Sigma digital slr cameras

OK ill keep this short.

 

Ive used most brands of dslr and owned a 5d, I have some cannon lenses but my commitment is not too big at the

moment, I can change brands.

 

Photography is my hobby not a profession, 99% of the time I use film for landscape, band picks/festivals and

portraits.

 

Where are some good examples professional/artists using sigma dslrs?

 

What are the pros/cons of buying a sigma dslr? ( dont get too negative and short answers please)

 

I would love to hear from actual owner/users.

 

Cheers

<p>The sensors in the Sigma digital cameras are of a different sort than on many other digital cameras, something called the Foveon X3 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor">link</a>).</p>

<p>How to compare actual pixel density of these to other cameras has been a matter of discussion.</p>

<p>What prompted you to consider Sigma, not that you shouldn't; but you note that you still have lenses from your prior (5D ?) experience? What advantage do you anticipate from a switch? It would be easier to respond to your expectations than just by comparing whole camera marques. I'm thinking that people who have Sigmas are pretty happy with them, just like people who have any other kind of camera. You need somebody who has <em>both</em> Sigma and other cameras, maybe.</p>

Yes you are right, I should be asking those who have Sigma and another system too.

 

I would like to start with new equip ground up. Full frame is nice but a cropped sensor is handy. (I never thought id say this)

 

I will be keeping my eos 35mm kit and it looks like a choice between 7D, K7 or SD15.

 

Im aware of the limitations/advantages of most current dslr's, this is why I would like to hear a little more from sigma users, the images I have looked at from the foveon senssor really appeal to me.

<p>I own both Nikon and Sigma DSLRs. My Nikon DSLR gear is about 8 yrs old, and still works fine. I had been hoping for years that Leica would step forward and produce a reasonably priced DSLR for their R lens line...they came out with a magnificent, quirky, high priced (currently $4-5,000 when you can find them) limited production unit which attached to their current film SLR bodies, then dropped production. Converting Leica R lenses to Nikon gear is a one off situation, you do it lens by lens, so it can get expensive quickly. Sigma, however, offered an interesting solution to upgrade my DSLR body and incorporate more contemporary features at a fairly low price point. Simultaneously, an independent manufacturer began producing a user replaceable camera body mount for Nikon, Olympus or Leica lenses. I watched as people began using them, for about a year, and when I found a really low price point on a Sigma SD14, I jumped at the chance. I decided to use the Leica R lens conversion mount, so that now I have the luxury of using my Leica R lenses on either film or digital cameras, and still have the old Nikon gear as well. The whole thing including the conversion cost about $600. I'm too new to the Sigma system to say too much....with the conversion focus is manual (fine with me), metering is stopped down (ok but occasionally not as convenient as I'd like), and shooting is either manual or aperture priority. So far the results have fully met my expectations. The only downside I've noticed is that although you can shoot at ISO 50-1600, shooting above ISO 400, results are noticeably noisy, but could probably be reasonably well cleaned up with software. Again, I made the Sigma choice because of the lenses I wanted to use. I could have gone the Canon route via adapters, but liked the Sigma option better.<br _mce_bogus="1"></p>

<p>There is a double edged issue with the Sigma sensor--which I haven't used. First, because it captures all colors at each pixel, which is more like film, one would have to believe it might have a better color depth and fidelity than other types of sensors. Maybe even closer to what a high end scanner might yield.</p>

<p>On the other hand, their 12MP camera would only be a 4MP camera as to resolution equivalent of other dSLR's--in other words, the pixels per inch that record the "detail" are 1/3 as dense on Sigma's 12mp vs someone elses 12mp.</p>

<p>As an amateur/hobbyist, you might not care as you just want small prints and to share on the web. For some, this severely limits the size print you can make (eg I have made 40x50 prints from a 12 mp dSLR with the CMOS sensor where I doubt the Sigma 12mp file would hold up at this size)</p>

<p>So, I think theoretically, the Sigma might have some, theoretically, nice benefits as to color, but suffer on the resolution side of things. As a Pro, the PPI of the Sigma would be insufficient for the type of work I do, for other uses, maybe?</p>

<p>note: I used the 12mp example because it is easy to extrapolate to compare the two cameras as to PPI capture, not because of any other reason, including any knowledge of the actual MP claimed by Sigma on its cameras.</p>

<p>Sorry I am not an owner, but I really like Foveon images. I find them twice as good as actual pixel count, not 3x as Sigma claims, compared to Bayer-pattern. The SD15 seems to be well liked by owners. (See dpreview.com Sigma SLR forum.) Never thought I would say this, but Sigma has some great lenses. Their 70mm macro is one of the sharpest lenses ever made.<br>

Most DSLR models now have too many pixels. This is OK if you are always making large prints, but for normal prints and web posting, substantial image-quality losses are incurred by downsampling.</p>

Yes the final print size is a worry if you work from the 5mp theory which does relate to the size of the sensor in pixels.

 

How big can you go with out a noticeable loss of detail in a print?

 

10x20?

<p>On the other hand, their 12MP camera would only be a 4MP</p>

<p>But their '4MP' camera collects 12 million pixels of a single colour each just like a 'normal' 12MP camera does. It's just the points at which they are collected which is different.</p>

<p>Steve, that may be true, but we shouldn't confuse resolution with colors captured--which may in fact yield better color fidelity/accuracy and depth.</p>

<p>For instance, Sigma's pixel density across their chip is only 2652x1768 while Canon's 500D (about 1mp larger) has a density of 4752x3168. This means that Sigma is only capturing 4.7 million unique points while the Canon is capturing 15.1 unique points--which is over 3 times the number of points used to describe the same detail in the image.</p>

<p>While it is true that the Sigma captures all 3 colors at each of those points, creating a 14 mb image, that does not increase the resolution but certainly should make the color better. Of course, the other MFG's capture individual color at each point and then use sophisticated algorithms to create the other two colors at those points, thus the 40-45mb file from their 14-15mp cameras.--I would love to see a camera that produced an image the size of the top Canon or Nikon with the Foveon technology--or how about the MF camera backs!</p>

<p>You really should be asking your question here at the Sigma forum:<br>

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1027">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1027</a><br>

Many of the photographers there own two (or more) different systems.</p>

<p>I own the SD14 but not another system, though I have compared it directly to the Pentax K200 10mp camera and found the resolution to be essentially the same, though the "look" is different. The Foveon chip is much sharper at the pixel level because it doesn't have a AA filter and the overall image looks more three dimensional when displayed on a computer screen than a Bayer image, but this doesn't necessarily translate onto a print.</p>

<p>The AA filter reduces the actual Bayer sensor resolution from 1/3-1/2 its actual resolution so it's probably more accurate to say that the Foveon chip has a full 4.7 mp resolution whereas a 10mp Bayer chip's resolution has been reduced to only 5mp by the AA filter (see here: <a href="http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm">http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm</a> and here: <a href="http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm">http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm</a>)</p>

<p>The purpose of the AA filter is to help eliminate moire patterns that are inherent in all Bayer chips which is why the Foveon doesn't need one, all three colors are read from the same pixel location. <br>

A really good example between Bayer and Foveon resolution is here: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp</a></p>

<p>In comparison to the 5D you own the SD14 has slightly less resolution, with a good comparison between them being here: <a href="http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/">http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/</a></p>

<p>Another difference between the Foveon and Bayer chips is in dynamic range, with the SD14/DPx series, probably due to its larger pixel size, being measured as good, if not better, than any other dlsr camera on the market, depending on the test used. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page11.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page11.asp</a></p>

<p>But technical differences aside, the real reason to shoot a Foveon based camera is the special 3D "look" that the images seem to have <em>for some people</em> (myself included, or I wouldn't be shooting it) that a Bayer chip just doesn't seem able to match regardless of resolution (if resolution is your main concern stick to Canon and get a 5D II). But again, this look doesn't necessarily translate well onto a print. </p>

<p>As for the body operation, the SD14 has had many irritatiing gliches, most of which seem to have been eliminated in the new SD15. So if you do choose to get a Sigma, get the new one.</p>

<p>Here are some of my SD images: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sd14_iso_50">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sd14_iso_50</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/iris_garden">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/iris_garden</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sigma_70mm_macro_lens_test">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sigma_70mm_macro_lens_test</a></p>

<p>and some from others: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/the_users_galleries">http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/the_users_galleries</a></p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

Mike.

 

Sigma forum yes, my mistake

 

Thank you for the reply, this is the info am after.

 

As you say about a 10mp bayer sensor possibly only being 5mp due to the AA filter I agree.

 

If a bayer sensor is 10 mp then there is only 2.5mp or red and blue and 5mp of green? I may be wrong but this puts the resolution back in the same ball park as the foveon which makes the whole resolution argument mute.

 

You mention more dynamic range, I think this was one reason why the 5d was not working for me.

<p>Not having a 5D to compare my SD14 to I can't say directly how much, if any, difference in DR there is between them. Again, if money is no object, I would certainly recommend the new SD15 over the SD14, but if you do wish to be economical, depending on where in the world you live, you can sometimes pick up the SD14 fairly cheap.</p>

If you want dynamic range, Fuji EXR is the best answer in 2010. You can do HDR, but who wants to waste that much time? Unfortunately Fuji does not make a "serious" camera with EXR. Also I think Foveon is sharper in most cases, and the SD15 looks excellent except at high ISO.