anthony_d.

<p>So you're annoyed they didn't gush over your camera. How about me? They never even reviewed the camera I use. Bast**rdos! <br>

Even so, I still think DPreview is the best source of information when it comes to digital cameras ...and the sample pics are extremely helpful. The gallery photos for the Sigma DP1 were enough to convince me to purchase the SD14.</p>

<p>Asim, I can appreciate your post and I also agree that the struggle is what makes photography rewarding. If the process is too easy, then excellent photos become so commonplace, they are rendered obsolete. To a certain extent that is already happening. <br />My love affair with photography began with a B&W photography class I was required to take in high school, nearly 30 years ago. Watching a photo develop was like a kind of magic I've never forgotten. At the time, my camera was a rangefinder, the brand of which I am unable to recall because I took it for granted at the time, thinking it was too limited. I wanted an SLR and when I finally purchased one( a minolta), the images never did equal those of the rangefinder. Partly as a result of my disappointment, I lost interest for many years. Eventually I purchased a Canon SLR and the while the results were far better, my love affair with photography was still tempered. <br />Then along came Sigma-Foveon.<br />As far your predilection for Leica and Hasselblad, I can only equate it to my appreciation of Sigma and the superb cameras and lenses they have recently released. And yes, I am entirely serious. The Sigma DP1 is fashioned like a rangefinder of old, with a detachable viewfinder and superb optics. It is the only small camera designed for serious B&W enthusiasts. Similarly the SD14, with its unique Foveon sensor, seems to me a thing of beauty when compared to the other DSLR's I've held. Both cameras are rather simplistic...but simplicity is a virtue. As you've come to realize, aperture priority is all you really need anyway. Neither camera offers the iso versatility of other dslr's, but working within limitations can be beneficial. Also, Sigma has recently released several lenses (primes and zooms) that have surpassed Canon and Nikon's best. Both in terms of design and philosophy, Sigma is the manufacturer that has motivated me to return to photography after all these years.</p>

Thomas, we've come a long way since the beginnings of photography. But let's not overlook the fact that the B&W medium was inherently more artistic precisely because it did not capture reality. The B&W landscape is an alternate universe that has its own parameters for successful aesthetics. The early masters were able to capitalize on these differences and make 'art'.

 

For me, creative photography requires 'intent' and really great photos are photos that can create a reality only obtainable via the medium of photography...i.e.something that would not appear the same way in real life. So whatever the original scientific intentions of photography were, to capture reality, that is irrelevant as to how the medium is regarded today. Of course capturing reality still has its place in a newspaper or to present evidence in a courtroom. But as a hobby and here on photo.net , that is not the criteria one should use.

 

"Think about it, without spectators, there'd be no purpose for modern-day sports..."

 

I'm not the one coming down hot and heavy on spectators...that'd be Rockwell. I was merely pointing out that his form of photography is also very 'passive' and he could be categorized as a spectator by those photographers with a great deal more talent and vision than he.

 

 

 

I'm not sure there's anything more banal than telling people to go out and start taking pictures. I'd rather take no pictures than to take a thousand worthless ones. Rockwell's portfolio doesn't impress me...and I would suggest that he spend more time at home

In the above comment, I meant to say Rockwell thinks he's an 'artist'. In my own mind that is the meaning I ascribe to the word 'photographer'. Rockwell is merely a picture-taker.

Maybe Rockwell is unaware, but landscape photography is the ultimate spectator type of photography. Just because you may have to get up early to catch a sunrise doesn't mean you are creatively engaged in the process. You are just waiting for something interesting to arise so you can take a picture. Still a spectator.

 

Sports fans put up with alot of hassle to get to the stadium and take their seats in the bleechers...but ultimately they are just there to watch something interesting develop on the field. Same is true with landscape photography, at least of the variety Kenny Rockwell is describing. So the amount of hassle it takes to arrive at a location is not meaningful in the least.

 

So,it would seem, Rockwell still doesn't understand the essence of truly creative photography. Judging from his portfolio, I would almost categorize him a photographer-wannabe. If that sounds a bit harsh, well... I put myself in that category too. But at least I know where I rate on the totem pole. Pitiful Mr Rockwell thinks he's a photographer. Its sad really.

'Good' photography has very little to do with using the camera equipment properly. Creative exposure and focussing can be learned by most primates...very quickly. A 'good' photographer worth his/her salt had better show some creativity with regards to composition,lighting, and subject matter. If a DSLR helps eliminate the possibilty of an exposure/focussing 'screw up' at a photoshoot...then its done its job.

L-Liang, Based on Phil's review? Phil concluded that the SD9's resolution was "at least equal" to the current crop of 6Mpixel cameras. So your chart is misleading by placing Foveon resolution below the current Bayer sensors. I think a fairer comparison would be the Sigma SD10(10.2 mpixels) versus the Canon 1DS (11.4 Mpixel). Admittedly the Canon 1DS might have a slight edge...but at nearly 6 times the price...I'd say the SD10 has already blown away the competition. It'll just take awahile for professionals to part with the lens collections...and their brand loyalty. Lets wait for Phil's review of the SD10.

Go to pbase.com and do a search for the SD10. Look at the images in full size. You will never see such clear and sharp images with the 300d/10d as you will with the Sigma SD10 ...even if you resize to 3.4MP. For landscape work, the Sigma SD10 is the way to go. The main disadvantage to the camera is that it gets noisier at higher iso speeds. For landscape this is no problem . Also, it shoots RAW only so there is an extra processing step. But the variations in colors, textures of leaves, etc...will be far more precisely recorded with the Sigma than with any other camera. Other sensors will just 'color in' the high frequency color data. Only the Sigma cameras do not.

I think what is really absurd is that Canon, Nikon and the rest have been allowed to market their sensors with as high a sensor count as they have. The Canon 10D doesn't really have a 6Megapixels resolution. Rather, it has 3 million green, 1.5 million red, and 1.5 million blue pixels. The pixels are spatially separated so that the original image that the lens focussed upon the sensor will forever remain a mystery. The computer algorithms then interpolate this data to'create' an image which is then touted as having a 6 million pixel 'resolution'. HOGWASH. The aesthetic of the final image is NOTHING like film. It is rather artifically created...very much like a computerized painting. Complex details, textures, of grass and leaves in the distance are simply 'colored' in.

 

The Sigma SD9 originally claimed to have 3.4 million pixel resolution. BUT that was a TRUE FULL COLOR resolution. That was 3.4Million red, 3.4 million blue, and 3.4 million green...with the three colors on top of each other to create one 'true' pixel. No need for interpolation, no need for artificial recreation...a better, more natural aesthetic. Anyone who has seen the images at PBase.com for the SD9 can attest to this.

 

Sigma realized they may have made a marketing mistake in being so 'HONEST' when all the other companies(Canon,Nikon) were so dishonest in their resolution specifications. And so they decided to join in and call each 'color pixel' a 'pixel'. Sigma can RIGHTFULLY claim to having 10.2 million color pixels...just like all the other companies misleadingly do.

 

It is true that the effective resolution of the 10.2 Megapixel SD9 or SD10 is not quite as high as the Canon 1Ds which has 11.4Million pixels. But the Sigma 10D body will sell for $1350 as opposed to over$7000 for the Canon. The SD9 and the SD10 both have considerably HIGHER resolutions than the Canon 10D or the Nikon D100. So there is no exaggeration whatsoever in Sigma's claim for resolution superiority.

 

However, resolution is not the only criteria for a camera. The main problem with the SD9 was that it was limited to iso100. Higher iso's of 200/400 were ridiculously noisy and almost worthless. THe Sigma SD10 has alleviated this problem and may have useable iso400..but I suspect it is still not as noisefree as a CMOS or CCD Bayer sensor. In any event, let me repeat that image NOISE was the main problem that had to be overcome. There was no shortage of resolution!

 

In summary, if you can live with the iso/noise limitations, and with the limitation of only using Sigma lenses, then the Foveon sensor offers images that are of a considerably higher order/aesthetic than a 6Mpixel Bayer.

For me, a great work of art is great entirely because it was created by another human being. Though the artist may be unknown or anonymous, the work itself, created by a man or woman of skill, originality and cleverness, brings glory to the artist first and by inference, to all of mankind. A great novel is great, not for its own sake, but because we recognize the greatness of the author who had the insight to create such a work. And we are happy to spend time in the 'company' of such a writer. Similarly with an artistic photograph, we appreciate that another person, the photographer, was able to create a unique perspective, original and striking, and we admire his cleverness and his vision. At all times, art connects us to at least one other person...music may connect us to more than one. That is the enjoyment of it.

With this principle in mind then, a random creation could never be considered to be art. If a group of monkeys could somehow type the novel 'Crime and Punishment', it would not be worth reading...for they would only be words on a page. More likely, though, a monkey with a camera might randomly take a worthwhile photo...but it would not be art.