Of course I say that as someone who just (initially done for cost-cutting but also because I'm really interested in what this camera can do and also to be able to afford better glass...whew!) sold his D300 kit.
Don't really see a whole lot about it around here. Am I in the wrong place? Did the SD14 leave a flaming bag of pooh at your front door and run away?!
Interested to get some helpful info from any users. Should have my SD14 before the weekend and a couple lenses (18-200 OS and 50mm 2.8 EX). Flash. Battery grip. (and yes, I somehow still had money left over to take care of a couple looming bills!...crazy!)
Sigma SD owners UNITE!
Ah, okay. Just going for the dramatic there. Just let me know I haven't made a horrible mistake....that's all....so I can fall asleep with sweet, Foveon dreams.
Sigma's got some impressive lenses to go with their system (10-20, 30/1.4, 50/1.4, Macros). They have enough of a selection to make their own system complete. I think there are many people who buy Sigma DSLRs with the intention of using them with alternative lenses, since the flange-back distance is about as short as it is with EOS.
Frankly I think the bodies are kinda ugly and look poorly built, but I've never handled one in person (most stores don't sell them) so I could be wrong. I'm very curious about these SLRs, so please give us an update once you get your stuff.
I have the SD14 and have mixed feelings about it (the other DSLR I have is 5D, so I am biased).
First, I normally shoot between 21 and 70. With 5D you can get a lot of alternative glass in that range. However, because of the 1.7 crop factor, going "alternative wideangle" with SD14 is impossible.
Second, SD14 performs poorly above ISO 200. What irritates me most is the yellow cast it produces on skin tones. One can somewhat remove it with Sigma's own software, but don't try Lightroom - it performs poorly with Sigma RAW files.
The above aside, I made my best studio shots with the SD14 and CZJ 35/2.4.
So if you have light, the pictures have a certain "pop" - I really don't know how else to describe it.
Although I don't use the SD14 often, for the $350 it is not worth selling it, especially now that spring is coming - I love shooting IR!
Yeah. Cameta is where I got the camera, lens and flash. They're prices are not touched by anyone for the SD14. I'll let ya know how it goes.
Thanks!
Scott
Sam N wrote:
Sigma's got some impressive lenses to go with their system (10-20, 30/1.4, 50/1.4, Macros). They have enough of a selection to make their own system complete. I think there are many people who buy Sigma DSLRs with the intention of using them with alternative lenses, since the flange-back distance is about as short as it is with EOS.
Frankly I think the bodies are kinda ugly and look poorly built, but I've never handled one in person (most stores don't sell them) so I could be wrong. I'm very curious about these SLRs, so please give us an update once you get your stuff.
I agree about the multiplication factor. But you can get a 12-24 and 8mm lens for it. that's pretty wide to me, even with the 1.7.
I agree about low-light. The camera doesn't really do too well in that department. But I plan on using it for portraits....well-lit ones at that. So hopefully all will go well for what I'm using it for.
Thanks for the info!
Scott
L. Hristov wrote:
I have the SD14 and have mixed feelings about it (the other DSLR I have is 5D, so I am biased).
First, I normally shoot between 21 and 70. With 5D you can get a lot of alternative glass in that range. However, because of the 1.7 crop factor, going "alternative wideangle" with SD14 is impossible.
Second, SD14 performs poorly above ISO 200. What irritates me most is the yellow cast it produces on skin tones. One can somewhat remove it with Sigma's own software, but don't try Lightroom - it performs poorly with Sigma RAW files.
The above aside, I made my best studio shots with the SD14 and CZJ 35/2.4.
So if you have light, the pictures have a certain "pop" - I really don't know how else to describe it.
Although I don't use the SD14 often, for the $350 it is not worth selling it, especially now that spring is coming - I love shooting IR!
I have been shooting with the SD14 for about 11 months.....Love it...!!! Also, shoot DP1
I have also moded one of my SD14's so that it uses the Nikon-F mount.....
Ok some pictures....L. Hristov...I beg to differ on the ISO over 200....1st....you need to shoot RAW...the JPG sucks really, really, really sucks...but in RAW you will get amazing color....second you need to use the Sigma software to edit the pictures first then convert them to big JPG files to use in Photoshop or where-ever....now the bad news...it is a slow camera...ie you can take about 2 or 3 pictures fast then you need to let it catch up...read/write times are slow...get a UMDA card....this helps it out a lot....second...try to wait about 5 secs or so between pictures...helps this read write issue.....Pro's unbeatable color....and detail....
All these are using a Sigma SD14 converted to Nikon F mount....
This is taken at a concert....I was about 50 to 75 feet from the stage..... 85mm f1.4 Ziess lens....at ISO 400 1/250
200mm F2 ED ...at ISO 200 1/250
20-60mm Sigma F2.8 at ISO 800 1/250
I am no PRO..by all means...but I do like playing with this camera....
There is a guy on eBay that sells the adapter really easy to do if you are not afraid to take things apart.....but he also sells the camera's already assembled....both are good prices.....
The SD9 was my first "serious" DSLR. It proved to be a one-trick pony: great in very good light outdoors, pretty poor under any other conditions, and full of bad, blotchy noise at ISO 400. The Foveon sensor pattern does allow for some pretty big prints and good color, and that's its forte. But as ISO went up, and in addition to the noise, the camera had color shifts all over the place and, by and large, exhibited the lowest keeper rate of any DSLR I've ever owned.
After the SD9, I bought a Canon 10D and was amazed by the improvement in IQ over the SD9. But I did try the SD10 when it was released. Minor improvement. Sold it in less than a week. I actually preferred the IQ (at ISO 100 in bright light) of the SD9.
I then tried the new and improved, the latest and greatest: the SD14 and DP1 when they were released. The SD14 was, in my experience, yet another one-trick pony, but with slightly higher resolution. It was great in very good light outdoors, ok to bad to poor under any other conditions compared to cameras as basic as the Canon xsi and Nikon D60. The color shifting as ISO went up was less, but it was still there. High ISO performance was MUCH better than the SD9/SD10, but nowhere near as capable as even a Canon 10D. Still, the Foveon sensor array is unique and does capture colors in a very vibrant and pleasing way.
To all this I would add that both the SD14 and DP1 images are, to my eyes, the most plastic looking of any DSLR images to date, particularly the DP1. Really, truly false-looking landscapes, cityscapes and people. You can see it just about any of the images posted to the Sigma pics on pbase.com. Some exhibit the plastic look worse than others, but I see it in all of them.
In comparison to the very film-like and natural images of my Fuji S5, the Sigma images look like they were produced by a toy ... though they are very sharp images and can be printed quite large.
I once believed quite strongly that the Foveon sensor had great promise. I don't believe that any longer. I think it has been super-surpassed by advances in Bayer technology and is worse ... much worse ... overall, than Fuji's Super CCD, a sensor that one photographer called the "missing link between film and digital." (I totally agree.)
The Foveon sensor, sadly, is simply missing a link (or two) somewhere in its basic design.
Well...um....I was asking for SD14 LOVE! Oh well. I agree about Fuji though. I've loved the Super CCD technology since my 6800 Zoom. Then the S2 and S3 too. The S5 was just out of my financial reach, at the moment.
I must say though. I've seen lots of SD9 10 and 14 images that took my breath away.
DBPhotography wrote:
.... I must say though. I've seen lots of SD9 10 and 14 images that took my breath away. To each his or her own though.
Scott
I have, too. But in those instances, I think it's more the photographer's skill than it is the camera.
I guess my main quarrel with the Sigma/Foveon is that shots that take your breath are far and few between compared to the numbers of shots that have also "taken our breath away" when other cameras are used.
The Sigmas just don't do well under the wide variety of conditions and circumstances that other cameras adjust to with aplomb. You sure won't find a Sigma as a primary tool at a hockey game or horse race. You won't find a journalist assigned to Iraq carrying a Sigma. You won't find a Sigma at too many weddings, either.
The Sigmas are limited in their applications ... good for landscapes, studio work, still life, portraits maybe ... anywhere the light is plentiful and bright, just like an old Kodak throwaway box camera.
DBPhotography wrote:
Well...um....I was asking for SD14 LOVE!
Scott
Well, I guess you'd have to say that I've had a love/hate relationship with the Sigma cameras since the intro of the SD9. That's why I bent in Sigma's direction with each new version, the SD10, SD14 and DP1. There is definitely something addictive about those cameras and their particular IQ under the right conditions. But sooner or later an addiction has to be dealt with. I broke mine last year.
veroman talks about that 'plastic' nature of the Sigma files...but I find that to be more of an issue with Canon black, blue, purple, red, and yellow. I often have to choose Canon for functionality, but I suppose I have more of the love side for Sigma than many others.
Grant. Very nice shots! I agree. Usually the lack of an AA filter in front of the sensor allows for more detail than traditional sensors. Thanks for sharing!
