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that. I tested out the 15-30 on my EOS-3 and Provia 400F. The sample I used had a very obvious loss in sharpness as you do towards the edge of the frame, and this was very pronounced in the corners, and not just wide open, but at f/8 and smaller apertures too. The centre was more or less OK but my sample was nowhere close to the Canon EF15mm f/2.8 fisheye and my EF24/2.8 lenses I shot with side by side. I have heard many stories about the "DG" lenses being optimised for a frame size smaller than 24x36mm for digital cameras, but I have no way to tell if that's a fact.

The other issue with the Sigma 15-30 I tested was the extremely warm colour cast like a permanent 81C filter. It is not a big issue with digital, but with slides, there is a problem. The shots taken with the 15/2.8 and the 24/2.8 on the same roll showed accurate colours.

However, having used other Sigma lenses and having seen their quality, I would say "good luck" to Sigma. They have an ambitious plan, but let's wait and see how far they get. I certainly wouldn't pay anything close to US$3000 for any SA-mount camera.

It's interesting that Sigma are working towards a full-frame camera.

However their ambition to be a big force in the professional market will need new tough bodies and many more large-aperture lenses, preferably with an IS variant.

So the latter ambition is going to take a lot more effort , basically they will have to completely reinvent the brand.

If you read the specs. on the Sigma DSLR you will see it is not professional level despite their intent for it to be.

For one, the frames per second are nearly not there for action photography. 3.4MP is also not enough any longer to be considered professional level for a 135 DSLR. 1.7 FLM is the highest I have ever seen. No spot metering, and the list goes on.

In addition, the biggest fallback is the fact that you would be locked into using only Sigma glass with this body and therefore if you can never get glass with it that is on par with Canon or Nikon optics then you will never get images that can support the capabilities of the sensor regardless of how good it is.

Thus, to pay professional level prices for a Sigma DSLR and lenses and not get professional level quality will be a stretch for them to pull off. In addition, Sigma will not be able to convert any of the Canon or Nikon owners over, even if they were willing to invest in the Sigma body, since they already have too much invested in glass. Unfortunately they will be forced to stick with whatever is produced for their exiting lens arsenal.

Sigma, rather than trying to use this DSLR to lure people into their brand of lenses, would have been much smarter to put it out with Nikon and Canon mounts in the hopes of at least selling a few more bodies to the existing Canon/Nikon lens owners. I think with a Sigma mount it will be a hopeless entry to the market.

Also, too bad about that agreement of the 2 year exclusivity between Sigma and Foveon if it is true. This means that probably Canon and Nikon will continue developing their own sensor technology (CCD & CMOS) thus, closing the door even further on the possibility of Foveon ever getting in with one of them.

A shame really because I would have liked to see what Foveon’s new sensor technology would have done inside a Canon DSLR.

Anyway, I expect Canon will eventually create their own similar technology based on the RGB technology of the Foveon sensor since they are already into sensor development and it will just push the rest of them back even another couple of notches.

In conclusion I am simply disappointed that Foveon could not strike a deal with Canon and Nikon because I believe they are onto something good which most of the professional world will never get a chance to work with.

One factor that might help entice people to switch to sigma mount: They can sell virtually every one of their name brand lenses and buy a virtually equivalent Sigma lens brand new with a third party 5 year warrantee and still make money. Sigma’s build quality is improving, and the optical quality of lenses like the 70-200 is great. All they need to copy now is IS/VR. I'd like to see first it in their one exclusive lens, the 50-500, then the 100-300 F/4, which would be a great fairly fast wildlife lens on digital, possibly a better choice than the canon or Nikon equivalents because of equal optical quality and an extra stop of speed. Funny thing is, though, while I seem to be on Sigma’s side, all I own is a canon 17-35 and 70-200, and I’m getting a D60. I think 6 million pattern pixels will in almost all cases be as good or better than 3 million full color pixels. Now, a full frame (or almost) 6 MP foveon camera will really stir up the mix.

One thing that will likely hold back many photographers, pro and amateur alike is the lack of a system. Sigma has a lot of catching up to do if they intend to compete with Canon and Nikon. Sigma has a lot of lenses and some flashes, but not much in the way of "nuts and bolts". There is no reference at all on the Sigma website that I found beyond mention of a vertical grip for the SD9. I don't see how they are going to make much of an impression on shooters without some additional system support. Perhaps they will be able to develop the brand and give shooters another choice. I wish them well.

Despite Sigma's ambition of attracting pro shooters, this is really meant for amateurs. The Sigma system is ok, not impressive. Even if they captured the students coming out of schools with small budgets, no pro would depend on this system for his living. Can you rent expensive specialty glass? No. Can you use elaborate flash setups in the studio? Maybe.

Considering that the D60 is $2200, I don't see how Sigma will sell one unit for more than $2000. For $3000, the images had better look like 10mp (equiv. to CCD or Canon CMOS). I'm not sure that Sigma has the lens to take advantage of this technology assuming it is that good.

I know Sigma-bashing is a fun thing to do, but I am quite intrigued with the camera. Looks like you'll get fast and decent digital images. Most important is the dust protector covering the sensor. Dust is a huge problem with digital sensors and exchangable lenses. What's your super expensive digital camera and set of lenses worth if after a couple of years the sensor is covered with dust? Finally, their fixed focal length lenses are fairly decent. Cheap zooms from Canon, Nikon, and Sigma are cheap zooms. But some of Sigma's pro-level lenses are quite good. I have been very satisfied with their 15mm/3.5 as well as with their 500/4.5 APO. The last one is really outstanding and surpasses many others.

P.S. I should also add their remarkable customer service. I guess I bought one of their first 500/4.5 APOs in the middle of the 80s. When I sent it back in for service a couple of years ago, they re-adjusted the tripod collar and cleaned the entire lens free of charge. I'd like to see any of the others do that...

I am currently weighing up where to step into the digital camera high end and was most interested in the Fuji S2 pro with its 6Mp and interpolated 12Mp. I have a Nikon AF lens, so it looked a real winner. I want something that will ultimately give photo quality prints. I held fire to await the price of the Sigma S9, and am disappointed with its high price, with only 3.4Mp.

If anyone has a good feel for what the Fuji would be like in practise I would be extremely interested to hear. At the end of the day, fine resolution has got to depend on the number of points you sample an image at. Surely the Sigma will have to do better than 3.4Mp to get close to the Fuji.

To those who believe Sigma has an exclusive right to the X3 chip:

From the Foveon FAQ at: http://foveon.publicmind.com/enduser/group.jsp?node=1635

Question

Will other camera manufacturers besides Sigma be announcing products with Foveon X3 technology?

Answer

Foveon does not have an exclusive agreement with Sigma and is actively engaged with other major digital camera manufacturers. As partnerships are formed and can be made public, Foveon will provide more details.

Sigma/Foveon may be an example of a small vendor getting a jump on the established big guys.

Remember Digital Equipment? Multi-billion creator of the minicomputer that disappeared into Compaq.

Nikon and Canon were probably offered the Foveon and turned up their noses.

Sigma may not have an exhaustive system, but there is probably enough for many people to do what they need to do.

"Sigma/Foveon may be an example of a small vendor getting a jump on the established big guys. "

It certainly appears that they got the jump on Minolta and Pentax. There are more & more photographers out there who wouldn't consider investing any more money in an SLR system without a clear path to digital. If the SD9 is priced right (lower than the current $3000 estimate), then it may make a viable alternative to the big guys. The SA7 and SA9 film SLRs offer a pretty good entry-level value to get into the system. Professional SLRs these may not be, but the Sigma system could be able to compete pretty well against the low- to mid-range SLRs offered by the other guys.

Two more comments related to my previous posts. First, a correction, the wide angle lens I have is the 14mm/3.5 and not a 15mm/3.5. Second, Sigma is in the process of developing some image stabilizer lenses. Hopefully it's the 500 and the 800. O.k., so then you have some really decent long lenses, some professional extreme wideangle lenses, and a very good 180mm APO macro. And then you have the rest, which is probably soso, with a few exceptions, which may be o.k. as well. If the digital stuff takes off, there'll be more professional glass, I am sure. I really think Sigma is up and coming...

To me, evaluating these cameras is a fairly straight forward process. I'll shoot a variety of things side by side and print out some 11x17's or portions of a larger blow up. If I can't shoot demo cameras myself, I will look for full quality files posted online to print out. If the price is close, I'll buy the one with a better photos unless the handling is poor.

I really wish reviewers would include this one simple task when creating comparisons. A 500x blowup is neat 'n everything... but just tell me this - Can human eyes pick up the difference a foot away from a max size printout?

All this marketing hype is just that until I see the difference on print in front of me.

I managed a camera store for years (before digital got big) and every year there was a new camera/lens/flash with a ton of new hype. Just like this year.

In the end I learned this: I'm not paying a dime extra for something I can't see on my own prints regardless of what some press release tells me I should see. (same thing goes for speed and handling - can I feel the difference)Use that approach on lenses, bodies, flashes, computers, software, printers, ink and paper and you'll save some money while remaining focused on the real task at hand... making great photos.

Sometimes I sell everything and become an early adopter, and other times I use the same gear for another year. Like my Epson 1270.

Joel

I am intrigued by the comment that 3.7MP won't stand up in todays market. I am no professional photographer but as someone keen on imaging and display technology I interpret 3.7MP using X3 technology to be on par (pixel wise) with something far greater.

I am not arguing on prices or who is using Foveon's technology but I am wanting to argue that you can't simply say that 3.7MP can't stand up into todays market. If you give me a 6MP camera and I look at one pixel I can't tell you what the real colour or light value should be until you give me the other surrounding pixels, even then it is a best guess, using complex algorithms to put the RGB values you collected from surrounding (different locations) together. Give me one X3 pixel and I can immediately tell you the colour.

Mathematically I see it like this. We have an area x where x = numOfP. Lets say the X3 is numOfP = 1 and you get full colour and light value, another manufacturer will need at least numOfP >= 3, to get an approximate value of colour and light. Thus 1 X3 pixel >= 3 other manufacturer's pixels.

So I would have to hold off on the 3.7MP doesn't cut in todays market, not if they are X3 pixels. Please correct me if you feel I am wrong.

It is clear to me that the Foveon technology will be far superior for three main reasons.

1. The amount of light lost by conventional CCD sensors must be about 2/3 (67%). This is because each pixel can only respond to one of the three colour bands in the spectrum. Assuming that the colour bands are evenly distributed across the visible spectrum. So for every cluster of four pixels in the CCD one is for Red, two for Green and one for Blue. Lets assume that we have an area of A=1.0. So then for a given area you can only get 0.25A*.33 for Red, 2*0.25A*.33 for Green and 0.25A*0.33 for Blue, an aggregate of 0.33 for the area A. For the equivalent Foveon chip area we would get 1.0A*1.0 for Red, Green and Blue, an aggregate of 1.0 for the same area A.

2. Not only does the Foveon chip make use of more available light it actually "sees" a separate detail for each pixel. In the traditional CCD the four pixels all actually “see” something different because it just not possible for the same light to be coincident on the four different pixels. So this means that you get four times more detail for the same overall CCD area (assuming the size and spacing of the pixels is the same). Consequently there is more detail to work with at the very beginning of the image capture process

3. As conventional CCD technology struggles with ever increasing resolutions by constantly reducing the pixel size the signal-to-noise ratio decreases. This is already evident in some digital cameras and is manifest as graininess in low light conditions. There must eventually be some limit at which the signal generated by the light incident of the CCD will be too small to compete with the electronic noise inherent in all electronic devices. To overcome the signal-to-noise ratio problem the manufacturers must increase the overall size of the CCD. The Foveon technology has an advantage over the conventional CCD technology since the aggregate electrical signal from each pixel is three times better that that of conventional CCDs.

In summary, Foveon looks to me like it will deliver four times the detail, three times the range in colour depth and a lot less noise from the same amount of light information compared to current CCD technology.

I am very interested in the Sigma SD9 with a few caveats. It appears that the "sports finder" touted in the specs is merely an unmodified viewfinder from the full frame 35 mm versions of Sigma's cameras, with a screen outlining the actual area of the image being recorded. While this may provide some benefits in certain situations, the fact is most of us are used to using cameras that have close to 100% viewfinder accuracy, and may find the additional information in the viewfinder distracting, and misleading as we use the camera. Also if I have interpreded it correctly the size of the image will be quite a bit smaller in this "active area" of the finder making critical judgements harder for the user. Secondly, As my primary lens is currently an 85mm 1.8, I was looking forward to the fact that I would not need a substantial investment in new lenses for this camera as a normal 50 mm lens would have been almost exactly 85mm, and they tend to be reasonably priced even in 1.8 and 1.4 configurations. However it appears that Sigma does not manufacture any fixed focal length lenses in the 50 mm range faster than a 2.8 macro. So now we have reduced the size of the focus area, and the speed of the lens at the same time......while I dearly love the idea of a camera with the color and dust advantages of the Sigma as touted, I don't know if I could live with the reduction in viewfinder size and brightness in use.

According to DPReview, Sigma just announced the MSRP of the SD-9...

1800 bucks

slightly less than 3 Grand... And placing it at the top of the DSLR market in terms of price.

If the sensor is as sharp as the 3x example pictures on DPreview and elsewhere seem to suggest, I'm going to bet that Sigma has a serious winner on their hands here...

Of course, we'll need to wait until next month when the actual reviews are posted to say for sure.

-Scott

I would hardly rate the Sigma SD-9 as a professional piece of equipment.The parameters that we normaly expect from this grade of equipment simply do not exist in this camera. What we have here, I believe, is a classic "launching pad scenario" Through a mutual relationship and lots of hype,Sigma undoubtly will sell lots of SD-9"s to an enthusiastic, amateur crowd who are not really concerned about such things as Lens compatability or frame rate. Indeed, we can look forward to the X3 being used in lower cost consumer grade cameras in the near future while higher performance chips using X3 technology will be developed for professional use

DOIN' THE MATH: I gotta agree that you can't just compare pixel count between the X3 and traditional CCD and CMOS arrays, and have a meaningful comparison. An earlier post asked if the foveon wouldn't have >= 3 times as many "efffective" pixels, with the same nominal pixel count. I think the advantage to the X3 is probably closer to 9 times, i.e. 9 regular pixels = 1 X3 pixel, at least in the "megapixel" count, since the imaging is recorded in 2 dimensions, not along a straight line, and thus the difference is squared. And considering it actually takes 4 standard pixels (2G + 1R + 1B) to make a usable picture element, the actual X3 advantage may be closer to 16X (4 squared). Consider: 1500 x 1000 pixels = "1.5 megapixels" in current parlance, but it really takes 3 (or 4, since there are usually 2 green for each red and blue) of those pixels to make one "Photoshop pixel", e.g 24 bits of color information (8 for each of the 3 color channels). Thus each "Photoshop pixel" has one of 256 (2 to the 8th power) possible luminance values for R, G & B (8-bit/24 bit), for the familiar "16 million colors". So, if a 1000 x 1500 regular pixel array is what we're gonna call "1.5 meagapixels", (despite the fact that it would take 3 or 4 times this many to get 1.5 million "Photoshop pixels", then the 1000 x 1500 X3-pixels, would have the equivalent recorded image information of 3000 x 4500 (or perhaps 4000 x 6000) of the regular pixels, for an effective pixel count of 13.5 megapixels (conservative) or 24 megapixels, of the traditional arrays. So a 3.3 megapixel X3 would be the equivalent usable (and "real") image information of a 30-45 megapixel standard array, which is considerably more the 6MP of the D60 and D100. And they're faster off the trigger, and cheaper to make, and utilize simpler software and hardware support onboard? Sounds like advantage X3 to me... (More like about 3 "set points", actually ;-) Of course, there could always be a catch we haven't heard about yet(like, maybe they SMELL really bad or something...;-) There may be a flaw in this reasoning somewhere, but if there is, I can't find it. I think we're now all confused by the terminology, from accepting up until now that a point on a sensor with only 1/3 or the necessary image color information qualified to be called a pixel (AKA "Picture element")...

Hi folks,

I was at the PhotoExpo Plus and managed to utilize the Sigma SD-9 digiSLR in my hands and shot some pictures with it. I was stunned at the quality of the images even at ISO 400 (which even my Leica Digilux 1 has "problems" with). Very scary with that new Foveon chip which has no color artifacting as far as I see. More surprisingly was the quality of the images printed on Fuji Crystal Archive.

I am convinced. This isn't vaporware and the price is just right at 1800 dollars to jump in. I shoot Leica and Canon at the moment but the pictures from the Sigma SD-9 leapt off the page (or the stand) just like the way that my traditional film Leica shots leapt out at my face relative to the Nikon or Canon shots I have.

Sigma lenses are very good too (primes and fast zooms) for the price point. I was stunned and with a good inkjet printer or Ritz camera I could be convinced that this is the way to go...

The depth and 3-D nature of the images were scary. Even one of my favorite d-SLR the Olympus E-20N seemed to take a back seat to this new Sigma camera :p...

Now only if Leica could get that Foveon x3 technology I think that the Digilux 2 would be much better ;)

AW

After reading this, I will hold off on buying a Fuji S2 or D100. Hopefully the Foevon chip is as good as they say it is...

If the comment above mine is correct about the SD9 getting 30-40 megapixels, this will give film a real run for its money... ive read that Provia caps at about 20-40 mp

I will wait until they work out something with Nikon... here is what i read on the Foveon site in the Q&A section.

Question Will Canon or Nikon be announcing products with Foveon X3 technology? Answer To date, Foveon has only announced its partnership with Sigma Corporation. However, Foveon is actively engaged with other major digital camera manufacturers and as partnerships are formed and can be made public, Foveon will provide more details. At this time, no further information is available.

Frankly, I think that Foveon would have much more success and less delays on bringing us this technology, if they would've put the technology to use in Minolta....With a minolta Maxxum 7 or 9 body with the digital techonology, I think that both would shine in the digital SLR field.....With the already existing features that is incredible on the Maxxum 7, such as the honeycomb metering, spot, crosshair metering, flash distance to metering, many other features that lack on the Canon and Nikon, including the incrdibly fast and accurate focusing, just to name a few of the technologies that Minolta have, would put both companies at the top with the Foveon Techonology..Just add the Minolta lenses that already exist with the camera, and the Sigma series for Minolta.

I think that there will be companies that will adopt the techonology.

Maths are quite clear, but reality says that RAW pictures for the Sigma SD9 are 7.7 Mb. How do you explain this? (According to sigma, there is no compression) In terms of information theory, this is not more than what an E10 produces. In a different context, we will discuss the quality of each pixel.

For this, I expect to see POW in photo.net out os a Sigma SD9.

I just came back from a camera store where they had the SD9 showed to public. Here are my impressions:<br><br> - The camera is easy to handle and seems quite fast. It is not very heavy and it seems to be solid but there's a lot of "plastic". It is louder than the EOS 1D but still silent enough.<br><br> - I don't know anything about the autofocus but it performed quite well in low-light situations (with the 24-70mm Sigma f/2.8 mounted).<br><br> - The saving time was a bit long. It took the camera about five seconds to save the image. The images were full resolution, uncompressed raw data, as far as I know.<br><br> - There is a quite good software supplied with the camera. With it you can manipulate the image by reducing highlights, dodging shadows, re-sharpening the pic, adding saturation and so on. It's not an image manipulation software like Photoshop because it works with sliders and the manipulations affect the whole image. But it worked very well and also quite fast.<br><br> - When saving these raw files with the software you can choose between several settings: 1/2 size, normal or 2x size. 2x size interpolates the pixels and creates a similar result as other cameras with pixel arrays. The image is still very sharp<br><br> - I found the use of the SD9 for portraits very good. The images taken at the show were very sharp and showed a lot of details. The results were indeed surprisingly high quality.<br><br> - Opening the files as TIFF in Photoshop showed an image size of some 60x40cm @ 180dpi. This is extremely large for the normal user.<br><br> - All the shots were taken at ISO 100 except some testings at ISO 400. I didn't find the ISO 400 very useful because of lots of noise. <br><br> My impression so far: It seem's to be a good camera for landscape and portraits (even or because the focal length multiplicator) and it performs very well in color rendition and sharpness. The results were incredible, every little bit on your skin was recognizable.<br><br> That's quite everything I can say since I was attending the show only for some 1 1/2hrs. Also I spent only 15minutes playing with the camera so I cannot say anything else at the moment.<br><br> It's definitely worth trying for people who are selling their old equipments and trying a new start with Digital and Autofocus. Also for newcomers this could be a nice system.

Following this link: http://www.sjphoto.com/web-special/ I only can say that the portraits made with the Foveon Chip are quite the same (in terms of quality) as those I saw during the SD9 show. Especially I can agree that the b/w portrait crop you can see on the page could actually be made with the SD9. All of the portraits made there were absolutely sharp and good looking.

MANY OF THE "PRO" COMMENTS POSTED HERE ARE NON-SENSE

and here is why. They obviously do not understand the underlying technology and implications. The Faveon X3 10MP truly approaches Medium Format quality without film grain. They may have photo expertise, but they lack the knowledge in the technology aspect.

The pro comments here have been comparing apples to oranges, claiming 3.54MP is not high enough. 3.54MP equates to 10MP or more, but with much higher quality than a 10MP camera.

I have taken Sigma/Faveon photos which are 3.54MP in "size" which represented in Photoshop an 8.4" x 12.6" image at 180 dpi. I then enlarged it to 26.667" x 40" at 180 dpi. This took the raw image from 9.1MB to 98.6MB in file size (uncompressed) and took my breath away. The image remain crisp, vibrant and consistent - virtually no signs of interpolation.

You see, the Faveon/Sigma takes true RGB images - it does not "guess" or calculate colors and pixels, so it has the inherent quality advantages of film. However, it has advantages over film because it has no film grain and it is first generation digital. Film must be digitized in some manner that removes a generation and although high end scanners do good work, it is never first generation.

So, my friends, take my word - THIS IS THE FUTURE OF PHOTOGRAPHY - not just digital, but all photography. Just as the typewriter has given way to the word processor, the large percentage of photographic application will fall to this type of technology and replace a large amount of film - leaving film to the enthusiast.

Think about this. Faveon's X3 10MP (3.54MP) is like medium format. But Faveon has successfully tested a 16MP system. Folks, this technology will overtake 35mm, medium and large format in 5-7 years.

I have never seen images with such detail that can be enlarged like film with virtually no loss - barely any softening and crisp, clean edges, no moire patterns or distortions.

There is a good review of the Sigma in the May, 2003 issue of Digital Output Magazine: http://www.digitaloutput.net/currentissue/currentissue.html

Comparing this chip to MF is just ridiculus. You have two issues grain/noise and resolution. Resolution wise this sensor does not even hold up to good old Tri-X in 35mm format. Yes you have more than 6M pixel of resolution with Tri-X, I have compared a 22cm print without magnifier and been able to see some details not in a 2400 DPI scan of the same negative (3400x2266 pixels). This detail if you must know was the wires of a fens in a light house. Grain/Noise wise I would say that digital sensors have an advatage compared to film that is much appriciated and that it's probably the same as MF in that area. I also have great hopes for this chip but lets be honest. The sharpness issue is very important and I can't stand the mosaic sensors because of that, this chip seems much better in that area.

I have a new SD9, and have been a dedicated Hassy user who swore up and down he would never go digital for years. Never! Well, those days are over because the proof is in the pudding. As a professional, I simply need the best images I can get. The results of the SD9 blow my Nikons and Hasselblads out of the water. Period. New printing equipment takes full advantage of all the new technology. The results from the SD9 are what matters. (Sigh) I'll miss the old technology. I have captured a lot with it. I will keep one of my Rolleiflex TLR's and a couple of rangefinder 35's as backup, but the Hasselblads and Nikons are going on eBay.

I had the opportunity to use the Sigma SD-9 in the comfort of my home recently. As a recent purchaser of the competing Canon EOS-10D I was intrigued by the Foveon sensor and the concept of Sigma releasing a DSLR, so I dove into it without hesitation. In the time I had with the SD-9, I made some observations I would like to share.

Pros:

- The price, at $950, was very good.

- Sigma has a good array of decent lenses at a reasonable cost.

- The IDEA of the 'sports finder' is, I think, a good one.

- I like the idea of a persistent Tv/Av 'skewing' like the Sigma has. Not sure I want a second dial though - maybe a button and using the command wheel would be nicer, like the Canon does for some things.

Cons:

- The camera seems nice if you've never used a 10D or D100, but compared to either it feels big and clunky.

- Pressing the shutter release results in a sequence of thumps and bangs that, compared to the 10D, made me think a train was getting underway nearby.

- The 'sports finder' sounds good, but in practice I think they need less 'sports' and more 'finder'.

- The max ISO was 400, and even at that it was pretty noisy, particularly in the red channel and in low light.

- Edge aliasing was readily visible in some sharp edges. Sigma should include a (maybe optional) filter for this.

Overall, I can't recommend this body to anyone, except maybe someone with a Sigma film camera and a lot of SA lenses. Why? Simple - I'm buying a camera, not a sensor, and as a part of that the entire camera body and the system that exists around it are considerations. For Sigma all this is weak, even if the sensor is pretty good and very interesting.

The recent firmware might solve the noise issue a bit. Most users prefer the SD9 simply because of image quality and not of handling, speed or fancy features. Most current users of SD9 have MF experience like me as they know exactly what they want(sharpness:acutance). Unlike film cameras, you have no way to change the "film"(imager), the camera system is not the first priority to talk about. I have sold my 10yrs' Hasselblad camera and some film stuff. There is no way back...

I have really put my XD9 through the mill over the last couple of months. I have nearly abandoned every other camera I have, at least for now. The Sigma lenses coupled with the Foveon chip give my work a whole new look....almost three dimensional....like they were made for each other. Foveon has something here. Something revolutionary. And it is here to stay. The body is tough and the lenses are razor sharp. I wonder what's next? Foveon in a medium format?

With digital you are, in fact, buying a sensor, first and foremost. That said, I'd also add that the build quality of the SD9 is exceptionally high. But the promise of the images one can make is of course the real selling feature. Also nice is that even the inexpensive Sigma zooms can take full advantage of the sensor because there are no blurring/antialias filters between the lens and the sensor. Now that its being replaced with the SD10, the SD9 will be remembered as the camera that changed the future of the digital medium.

SD9 with the recent firmware upgrades (last in Dec 2003) is an exceptional camera. As people have mentioned here , many of SD9 users have MF experience, and I'm not an exception. I like it because of wonderfully continuos tonal range. It looks like a real photo, it feels like a photo and it smells like a photo. Being Nikon, Minolta, Fuji, Bronica and Pentax (especially loved one) user for years, I had skepticism about Sigma's quality, and I was stupid. I take a camera for having pictures. If the picture technically is bad I don't care what the label on the box. I'm interesting in the image not in the brand. But if some brand delivers consistent quality for while it gains reputation. Sigma SD9 is the best built camera I ever owned. I really have been surprised to find that inexpensive Sigma lenses exhibit wonderful optical qualities. But EX lenses just of legendary craftsmanship. SD9 is much better than any review possibly can show because all of them at least 1.5 years old. Since then Sigma persistently improved the camera internally. Another thing to underline are Sigma FILTERS !!!!! They make UV and Polarizers. Or my goodness what quality of filters they are! Those are EX filters and Tiffen and Hoya both should take a class at Sigma place to learn how to make right glass. The night shots the weakest point of Sigma, acclaimed to be, following the reviews, ISN'T like that. Yes it is grainy and noisy, but it isn't grainer then any other 5-6M camera (sorry I can't handle 11-14M prices to try!). I really happy that Sigma have decided not to play games with images but deliver it in the real RAW (BTW it is the only RAW that IS real RAW). And a little addition about the lenses. I use 12-24 EX, 24-70 EX,70-200 EX. the 24-70 is by far more usable for me and it takes nearly 80% of all shots. All of those lenses are pearls. They exceptionally sharp, I would say , razor sharp, extremely high in resolution and best made cosmetically. BTW, all three of them (together) cost less then one lens of the similar characteristics from Canon or Nikon. The Sigma mount on SD9 doesn't seems to me a problem at all. Flash photography with SD is another part of story that all of reviewers failed to deliver. SD9 with its dedicated flash can deliver 1/6000 high speed synchronization. I can use multi-flash, and has just about everything to be welcomed studio performer as well. The actual limit of 1/180 pertains to cheap flashes or PC connector only. In flash photography SD9 as versatile as only the best Minoltas ( Maxxum 7) can be. The focus works as good ( or better) then any other counterpart in on the marked. I' especially grateful for Sigma's decision not to put in those idiotic arrays of "like cool 35-mm" focus sensor indicators. Nothing drives me out of my mind more then jumping focus sensor from "point to point". Focus works well in both S and C modes. Sure , it depends of kind of the photography you're in, but 99.9999% of my pictures are from S mode. The picture size is another story. It has 3.5M in EACH color. So it has 10+M. And since the regular camera that has 3.5M in blue or red produces 14M cameras Sigma's SD9 is capable to interpolate them into 13.5M (3000 by 4500). Those images look and work as they are 14M, because they ARE. You keep your RAW negatives and produce the pictures of the size and format you need. But if you will maintain all of your works in "native" 3.5, notice that they are 180 dpi dense!!! More then twice as dense then any matrix camera capable of! Period. No one mentioned (probably because those who write reviews have a little idea of conception) but Sigma Pro software gives you to use the color profile you wish. It actually means that colors you see on the calibrated screen ARE the same as camera recoded. It is very important. It is a key to get the real colors. Camera shows some artifacts but you can see them on the huge enlargements and there are ways to handle them. SIgma SD9 looks cool and feels cool, but to my view, it is a not a camera for someone who buy to "be cool". For those who want to show of and get mediocre but easy it is wrong camera. It requires one more stage of post-processing, but the results speak for themselves. And you use JPEG as intended: to save the final product for printing or displaying, but not as intermediate format. I'm not sure If this my "contribution" sounds fare or helpful, but there is my personal opinion about equipment I actually use.

Oh! Well! "If one cannot understand the concept, take the word of one who can." Charlie, it probably means, that we can't and you of cause one who can. I will not go into discussion, because you don't know this camera, and I do. It is camera for photographer not for "shooter". It has its limitation like any other camera has, but the results surpasses ANY camera that resembles SLR. It allows get the halftonong and sharpness that is MF only capable of. The Sigma's Photo-Pro is amazing , precise tool that makes your home "after-session" just a pure joy. You don't believe? Don't use it. But , please, avoid the definitions like "falls on its face", because it make confused someone who evaluate to get one, and make laughing other who posses it already.

I don't claim to be any great photographer. Having said that, look at the portfolios of the reviewers above and draw your own conclusions. Not implying anything, just have a look. I personally had hoped to see some of those MF scans.

Then, in a nutshell, look at this page:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD9/SD9A12.HTM

It talks about AF performance in much less than glowing terms, as well as some other design choices Sigma made. Anyone who really thinks a 3.5mp x3 sensor is comparable to 14mp is mistaken to an amazing degree. If one cannot understand the concept, take the word of one who can.

Aliasing is bad, and the SD9 aliases like crazy given the correct input.

The viewfinder is small and dark. The shutter and mirror are loud. The body feels big and fragile.

Also of note - Sigma filters and lenses work on almost all cameras. So what that they fit Sigma too. The point is?

Noise is a characteristic of the hardware. Unless something new like dark frame subtraction was recently implemented in firmware there is just that eternal tradeoff, noise for detail. If DF subtraction IS new, that should concern you as it's pretty old technology and SHOULD have been in from the begining if noise was an issue.

RAW is RAW is RAW. And RAW is good. I don't fathom the comment about a real RAW format. The EOS-10D CRW format is as RAW as RAW gets, and I suspect the Nikon NEF format is too, but I'm not a Nikon user. The lack of ability to make JPEGs in camera is a missing feature. It may not matter to some (I could certainly live without it) but it is still a missing feature and no amount of tap-dancing can change that. Color profiles are applied at conversion time, and any reasonable profile can be used in any reasonable software. I have to think this guy (Boris) has very little color management time in the saddle. Color profile use is basic to any reasonable digital darkroom technique and is not mentioned simply because it's not worth mentioning in a camera review. Everyone is or should be doing it, Boris.

This is hilarious: "... So a 3.3 megapixel X3 would be the equivalent usable (and "real") image information of a 30-45 megapixel standard array, ..." All I can say is this is simply, wow, words fail to convey. Look at the available test charts. It's not just depth but spatial frequency that counts here guys. Given this logic a 1 pixel sensor that sensed in 4 million colors would be equal to a 4mp sensor. Think about it. Doesn't work that way, folks.

This quote -> "Unlike film cameras, you have no way to change the "film"(imager), the camera system is not the first priority to talk about."

The above is IMO dead wrong. Basing a $5000+ system choice over a less than $1000 body is, for me, insane. That system will be with you long after eBay has carried the SD9 away, or you will take a beating when you switch to Nikon or Canon. Neither is a particularly appealing prospect.

Perhaps a studio photographer (who has 100% control of lighting) will find this a useful body. I shoot available light and it wasn't acceptable for me. Try one before you buy. I recommended the SD9 to my friend and on my recommendation a purchase was made. After a few days with the camera I was sure I didn't like it, but I didn't say anything negative at the time. My friend later opted to return it and take a 15% restocking fee hit. To pay a bit over $200 to return something you have to be pretty sure you're not happy. My advice - don't let this be you. Try before you buy, and be sure to also try at least one and preferably both the 10D and D100.

By the way, I do think this technology has potential, and I wonder is the SD10 does a better job of realizing that potential. But the SD9 is pretty obviously a bootstrapping attempt and isn't a very polished product. I'm sure it makes a few people very pleased, and I'm not trying to invalidate your purchase choice. I'm sure it works great for you. But please realize that outside your narrow set of requirements this body pretty much falls on it's face.

Also, I'm not casting any bad comments on the galleries here. The work is much better than I do. My point is simply that nothing in them says WOW, what great equipment this guy is using. The guy behind the camera is the key, and I don't see anything in the portfolios above that these folks couldn't have captured with an Optio S4.

Happy shooting.

I was mostly really disgusted with the 30-45mp claims, not yours Boris. Sorry to have offended you. Human perception is funny, but this is something that is mathematically provable. Saying the images look really good or even that you find the results far superior is one thing, and I'm glad you're happy, but making factually incorrect claims is another thing, such as:

> "Those images look and work as they are 14M, because they ARE"

The sensor is capable of capturing about the same level of detail as a 7mp bayer mask sensor, this has been demonstrated mathematically by folks who can actually understand the math. It is also what Foveon R&D folks claim, in a roundabout way. They've stated a factor of 'about twice' as a conversion factor for their pixels to bayer pixels. Do a little research and you'll find it. If Sigma had included an optimal anti-aliasing filter, you might get that level of detail, but as is, the aliasing in the data obscures a lot of detail, and most tests seem to indicate FOR THE SD9 (not some optimal camera using this sensor) about 5mp effective data capture.

5mp is good, and coupled with good optics gives great results. Here is an example of a test shot in conditions that would show the SD9 in as good a light as possible; Good light, low ISO. Basically, it looks not quite as good as the competition. The Fuji in particular is pretty nice.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SHOOTOUT/SHOOTOUT.HTM?photo=geir

> "BTW it is the only RAW that IS real RAW"

CRW is, at least, RAW. I suspect, but cannot say for sure, that NEF is too. What the heck are you talking about?

> "but it isn't grainer then any other 5-6M camera"

Wrong. I've used a SD9 and a Nikon D100 and an EOS-10D. The 10D was clearly least noisy, with Nikon following closely (at short shutter times) and Sigma way worse. Again, look at any of dozens of available test shots or make your own, but do it scientifically.

> "I will not go into discussion, because you don't know this camera, and I do"

Well, I don't know it in the Biblical sense, but I used one quite a bit. I shot a bunch of pictures, used the converter, fiddled around in PS, etc.

Is that not enough?

> "and make laughing other who posses it already."

My friend had one already, and trust me, she's not laughing even a tiny bit. There's a reason that sales are as they are. Think it over. I merely STRONGLY caution folks to TRY BEFORE BUYING. Don't lose $200 or more (restocking fee on body and two lenses) like my friend did.

> 'It is camera for photographer not for "shooter". '

OK. Happy photograghering. :-)

I've read the reviews (plus all of these comments) and I've studied the photos, and I think that the only thing we can say with total certainty is that the Fuji S2 is one heck of a camera.

I was also very surprised at how poorly the Nikon D100 performed by comparision, I had expected much better.

The photos that I refer to can all be found here http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SHOOTOUT/SHOOTOUT.HTM?photo=geir

I am going to qualify the rest of this discussion by saying that I am a computer programmer who knows a lot about image file formats. I have also done some fine art photography and newspaper photography.

The reason that we can not say very much that is conclusive about the review photos is because of the limitations of the jpeg files, there also appear to have been some technical problems with the photos as well which prevent a good comparision, for instance the focal length is not the same which causes a different depth of field. Also it would have helped if the lens used had been specified, the quality of the SD9 lens does not appear to be as good as on the S2. My basis for saying this is a study of the brick stairs photo.

As far as resolution goes, it is very clear that the Fuji S2 camera wins. see water towers.

As far as dynamic range and color rendition goes, it's a harder call, but I believe that the nod goes to the SD9. The reason it's a harder call is because of problems in the review photos. First off there is a slight green cast. Plus everything is a bit too muddy (appears underexposed). The problem though is that the SD9 photos are 2nd generation photos, we don't know what the actual output of the camera was, I believe that a better quality conversion is possible; the histogram needs to be tweaked in the process of converting from 12 bits to 8 bits.

However a careful study of the clothing rack (see esp comparision #7), and the black car photos, what is revealed is what one would expect to see from 12 bits. Namely, the color range of the SD9 is superior to all of the other cameras.

On the other hand the dark foliage shadows of the real-estate-sign photos was quite disturbing in loss of color. But we can't know if this is due to 12 bit conversion, or camera limitation. Since it otherwise did well on the colors, I'm inclined to give it the benifit of the doubt, but it really needs some additional pictures with emphasis placed on the conversion.

The other thing to realize is that the jpeg file and most other file formats are simply not able to disply the 12 bits of range and neither is your monitor unless you have a very high end computer (32bit video).

I think that people who have attempted black and white digital photography will agree with me that 8 bits is simply not enough resolution. You lose detail on both ends.

The same thing is true of color although this is generally less apparent because many/most photos are not as much concerned with the sublities of color. I venture to say that really, only fine art photography is preoccupied with the subtle color tonalities, most people are happy if it's in the ballpark. The untrained eye is not even able to preceive the small differences. When I started doing darkroom work, I had difficulty discerning a 30CC difference in color (which is probably typical for most people). After considerable practice I found that I was able to reliably discern a 5CC change (10CC is considered to be very good).

If you look at the cloths rack carefully, one thing becomes apparent. All of the cameras except the SD9 blocked up in the reds. (see comparision #7)

I disagree with the reviewer's comments on two points. First off, the close up (comparision) photos are scaled jpegs. That makes the SD9 closeup a 3rd generation conversion and therefore not very useful as a measure of the camera's sharpness and color fidelity -- what the reviewer noted as a problem/fault (in the red/blue interface) with the camera is actually a classic artifact of the jpeg resampling/format conversion, the camera is blameless.

The second point that I disagree with is about the picture of the green plants (grass like fronds). He noted that the lighting had changed and that is why the color is different in the SD9 photo -- but complained that the white balance should have corrected for it. My analysis is that indeed this is an accurate portrayal of a late afternoon sun. Frankly, I would be dissappointed with any white balance that decided to normalize the color of a near-sunset condition. Over-all I think the SD9 gave the most realistic colors.

For me, the biggest mystery is why the buildings/black car looks so dreadfully muddy overall. I would say that it is unacceptable, but the question is, what is the cause? underexposure?. It is also out of focus/blurry, camera shake?? So that picture speaks very poorly of the SD9, but I don't trust it to be an accurate portrayal of the camera; I believe there were techincal problems with the photo, conversion/underexposed, etc. My basis for saying this is that the shadow color detail of the cloths rack is quite good.

However, as bad as the (black car) picture is, there is one thing very noteworthy about it which brings me back to what I was saying earlier about not being able to do black and white photography with only 8 bits. Look at the door of the black car in all 4 of the reference photos and what do you see???

In 3 of the photos, what you see is a black door, with little detail and an inclination towards blocking up. But in the SD9 photo what you see is deep tonal seperation within the black such that the reflection of the photographer and his tripod are clearly visible!!! Now that's what 12 bits is all about.

-----

Now then, have we answered the question of which camera is best?? No, not really...

The reason is that there are many different types of photography. None of these cameras is a perfect all-around camera, each one represents some type of sacrifice. The question then becomes which trade-off is appropriate for the type of photography that you most want to do?

If you feel "the need for speed" and great performance in "available darkness", such as sporting/news events, then the Nikon D100 is really your best choice (out of these 4 models), with the canon at 3FPS narrowly taking second place. But there is more to life then raw speed, isn't there? (which is why I'd pick the S2 over the cannon -- by the way, the cannon D60 put in a pretty lack-luster performance overall, in this face-off, but I'm sure many would disagree, it's because you look for different things... choice of lenses for instance). The reason I wouldn't pick the SD9 for sports/news is the disappointing top speed of 400. However if you are the type who takes everything with a flash at close range, then this would not be a factor.

But for fine arts/portrait photography, I believe that you will find the Nikon D100 to be very unsatisfactory. In fact I was quite surprised at how poorly it did on a number of measures.

If you mainly are concerned about getting the highest apparent resolution and generally good color, it looks to me like the Fuji S2 is your top pick. Just be careful of high contrast situations and saturated colors. Apparently there is some limited ability to adjust the histogram in-camera. If you are used to shooting slide film then you already have the skills needed to milk the color/lighting situation to get good results with color. Studio photographers will find much to love about this camera, just beware of bright red cloths...

On the other hand, if you live and breath color, and you need/want the high dynamic range for flower and landscape photography etc. Or for Black and White; Then I think that you are going to find that the SD9 is an outstanding bargain at it's current street price of $700. I think that the sharpness compares very favorably to the 6 megapixel cameras. This camera is also a good choice for portrait studio work because it can handle the saturated colors better then the Fuji. (based on the clothing rack and assuming the muddy contrast problems mentioned above are conversion/adjustment errors)

So, yes, there are many differnet people taking photos for many different reasons and in many different conditions. None of these cameras does a good job across the board, but the Fuji S2 comes closest to being an all-around camera. And if you already own a bunch of Nikon glass then it certain tips the scale.

But for me, personally, I'd be more inclined to go with the Sigma SD9, because I am really into color and I have often been frustrated with the limited tonal range of current 8 bit cameras. And for hobbyists looking for a bargain, the price is unbeatable.

Of course there is a whole new crop of cameras such as the SD10 to take a look at too.

Ralph,

I want to clairify something - all the cameras mentioned with the possible exception of the Fuji (not sure on that one) are 12 bit capture devices. Whatever your experience with 8 bit per channel systems in the past, they are not reflected in any of this crop of hardware. And yes, I'm a software engineer too, C/C++, device drivers, signal prodessing and embedded systems.

Plus I like taking pictures. :)

And yes, the S2 does seem to be quite a nice unit. I'm very impressed. I would have gone with a Nikon system and selected either the D100 or S2, but I needed long, low noise exposures, which only the EOS family are really able to do well at present without going to a refridgerated sensor. The EOS system is fine too, but personally to get outside the C or N line of accessories is a big and potentially costly step that I think is not properly factored into these sort of discussions.

A second factor not generally factored in as it should be is the overall user experience. It's a hard thing to quantify, but honestly the SD-9 just didn't feel or handle like it was in the same league as the D100 or 10D. They both 'felt' (for lack of better term) like solid, tight, well thought out designs, whereas the SD-9 just didn't feel quite right. It was big in places that should have been small, and small where a bit more size would be better, it felt cheap and sounded and felt loud and flimsy each time the mirror/shutter would cycle. I could feel the thump/snap/clunk in the body as well as hear it. The viewfinder was small and dark, the blackout period was long. The ISO range is restricted. It just wasn't a good feeling or a pleasure to work with. I strongly suspect the SD-10 will address as many of these issues as possible.

I also think that the Sigma has a bit of an advantage in that it forces the reviewers to use a RAW image as the starting point of their workflow. To be fair to the others ALL the shots should have been in RAW and then cooked with a typical RAW->JPEG workflow in PhotoShop or something comparable. A workstation is going to have significantly more resources to put into a conversion algorithm than a camera body. I'm also not convinced that your analysis of the artifacts in the SD-9 image as JPEG artifacts is correct. Since all the images are JPEGs why don't all the samples show similar artifacts? I do agree that early reduction to 8 bits per channel is a source of all kinds of issues, and I do prefer RAW->TIFF16 in general, but for a lot of subjects HQ JPEG capture and processing in a 16 bit space is almost as good.

I really LIKE the Foveon x3 concept, but this particular package wasn't for me. Now that x3 is being sold in consumer DigiCams maybe Foveon will get some cash flow and be able to bootstrap a bit faster. Here's hoping.

>> to get outside the C or N line of accessories is a big and potentially costly step that I think is not properly factored into these sort of discussions.

I totally agree. and the Sigma Ex leneses are not cheap either.

Since writing the previous post, I found some additional info.

1) The SD9 habitually underexposes by ev 1. Thus the mud is from underexposure.

2) The SD9 is reported to have poor low light performance.

3) It can shoot at about 2FPS but only for 6 shots, after which it can take as much as a minute (while it saves) before you can use it again.

other items:

a) as to how it feels in your hand... I agree this can be an issue, especially for journalism, but not a show stopper. It's much less of an issue if you primarily use a tripod. Also, my hand isn't the same size as your hand. The F3+MD4+zoom fits me like a glove but other people find it too bulky and heavy.

b) Noise can be a really big factor for journalisim... I even found the F3 to be too noisy, and discovered another reason why people love their Leicas (though they seldom talk about it). If I had known about the noise before I bought my F3 I may have chosen differently. There is a *major* advantage to a silent camera when doing semi-candid journalism. I sure do wish that more reviews would include info about noise. But again, for landscape photog this is a non-issue.

c) RAW format.... well, if a camera only delivers an 8 bit jpeg then the damage is done, doesn't matter if they used 100 bits internally. And most digicams that I've looked at compress the bejuezzes out of the image to conserve memory. And I prefer to make my own decisions about how to compress the dynamic range.

The SD9 is one of the few cameras that can do a decent job of taking a picture of a bright red rose.

d) Conversion problems: If you take at look at Comparision #5 SD9 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SHOOTOUT/SHOOTOUT.HTM?photo=geir

I will swear on a stack of computer manuals that the artifact at the boundry between the red and blue is a jpeg problem. However, since I can't see the original jacket I can't tell you how accurate the rendering of the red color is, but from everything I've seen in the full size picture, I don't think it's the cameras fault.

e) What really sold me on this camera is it's ability to take a great picture of a rose, I venture to say that few other digicams can match it for flowers. But I would like to see a better rendition of the green, I presume it could be done in software.

f) What really scares me about this camera is it's low light inability and reports of chromatic abaration. Especially take a look at the tree in back of the cloths rack. There is a green streak that appears to be CA. I was undecided about the source of the streak, but others have reported a problem with CA. On the other hand, the light can be delt with by overexposing, which is typically done with negative film anyway. As to the CA, I did not yet ind anyone reviewing the Ex lens only the stock lens, so if it's a problem with budget glass, it may not be an issue.

g) I found a review of the SD10. They appear to have fixed the low light problems and they have upped the speed to ISO 1600(sort of). But the FPS is apparently the same, so SD10 is still somewhat limited for sports/news.

h) We also don't know what the current SD9 -- revision 3, is like. The review was of a "bearly out of beta" unit. others have said that rev 3 is greatly improved - but without much details.

The main conclusion is that it is difficult to draw a conclusion. But (out of these 4 cameras) most pros should probably go with the S2. Landscape photogs will want to give the SD9 a serious look though. Of course if you are really serius about landscape you should probably be into a 4x5. but see the links for someone who does landscapes with the SD9 very successfully.

I need to qualify this by saying that I have not actually had my hands on one -- But over-all the faults of the SD9 turns it into a niche product, it is does not appear very suitable for sports/news. That's not as bad as it sounds, basically all digicams are niche products.

Pictures I've seen (see links), show that the SD9 does do an outstanding job of landscape and flower photography; but only when there is plenty of light. However, the CA is a possible concern (not enough info). I expect that it would also be fine in a portrait studio.

Further disclaimer: I don't currently own a digital camera, but I do agree that film is doomed (which is why I happened to be reading these reviews). But I have played with several digicams over the years and been disappointed by the results. This is the first digicam that I would even consider buying, maybe. (well, I have drooled over some 4x5 digital camera backs. but it's way out of my budget). (the S2 is great, but I want better color performance then what the review shows it to deliver).

P.S. The S2 does have a pronounced mosaic in the blue jacket on the cloths rack... so, it is far from perfect... just depends on what your priorties and sensitivities are.

I think I can agree with most of what you said, and the rest isn't worth debating. :-)

One thing - the other cameras, at least the D100 and 10D, do very much have the ablity to save a 12 bit per channel RAW file for post processing on a workstation. I do it all the time on the 10D. It is NOT just 12 bit internally and this seems to be a point of confusion. Actually a lot of P&S digicams can even save deep color RAW nowdays. Just FYI. My point regarding RAW was simply that reviewers often take the expedient course and review only or at least mostly based on JPEG output. I think that if we're looking for optimal image quality RAW should be used. Sigma forces this issue by simply not supporting JPEG in camera. This tends to give them an implicit advantage in reviews where the competition is judged based on JPEG output. My personal experience has been that I get significantly better results shooting to RAW, but there are some who disagree and feel JPEG is fine if one is careful. YMMV as they say.

The current crop of dSLRs can produce more accurate colors than anything else, if you believe the reviews and tests out there. Look at Norman Koran (sp?) and a few others for details. I think shooting to JPEG should be reserved for subjects where the range fits easily or snapshots, but that's just me. I'm disappointed that image quality testing would be done shooting to JPEG. But ....

As for lens quality, I have a Sigma lens (EOS mount) and it's pretty good, but they don't have a uniform line of great lenses. Actually the line is pretty spotty, so that is also an issue with the SD9 and SD10. Overall I think the SD9 is a great body and great value for a few folks for whom it meets their requirements, but it's not a real strong overall machine.

The Foveon stuff is very promising too. On the other hand, micro-machine technology may permit things like tiny lenses and prisms to make x3 obsolete soon, who knows? Who would have thought TI would make 1 million hinged mirrors that can independently pivot 10,000 times per second on a postage stamp and use it as an imaging device? We live in exciting times.

Take care!

I've been using the Sigma SD9 for a couple of years now and have some updated thoughts.

To quote Samuel: "On the other hand, if you live and breath color, and you need/want the high dynamic range for flower and landscape photography etc. Or for Black and White..."

The Sigma SD9 and probably the SD10 should be used similar to a 4x5 large format camera. I live and breathe color and want the high dynamic range of colors in my work. I don't care about shooting sports. My thing is landscapes, color and black and white. The SD9 shoots only in RAW format, and I could care less. The Sigma Foveon cameras are a substitute for medium and 4x5, period. There are some significant advantages to using the Sigma over medium format or even 4x5.

It's more portable in the boonies than a Hassy or 4x5. You are not limited to just a few shots....you can take tons until you get what you want. When I get back to my computer after a day of shooting, I screen out all the inferior shots except for a very few and wind up with just about as many as I would have with my Hassy and without the expense and pollution of developing 4x5 (remember the environment).

My SD9 has some bad points. It's a battery hog. I always take spares. Files are sometimes over 10 megabytes in size! You need several cards at all times.

If you keep these facts in mind, you'll like the Sigma SD series. If you want to shoot sports or other fast action, find something else.

Do we have any comments on SD14? I don't think Sigma is making the best module but the feelings on the final photos are making me comfortable. I hope to hear more opinions from other peoples regarding its performance. Thanks.