Sigma SD14 14.1-megapixel DSLR
Filed under: Digital Cameras, Electronics | By: John
Posted on: June 18, 2007 | 51 Comments
The Foveon 3-layer image sensor on the Sigma SD14 14.1-megapixel DSLR has got people talking since last year, but now Popular Photography have done a hands on review of the digital camera and are not impressed.
The strong points of the Sigma SD14 camera were its image quality and color accuracy, but the reviewers found the cam took 8 to 10 seconds to clear its buffer after shooting just 6 pictures in burst mode, the slow image processor produced blocky JPEG images at higher ISOs and they summed up by saying your better spending the $1,600 it costs for the Sigma SD14 on another camera.
The Foveon sensor looks promising but lacks at this time the benefits Sigma and Foveon promised “fundamentally better technology“.
Read Digma SD14 Review
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more news.
Short and too the point:
“but the reviewers found the cam took 8 to 10 seconds to clear its buffer after shooting just 6 pictures in burst mode”
Yes, if you shoot 6 photos, and wait until all 6 completely clear, it will take 8 to 10 seconds. What the reviewer fails to mention is that you can keep shooting WHILE the buffer is clearing. I shoot action sports exclusively, and on only one or two occasions have I had to wait for the buffer to clear befoe taking another shot.
“The slow image processor produced blocky JPEG images at higher ISOs”
Yes, and an L6 Corvette is difficult to drive in traffic moving at 2 MPH. So what? The Sigma is, and always has been, a RAW imaging camera. That’s what the Foveon sensor was designed for. The first two Sigmas didn’t even have the ability to shoot JPGs. And most Sigma users don’t shoot at high ISO. Neither do most Nikon and Canon shooters.
The new SD14 does indeed have “fundamentally better technology”, as proven by the images it produces. What we now need is a “fundamentally better” reviewing methodology at Popular Photography.
To, not too…sorry.
The Sigma SDxx cameras I have used (SD9, SD10, and now SD14) have been about the image and nothing but the image. In some ways, they have been tools for thinking photographers far more than for people who need to have the image served up. And it seems that most reviewers fall into the latter category. They admit that image quality is terrific when shot in RAW (which is what most thinking photographers will use to get the best image from any digital camera) but test in jpeg (a crippled starting point, at best). They berate the lack of umpteen presets for certain effects available in the depths of most camera menus while praising the straightforward handling and menu structure. They dis the price while ignoring the free RAW conversion software (albeit not in the best iteration with the SD14), a major expense for most other cameras. They give the camera demerits for having its own lens mount while forgetting that Nikon, Canon, Sony and Leica also all have their own mounts.
However, the biggest mistake almost all reviewers make it to equate the SD14’s (or any other camera’s) pixel count with resolution. Some thinking reviewers of digital photography technology have started to question the pixel count wars. Notable among these are David Pogue at the New York Times and Phil Askey at dpreview.com. Both have stated that the quality of the pixel is far more important than the count. And this is where the SD14 shines. Large, full-color pixels make it very easy to make large images. Exceptionally large and sharp images far superior to anything I have seen at major shows with the exception of the Nikon D2X.
In my opinion, reviewers should be required to think much more than their readers. Reviewers are shaping opinion and should not just be following the lemmings. Image and pixel quality are what digital photography are about. It is not about lens mounts or bells and whistles. If the latter were not true, there would never have been a reason for the Leica M6, one of the finest - and least complicated - photographic tools every made. With its own mount.
I too have been perplexed by what I’ve read in the Popular Photography and a few other reviews about the Sigma SD14 dSLR.
As a professional with extensive hands-on experience with Canon, Nikon, Kodak and Sigma dSLR’s my take is that there is either an industry-wide bias against this new technology (the Foveon X3 sensor) or some basic incompetence on the part of some reviewers. Perhaps a rush to judgment based on preconceptions might account for the wide disparity in reviews of the SD14 ranging from wildly enthusiastic to condemnation.
Make no mistake, the Sigma SD14 like its predecessors the SD9 and SD10 is an instrument capable of producing superior images. Walls full of huge, beautiful prints from the SD14 at the Sigma booth at PMA in Las Vegas, Nevada this year are testimony to that undeniable fact! Does it have its faults? Of course - I’ve yet to own a dSLR which doesn’t. But the basic premise of Sigma and Foveon, the designer of the unique electronic sensor, is that this innovation represents fundamentally superior technology.
What does this then mean? Essentially it means that this camera and sensor can produce unparalleled image quality. Of this I’m firmly convinced when I compare my prints from the SD14 with those from my numerous professional level Canon, Nikon and Kodak counterparts. The pixel level sharpness and color resolution from this camera virtually stand apart from the crowd, and after all this is what fundamentally better technology in the relevant sense is all about.
The purpose of a camera is to produce images which impact our senses and provide a means of sharing experiences, a slice of time as it was, with others. This purpose is well served by the Sigma SD14. If the user is willing to take the time to learn to get the very best from this camera, they won’t be disappointed. The SD14 will refresh one’s education in photography. It doesn’t tolerate photographic fools lightly whether that be the user or the reviewer. It will force the photographer to rethink the basics and rigidly adhere to sound photographic principles and for that effort reward them with vastly superior results.
Is it a camera for everyone? Perhaps not. It’s a tool for the dedicated photographer who is willing to do what it takes to get the best results possible within the range of possibilities for the tool being used.
It’s also the camera I most frequently reach for when I want the ultimate quality print.
PopPhoto has made the mistake of not truly reviewing this unique camera in its own right, and truly looking at the strength of its RAW files.
When looking at images posted on pbase, it becomes clear that this camera (and any, for that matter) is only as good at its operator who understands the camera, and who is also a good software processor of the images taken.
If I were a reviewer, I would contact the people who have already taken outstanding images with the SD14 and ask them how they did it; interview them. Ask about strengths and weaknesses, how to work around them, etc. Then, with that kind of feedback and give and take, do a fair review.
There is no perfection in ignorance, and reviewers copying other reviews, is extremely unhelpful.
As a happy owner of a Sigma Sd 9 together with some fine EX lenses I’d like to state that I detest in-camera functions like jpg, which seem very much a la mode for the average consumer. It is a plain fact that shooting raw gives the best results, considering that one wants to make photos, not snapshots. So judge the camera for its strong points.
Rich:
I presume you have never seen, nor held a sd14? Am I correct?
Rich, all I can say is that from your statement, your view of the world must be troubling you, seriously. Extract yourself from the herd and your eyes might open somewhat. Oh, and don’t believe all you read either!
Anyway, I let my (SD10 and SD14) pictures do my bidding.
http://www.pbase.com/jrdigitalart shows one of my boardroom pics (SD10) taken with a camera that has served me well.
to Rich:
The Simms clothing store chain has one excellent slogan: “An educated consumer is our best costumer.”
You seemed to be set on bashing the Sigma, without actually having seen the SD14.
Where does this put you: among the educated ones? Or among the biased ones?
Your lack of objectivity is making you look bad, not the camera. Your definition of “junk” is also out of place. My SD10 has been working without a hitch since it first came out, as I bought one very early, and if it were junk, wouldn’t it have stopped functioning, fallen apart, etc.?
I think you mean by junk: incapable of good IQ? The images by the educated Sigma SD-9-10-14 totally belie this assertion (yes, some images are poor; but is Steinway a bad piano when someone plays badly on it?). Have a look around and you honestly hold omn to your dictum that all images are junk and that therefore Sigma is junk?
You are entitled to your opinion, but that it is indeed: biased, uneducated, and perhaps even arrogant opinion. Nothing more.
To paraphrase the Simms’ slogan: “An educated photographer is Sigma’s best costumer.”
Rich:
You are just doing this on purpose to “have a good time”.
I waisted my time responding to you. Go ahead, spread your venom some more, but what goes around comes around.