RAIDON
newbie
Reged: 02/07/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
REGARDING THE REVIEW OF THE SIGMA SD14:
My first point in passing is that the Sigma RAW files should always be post-processed with the Sigma Pro Shop. The files will lose information using Photo Shop with the RAW plug-in. The software comes free with the camera so why not use it.
I found the review agreeable. I concur with the frustration expressed that two exposures of the same scene... with perhaps a minor tweak of the zoom CAN, not always, produce a different presentation of colours. The 'not always' part is as annoying as the 'CAN'. One more thing that irritates is the tendency for some under-exposed images to blow-out, as though, with film, one had drastically over-exposed. It seems that the sensor having insufficient light ops for white in lieu of an approximation: a delicate pink flower is a pure white beside the darker violet (ISO 100;f8;1/30) - at ISO 400(f8;1/125) the colours are full and natural.
Moreover... these results are hard to reproduce leaving one without a good ROT to compensate. Two things probably aggravate this - the five point sensor (new upgrade 1.08 please) and the Sigma lens Optical Stabilizer is just too good; leading those like me to push too hard at low ISO settings.
OTHERWISE... the images are outstanding! Colours rich beyond belief and terrific detail. In terms of information theory the files are dense with data. Essentially as much, or more, information in its somewhat smaller image. The term 'resolution', nearly synonymous with 'size', needs an update to more reflect the 'Q' of the system. Example: the human eye has greater resolution "in daylight" than a cats eye... the image isn't bigger - there is just more information.
Sigma needs to respond to the issues raised in the review. However, don't be mislead... these (slightly more than) niggling bits aside the images are spectacular!
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 4449
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Quote:
... One more thing that irritates is the tendency for some under-exposed images to blow-out, as though, with film, one had drastically over-exposed. It seems that the sensor having insufficient light ops for white in lieu of an approximation: a delicate pink flower is a pure white beside the darker violet (ISO 100;f8;1/30) - at ISO 400(f8;1/125) the colours are full and natural...
I now know to use fairly serious -ve exposure compensation on my Canon bodies (5D, 30D & 1D MkIII) when shooting examples like these. It's probably to do with small area highlights and not using the spot-meter or something.
Never having used an SD14 I've no idea whether the problem is worse than with my Canon bodies.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
FujiSigmaNolta
I can pan!
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 2029
|
|
With the Sigmas using accurate exposure and WB is very crucial and if you are gonna compensate you gotta do it to the positive side.
--------------------
Regards,
Luis
My Flickr mess
There are no duff cameras only duff photographers
|
Mojo_66
Rain Kat
Reged: 25/05/2006
Posts: 3970
Loc: Lancs
|
|
In tricky lighting I usually bracket exposures on my Siggy, otherwise I overexpose by about 1/3 of a stop to keep detail and avoid noise in the shadows. I find that you can pull back an amazing amount of highlight detail in SPP. I tend to shoot a lot of landscapes though with bright skies and dark foregrounds and this approach won't work for every subject!
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo_black/
|
RAIDON
newbie
Reged: 02/07/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
I have considerably improved my images by shooting with EV -.3/-.7 at low ISO; as I prefer, as many do, to shoot in Aperture more, I have nevertheless found an interesting effect when shooting in Shutter mode: I set a shutter speed of 1/160th (lens: 18-200 OS) and found that in bright light at f:13 through f:22 I achieved amazing clarity and density in my images which greatly extended my notion that my 'sweet spot' was around f:8-f:11. Shooting in low light, with my aperture setting flashing madly, I get exactly what you would expect with film: an under-exposed image with, under the circumstances, suprisingly well defined detail and colour - buried in noise. When an Aperture mode setting is abused with low light, as mentioned before, that image explodes... but an abused S-mode soldiers on and produces the best image it can. An odd sort of reciprocity.
|
FujiSigmaNolta
I can pan!
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 2029
|
|
I only let my girlfriend around my sweet spot I'm afraid... 
--------------------
Regards,
Luis
My Flickr mess
There are no duff cameras only duff photographers
|
RAIDON
newbie
Reged: 02/07/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
The problem of under-exposed images erupting in a bright burst of light is due to the 5 segment light metering. The algorithms are flawed.
To avoid simply shoot in center-metering mode.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
