Even if the Sigma SD-1 produced superior images than a Leica M9...

[asimrazakhan]

<p>... I would still buy the M9.<br>

What is Sigma thinking by putting out this cropped frame camera for $9200?!! Any photographer would ask themselves.... "hmmmm, sigma or nikon? sigma or canon? sigma or Pentax 645D? sigma or Leica M9?"</p>

<p>Is there any chance that anyone with all that money would still opt for the Sigma over all the other options?</p>

<p>And back to my main point. Even if it did perform better than all the other cameras... the sexiness, build quality, and ease of use of the M9 would have me going with Leica any day... and I'd have money left over for a lens as well.</p>

[ray .]

Looks like the price is more like $6900.

[starvy]

<p>Asim,<br>

We really need to wait for some independent testing of its performance before any comparison. You cynicism is based on the brand name rather than what the camera has to offer. Cosina, the Yugo cars equivalent of the camera brand ended up producing the very capable of Bessa R based series as well as the modern Zeiss Ikon rangefinders and lenses. Leica owners might not be impressed but they are not bad cameras at all. The Sigma, for all we know could turn out to be the likes of Bristol Cars. Not many know about it and would prefer to buy a Jaguar or Daimler but than does not make the Bristol any less exclusive.</p>

[floyd_waller]

<p>You might want to back off and learn a few things. When I attended Leicaschule at the factory way back in 1986, Leica was testing Sigma lenses and guess what! Some years later, Sigma is actually making some lenses for Leica under contract. No, they didn't say Sigma for Leica, they were labelled "Leica, Made in Japan."</p>

<p>Sigma is not the mediocre product of the 70's but like Cosina for Zeiss is capable of making any level of quality. Probably the price reflects that like most limited productions.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>... I would still buy the M9. .. the sexiness, build quality, and ease of use of the M9 would have me going with Leica any day</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's you - other might think differently. Not to mention that a rangefinder isn't the ideal tool for many; but then, so might be the SD-1.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>This from dpreview.com might be of some interest~:<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sigmasd1/"> Sigma SD-1 Hands On Preview.</a></p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>What's that saying about comparing apples to grapefruit....<br /> Two different critters, what makes the Sigma interesting is the choice of sensor plus an entirely different form factor to the M9. Both cameras will no doubt find their niche in the market place and as Starvy points out I think your judgement is clouded by your prejudice towards the Sigma brand.<br /> Sigma has come a long way from back when it and Tamron first were on the market, being in retail back then I too had a bit of a distrust of aftermarket lenses vs OEM but today my wife shoots with a Sigma 50-500 and though not up to the IQ of my long Canon primes it is not too far off and darn sight easier to shelp around. I've been contemplating replacing my 300 f2.8 Canon with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 though I think I will try and shoot with one first just to make sure....</p>

[asimrazakhan]

<p>a parallel for you to understand what i'm saying. <br>

if i were about to spend 10,000 dollars on a watch. i would not buy the best thing that seiko or swatch put out. rather i would spend it on rolex, panerai, IWC, or omega. these expensive ones don't tell time better than the seiko becaus they are more expensive. its just a luxury thing.</p>

<p>so i would spend my 10K on a Leica M9 with lens rather than a Sigma.... be it just for the luxury factor... though i think there are some other benefits for me about the Leica.</p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>I guess I think differently then, I would spend the money on the piece of equipment that would do the job. If I was shooting Panoramas I might consider shooting with a Linhoff Technorama or a Widelux for example. If I needed higher res for really large images I might shoot medium format or even large format. <br>

If I was shooting sports then I would use my DSLR kit and big fast primes. But getting back on topic, the Sigma is aimed at the medium format digital market and not the market that the Leica M9 is targeting so the comparison you are making is flawed to begin with. <br>

The equipment in this market have pretty lofty price tags such as the entry level Blads at just under $14k and have you priced out the Leica S2 starting at $22k ?? The M9 isn't really in the target market that the Sigma is aiming at so it's not really a relevant comparison.<br>

Anyhow I'm sure Sigma didn't target this camera at gear heads or pixel peepers but more likely at those who actually go out and make a living with their equipment.....</p>

<p> </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Many of us were just trapped by an investment in M lenses</p>

[bobtodrick]

<p>Asim...your watch comparison is pointless.<br>

Whether it be a Timex or a Rolex (I have both, and in truth the Timex keeps better time)...the time they measure is exactly the same...a minute is a minute whether measured by a $100 Timex or a $6K Rolex.<br>

But cameras take photographs. Unless your a gearhound, the quality of the photograph is what counts. If a $1000 camera gives me a better image than a $5K 'luxury name' camera...I'll be using the less expensive camera even though I can well afford the luxury camera.<br>

I recall very few discussion on the likes of Ansel Adams or Edward Weston that centred around the brand of camera they used.</p>

[richard_francisco]

They are both quite different from each other and I think built for two different target markets. I guess the comparison was brought about by the high level of pricing but a better comparison would be to compare the Sigma product to a Nikon or Canon DSLR and not a rangefinder.

 

And speaking of Seikos, I'd just like to say that Seikos just have a stigma attached to them but make fantastic time pieces that are even priced higher than Patek or Audemars and keep better time. I collect Seikos and are just enamoured with their Grand Seiko line. I wish I could afford their Credor line.

[scottelly]

<p>Asim, you're funny! You'd have money left over for a lens. Yes . . . a lens. One.<br>

-<br>

With the Sigma SD1, you have a choice of dozens of AUTOFOCUS lenses to choose from, and for the price of a single good Leica lens, you can get a full set of Sigma lenses, and then you'll have the ability to shoot not only at more focal lengths, but at 5 fps. Many of Sigma's new lenses have image stabilization. Some of the latest lenses are even weather sealed, for protection against mist and fog (and maybe even a light rain or a splash from a bike or car or petulant child in a puddle. I was shooting rain drops one day. I got LOTS of water splashing on my camera and lens. I was wishing my kit was weather sealed, like the SD1 and the new 12-24mm (or the new 150mm f2.8 OS APO macro). Hopefully Sigma will be the first to introduce a really good, new, full-frame 24-70mm f2.8 with weather sealing and image stabilization (maybe a 24-70mm f2.8 OS APO).<br>

-<br>

Frankly, I think the SD1 is a very good, inexpensive alternative to a Leica S2 kit, for medium format shooters, who are traveling, and don't want a big, cumbersome camera, but don't want to step all the way down to a Nikon D3x or some other "lesser" camera. BTW, the long zoom choices for Leica seem very limited (and expensive), if someone is taking a trip to Africa or even Alaska, and is thinking about shooting wild animals in their native habitat. Afterall, there are not Tokina, Tamron, or Sigma lenses made in Leica mount, are there?</p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Scott, surely a Box Brownie would be a better "inexpensive alternative to a Leica S2 kit, for medium format shooters" than a Sigma SD1.<br>

Feel free, however to compare apples with cabbages. I am sure the SD1 is a very good, but medium format it aint.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I'm sorry James, but there is NO better alternative to the Leica S2 kit other than the Sigma SD1, which can produce the next highest quality images in a small, weather-resistant package. No, the SD1 is not capable of shooting at the same quality level as a Leica S2, but it is the next best thing, if you either don't want to be limited to just a handful of prime lenses, or if you want to spend under $20,000 . . . or if you want telephoto capability. It is better than a Nikon D3x. It is better than a Canon 1Dx or Canon 1Ds Mk III. (That is, of course, assuming you are not particularly interested in shooting fast or at high ISO, which if you are seriously looking at a Leica S2, you must not be, because it shoots at less than 2 frames per second and it's highest ISO is less than 1600.) Please tell me what alternative there is to the Leica S2, other than the Sigma SD1 James.<br>

-<br>

The only camera that I would suggest might be an alternative would be the Canon 5D Mk II, and that is purely, because that camera is so much cheaper than the SD1. Unfortunately, the Canon does not produce such a high quality image, and if you are looking for an alternative to the Leica, because you want good telephoto capability, then the SD1 is the superior choice.<br>

-<br>

The Box Brownie comment . . . I really don't know what to say about that.<br>

-<br>

As far as comparing apples with cabbages . . . does a comparison between a Nikon D3s and a Canon 7 D seem like comparing apples with cabbages? No? I know of people who would make such a comparison. How about comparing the Nikon D3x with the Leica S2? Apples? Cabbages? There are people who want a smaller, cheaper, or more weather-sealed camera body, who have a medium format camera, and they are comparing the Nikon D3x with the Leica S2. That is as much of an apples with cabbages comparison as the SD1 compared to the Leica S2. I've seen comparisons of 4x5 vs. full-frame or medium format digital. Apples with cabbages maybe, but such comparisons are indeed made, and with simple, logical reasoning involved. If I am comparing a sports car with a sporty pick-up truck, it might seem like apples vs. cabbages, but both might be vehicles that I would find exciting to drive on the weekend. Does that mean I shouldn't make the comparision? Does it mean I CAN'T compare them? NO. In fact, I've seen people compare MOTORCYCLES against sports cars, considering things like bang for the buck, resale value, speed off-the-line, etc. Yes, trying to compare a motorcycle against a sports car might be like comparing apples with cabbages, but it is done, and with good reason.</p>

[natures-pencil]

<p>I started using the Sigma SD1 6 months ago, and was impressed by the level of detail in the images, but often found the slow AF and even slower buffer-clearing times frustrating. So I got myself a Canon EOS 1 Dii N at a bargain price for everyday photography. Apart from being a joy to use I was surprised by how good its 8Mp Bayer-demosaiced images looked beside the SD1's 15Mp, full-colour, non-demosaiced results.</p>

<p>Intrigued, I acquired a 16.7 Mp Canon EOS 1Ds mark ii (at less than 10% of its price when new). There is very little to choose between the images I get from that camera and those from the SD1. The SD1 files have a little more clarity and marginally more detail, but you cannot see it until you make huge enlargements, and even then it is not a huge difference.</p>

<p>From all the theoretical arguments about sampling frequency, colour accuracy, and anti-aliasing I believed that the SD1, with its 45 million sensors in 3 layers ought to be equivalent to a Bayer-matrix based camera of about 30Mp, but with more fine detail in large coloured areas. The reality is that it it outperforms a 16.7 Mp Bayer-matrix camera in IQ by only a small margin, and not by the theoretically predicted 40% (or so) better linear resolution.</p>

<p>I have no explanation, but my guess is that three factors are involved:</p>

<p>1) The Foveon is not getting full colour information, because the colours captured at each layer are not pure<br>

2) The software engineers that work on Bayer-Demosaicing are very very good at getting accurate values for the interpolated pixels.<br>

3) My Canon Prime lenses are better than the Sigma 17-70 that I have for the SD1. With a good prime lens or Sigma's recent 18-35 zoom the SD1 might show a bigger difference in IQ</p>

<p>The SD1 is still a nice camera, provided you can work within its operational shortcomings, and it does deliver a images with a different, somewhat intangible "look", but it delivers a 15Mp image ... NOT a 30 Mp image</p>

<p>The real problem with the SD1 is that it is not a general purpose SLR. If you photograph a range of subjects you still need another system. It would have been much nicer to have the SD1 with a Canon EOS mount, then it could be added to a Canon system as a special-purpose body, and it would not be necessary to duplicate lenses in two different systems.</p>