The POWER of advertisement!

[ND66]

Tell me what is your impression of this camera, or is it just the commercial…



Sigma SD14 teaser


.

[dshumake]

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Sigma-SD14-First-Impressions-Review.htm

[az]

Good teaser. They even tell the truth. The Foveon sensors capture more detail per pixel than other sensors, their images are sharper, and Sigma SD cams have integrated RAW workflow - the first generation couldn't even produce anything other than RAW!

That said, the cameras are bulky and ugly and not very interesting apart from that, Foveon sensors had very low pixel counts in the past (although their 3MP sensors picked up detail equivalent to 6MP DSLRs with conventional bayer sensors), and higher noise than the competition. And you're restricted to Sigma lenses - although they of course cover everything one needs.

They only show one ISO400 image, and it's a mostly bright scene as well, using either a very, very crappy lens or digital effects. One can't examine noise under those circumstances. The other images they show look great, though. But those by the manufacturers always do.

[degrub]

saturation looks low for iso 100. images look flat to me. maybe it's the lack of the Bayer pattern green emphasis......

[az]

Low saturation is actually more natural, Canon etc. enhance colors to be unnaturally saturated. But that's a matter of taste, and since the Sigmas are built for shooting RAW, certainly can be changed.

[ND66]

Low saturation is actually more natural, Canon etc. enhance colors to be unnaturally saturated. But that's a matter of taste, and since the Sigmas are built for shooting RAW, certainly can be changed.

100%

.

[Maggi]

I find it quite disturbing that all those pictures look heavily post processed to me ... :/

namely sharpening filters caught my eye, but also the overall look seems quite unnatural to me

[az]

Yeah, they probably are post-processed (since the SDs shoot primarily RAW, this is slightly less of a lie than the post-processed example images of other cams. Still not nice, though.). The ones in the flash definitely are processed.

[Jon P. Inghram]

Some of the photos are just plain edited, like the water covered rose (the black edge at some spots has been obviously and rather poorly drawn.) And there's some odd diagonal interference in the picture of the guy walking with the cane, along with red speckles that look like hot pixels. However, I would be willing to take one off someones hands if they wanted to be free of it.

[ALBPM]

Nice Lips!!!!!!! Arrrrr!!!!

[IM_Riktar]

Real world examples

I have been shooting with the SD14 for about 2 months now. I was shooting with Canon gear (Rebel 300, XTi, 40D, and various lenses.) prior to my purchase.

My take on the camera is that for "snapshots" it is adequate. Not the fastest to be sure. Compared to a P&S it is a speed demon. But up against a contemporary Dslr it shows it's (lack of) speed. But quite usable when paired with the Sigma 18-200mm OS lens for those walk around moments.

For deliberate or staged photos it is VERY good. All the stuff you read about "less resolution, more detail" become quite apparent once you start processing the pics.

And on a side note: All the comments I have heard about "heavy" PPing of the images is a subjective opinion and a big DUH in my book. Who shoots their images in RAW and does a simple conversion into jpeg and calls it good?

When viewing these images take into account that the line resolution is "only" 4.x megapixels. Show me more detail (And yes I have compared these against my 40D) in a 10 megapixel image. You will not find it.

Anyway, on with the photos. These were shot with the 18-200mm OS lens which is comparable to the Canon 28-135mm IS lens from my experience.

This image of the car has been printed at 12"x18" and it looks as sharp on paper as it does on screen.





And for those taking notice: Yes the far window in the sunset shot looks like crap. My attempt to Photoshop the AC unit in the window was not the best.

[ND66]

When viewing these images take into account that the line resolution is "only" 4.x megapixels. Show me more detail (And yes I have compared these against my 40D) in a 10 megapixel image. You will not find it.

Thanks IM_Riktar for the update.

I always said that packing more pixels on the standard sensor size gives you “BIGGER”, but not necessarily “BETTER” picture.

.

[IM_Riktar]

Thanks IM_Riktar for the update.

I always said that packing more pixels on the standard sensor size gives you “BIGGER”, but not necessarily “BETTER” picture.

.

I am reminded of that EVERY time I look at the images this camera is capable of.

And you are quite welcome.