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
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.
Donald: “Canon color enhances real life” Funny line. May I use it? Just what the world needs; a camera that “enhances” reality.
Rich: I’d be more than happy to buy your “junk” SD9. I have my old one I use as a spare, but another would be welcome. Or, maybe you might want to take the time to learn how to use it yourself.
To matson@ch.inter.net:
It appears you are grossly mis-informed.
You insinuate that Sigma is one of the few companies that provides free raw software — this is factually false. Name one company that does not.
You claim that Nikon, Canon, etc all have their own mounts, just like Sigma. Although that is technically true, nobody but Sigma makes Sigma mount lenses. For the other brands, there are numerous third party options, including Tokina, Tamron, and even Sigma themselves. There are also numerous off-brand lenses, some of which are surprisingly good. The lens options for non-Sigma cameras are substantially more diverse, and far easier to obtain, both new, used, and even for rent.
You also imply that only Sigma cameras can produce large prints. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cameras of all kinds can produce prints of all sizes, and in fact, many non-Sigma cameras can do a far better job.
There’s a very good reason that most, if not all reviews of the SD-14 have been not particularly good. Even the reviews that didn’t come right out and slam it were careful in what they said, with comments such as ‘with a lot of work, you can get good images.’ That’s not something to brag about — who wants a camera that requires a lot of work just to get a decent image? With a lot of work, one can get a great image out of a $59 webcam too.
Sam,
I am not insinuating anything. I said “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.
The first operative word is “free” and that in reference to the camera’s price being dissed. I did not mention that the software is consistently excellent in terms of raw conversion, although I did mention that the current iteration is not the best (speed issues; the conversion is still the best). And this is a price issue. The other major manufacturers do not include their best raw converter for free to the best of my knowledge. Please tell me who does.
I certainly do not imply that the Sigma cameras are the only ones capable of making large prints. I said: “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.”
Again, there is an operative word here: “superior”. I have seen plenty of large prints from all of the major camera manufacturers at shows around the world for the last four years. However, in my opinion - and one supported by neutral outsiders here with the notable exception of a rather foul mood Michael Reichmann - none of the others produce superior prints with the notable exception of the Nikon D2X, which I consider the best 35 mm scale dSLR on the market.
You are correct about the mounts. However, the claim is often made as in these recent reviews that Sigma’s having its own mount is a negative. This is nonsense. That other third-party manufacturers do not make lenses for the SA mount (with one exception) is the negative. And if you think that there are not a lot of outside lenses available for the Sigma cameras, you need to do a little research. Or ask Alf Beharie (dasigmaguy at dpreview).
I am not sure what kind of photographer you are or whether you even are one, but getting outstanding results from any camera requires a lot of work. I am also a master fine art printer, and produce images from many other outstanding dSLRs. Few of them require less work to get outstanding results. Most of them require more.
That reviewers feel that all critiques should be reduced to the level of fast food does little justice to those who attempt to cook gourmet food. Yes, the jpegs from the SD14 are not the best - serviceable at best. But most good photographers, irrespective of the brand, shoot RAW to get the best image. And RAW requires work, again, irrespective of the brand, but pays the best dividends.
If you are only interested in jpeg shooting, don’t bother with a dSLR from any brand. Get a good pray-and-shoot and fire away. There are plenty on the market.
Sam:
Outdoor Photographer had a great review of the SD14. Just a few days ago, Sigma posted a firmware update, which is producing much better images. This camera doesn’t require a lot of work to get great images.
I have compared large size and full size images produced dy different rband DLR’s on pbase, and I have come to the conclusion that there are many bad photographers out there. The non Sigma brand DSLR are quite capabale of producing horrible images, and once in a while of producing great images. Same is true for the SD14: some people produce horrible images with this camera.
Clearly, in all cases, operator error. Every DSLR requires work. The best way to shoot quality is to shoot RAW. Not jpeg. The Sigma is no exception. The Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic and what-have-you is no exception.
The reason I think that some reviews of the Sigma aren’t that good is:
1. one German reviewer only shot in jpeg (that’s a big non-no)
2. other reviewers mainly tests digicams
3. some people don’t know how to process RAW images, it seems
4. they treat the Sigma as a point and shoot
5. they are too lazy to test it fully
6. they don’t take the time to fully get into this different technology
Anyway, the Sigma is a very capable camera in the right hands, and is perfectly suited for:
1. outdoor photography
2. landscapes
3. controlled studio setups
4. evening and nighttime with tripod and low ISO setting
It is less suitable for:
1. sports and action photography
2. news photography
3. nighttime photography requiring high ISO settings
I don’t have a SD14, but I can say this: the great images I know it is capable of, and which I have seen on the web, have blown me away. One Nikon DLSR guy who had one told me: “For outdoor work, it is the sharpest deliverer of images; stunning, fantastic, there is nothing better, but as my photography requires high speed shooting of action and sports too, I am letting this Sigma go, and am selling it.”
If you look carefully on the web, with a real open mind, your opinion will change and you will loose any prejudice you may still harbor.
The argument concerning the lens mount is mute. Sigma has as much right as does Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Panasonic/Leica, Olympus, Sony, etc.
Via an M42 adapter, you can uze non-Sigma lenses, as many do.
Tokina and Tamron would make Sigma mount lenses, if Sigma SA mount cameras were sold in the thousands and thousands. As this is not the case, they don’t do it. Besides, many Sigma lenses outperform the Tokina and Tamron brands anyway, so why try and compete? It doesn’t make economic sense.
Since all cameras that shoot raw include free raw conversion software, why mention it? The SD-14 is overpriced, even with its free raw software. Not to mention that there are only two raw converters that work, whereas there are dozens for other other cameras.
I have seen numerous large prints at photo tradeshows, including ones from the SD-9, 10 and 14. There are certainly some nice compositions taken with the Sigma, but the quality isn’t really any better than anything else, and in many cases it is much worse (namely noise, blotching and weird color casts). Even at its best, people do not find the Sigma quality to be particularly compelling. If they did, why don’t they all use the Sigma for large prints and sell those junky Canons and medium format backs?
Sure, Sigma has a ‘right’ to make their own lens mount (who said they didn’t?), but it IS a negative. There’s no money to be made for third parties to make any lenses. And while other lenses can be hacked to work, you lose autofocus and auto-aperture — who wants that?
The poor images produced by the SD-14 are operator error? So the camera can never be at fault?? Images at higher ISO are awful. Auto white balance is not too good. I guess it is user error because the users didn’t bring their own lighting equipment. Even the images on the Sigma website have problems, and those are supposedly the best it can do.
You are living in the past, because those so-called poor images at trade shows were taken with Beta cameras (I saw some myself and was somewhat also disappointed, but not too much in the colors), and via camera firmware updates and improved software, most these issues have been addressed. If the camera was really that bad, why the enthusiasm on dpreview’s forum, and why the great images posted on the pbase sigma user forum and all around pbase?
I don’t mind someone having concerns, but bashing without substance has a modern word: troll, and trolling.
A good photographer doesn’t need autofocus (often inaccurate, as camera decides, no matter what brand camera), nor auto aperture. A good light meter can do wonders. Many outdoor photographers prefer working that way. I am not saying let’s turn back to the past, but many things of the past or not a thing of the past, as you well know.
Enough said.
Images at trade shows were always from beta cameras? Even long after the SD-9 and SD-10 came out? Sigma must be selling beta versions of the SD-14 too, because the same problems are still there.
And claiming manual focus and manual aperture is a benefit? Wow.
You are right — enough said indeed.
Sam:
After reading your posts, all I can say is this; …show me a camera system that produces the native sharpness, true-colors and superior print enlargement quality that I get from my Sigmas, at a comparable price, or anything even close to it, and I’ll agree with you.
Until then, I’ll have to disagree with just about everything you’ve said. Strongly.
Sam:
I believe I am a very fair person. In expect that of others too.
Take a look at this image;
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/image/79283228.jpg
and be prepared to be blown away…
Rich,
Anyone with such a transparent agenda as yourself is never going to be taken seriously. Your continued diatribe against Sigma only reveals your propensity to talk through your hat. Your continued personal snipes reveal an extreme personality disorder. If you have some objective evidence and personal experience with the SD14, then post links to it so all can share your wisdom, otherwise your chatter is like an annoying barking dog and someone will surely soon call the pound.
Lin
I can’t believe people are still arguing about this junk camera. What’s there to argue about? It’s obviously junk that only a few thousand idiots buy.
Gourmet food, Matson? Like the crap on your website? Stop embarrassing yourself.
What goes around comes around. Simple law of karma. being nice, courteous and polite isn’t in your dictionary, to it seems. I used to shoot Hasselblad, Linhof, Contax, Konica Hexar, etc.: the best. Now I shoot Sigma. Why? It’s the best camera for my purposes in good hands. According to you, I am an idiot. You are quite rude, I must add. I wonder how rudeness mixes with your business.
BTW, I am sure that you believe that your camera is not “junk” but on your website I wonder about lots washed out highlights (flowers, bridal gowns, etc.)
Sigma doesn’t wash out highlights, if properly used
E.g. http://www.pbase.com/janus/image/63138695
http://www.pbase.com/janus/image/25286609 (original non-lpeg version has no washouts at all)
Please open your mind. This is my last post. I am not happy being called an idiot.
BTW, we Sigma users have no trouble proudly posting our images really large: let it show, let it show, let it show!
You are a walking oxymoron by our own confession: “The best image I ever shot was with an SD9…”
And then you say that “unfortunately” you lost the images in a “fit of rage”…
“Fit of rage”? That’s not good for your health. Go get some vallium, or see a doctor.
If an SD9 is prehistoric, what do you call film cameras? What was Ansel Adams shooting with?
Why do I keep responding??? I must surely be an foolish idiot indeed.
Rich:
You “accidently” deleted “one of the best images you ever made” in a “fit of rage”?
Every copy of the image? Even the one or two saved back-ups that anyone with more then five minutes of digital photography experience has?
Wow. And you call US idiots.
Oh, and by the way, unless you reformatted your hard drives, or filled it with new information, that image still exists on your drive. It can easily be recovered.
But I’m sure you knew that already, right?
…su-u-u-ure you did.
Many professional photographers like myself are using the Sd14 for their
work with success. I like the camera and have produced some very remarkable images with Sigma dslrs. My photographs continue to command
industry top dollars and are being collected by serious art collectors here in the us and overseas. Calling Sigma users derogatory names is just masked
jealousy. When you are successful like me, maybe you won’t feel the need
to bash others in such a heartless manner. Goodluck with your photography and please use whatever camera makes you feel like a real photographer.
As long as my photographs continue to sell , I’ll keep using Sigma digital slrs and the new Sd14 and laugh at nasty comments like yours all the way to the
bank.
Rich,
What did i do that make u think i m a moron or idiot? If u don’t like Sigma, please sell it or drop it. U can say it is junk, but u CANNOT said people are idiot or moron.
Also, show us pictures that Sigma can’t produce equivalent or better quality before saying Sigma is junk. If u can’t u are just lying.
I doubt that u never take serious pictures.
– Peoples said George Bush is a moron, but he is a President of US. Who’s lying?
Note readers that Rich Morgan is not a real person, it is a non de plume used to spread negativity about the camera. Why would he do this? Beats us, but it has literally been a work of years for him. Very odd. Note that despite the negativity you never get any personal information on Rich to back up his assertions…
As for myself, so that you can tell I am a real person I invite you to look at my pbase site:
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
Which also has a number of full-size SD-14 images to enjoy.
Too bad he uses the name of an otherwise real photographer who has a website on his own with that name; this is outright slander and this guy ought to be prosecuted.
His bile and vile is so bad that it actually helps Sigma’s cause quite a lot! People can see how ridiculous his tongue really is! What a joke!
I have a website too: http://www.pbase.com/janus
I see the fanboys can’t take the criticism and had to resort to recruiting help from more fans from dpreview. Hilarious.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=24037791
Ardi’s pix are nice but nothing that any other camera can’t do. Prepare to be blown away for a tiny picture of leaves? Not only was I not blown away, but I was actually laughing! 800×544 pixel image? HAH.
If the camera was so good, why does it keep getting crappy reviews? Why do a lot of pix have blotches? Why is the camera so bloody slow? Why do sales suck?
They can’t answer questions like those without insults. Truth hurts.
Read what they wrote. Manual focus and an extra light meter is the way to go. Lin says the camera doesn’t tolerate fools. Matson calls people lemmings. The insults began before Rich stepped in.
Sam:
FYI, an 800 pixel wide image is a net posting standard size.
And the SD14 has gotten both bad, and good reviews. I haven’t seen any blotchy photos from the new Sigma, unless the shooter wasn’t careful. I’ve shot over 10,000 images with the SD14 so far, and have only used manual focus about 20 times. The AF works fine. I shoot action sports, and have yet to have a problem with FPS with the Sigma.
Maybe if you’d post some of your stuff, we’ll have something to compare with our SD14 images?
SAM:
The link did not show the fuller size (my apologies):
Try this:
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/image/79283228/original
and also try:
(just random picks, which I think were processed OK):
http://www.pbase.com/image/79919342
http://www.pbase.com/image/78152426
http://www.pbase.com/image/78930896
http://www.pbase.com/image/75834839
http://www.pbase.com/image/78152492
http://www.pbase.com/image/79690511
http://www.pbase.com/image/81030129 (IR)
http://www.pbase.com/image/79373054
Too predictable Steve. cowtipper. Nice handle. You should make a career of creating them.
That was actually the same Steve, Steve, not Laurence from DPReview. Don’t you ever tire of us constantly showing you up for what you are?
Sorry David, I see you are indeed David. In case you didn’t notice from the admin post, that was not the real Laurence, but Steve in guise trying to discredit him (Steve basically has a multi-year grudge going).
I’ll now help elevate the discussion again a bit by posting some more recent SD-14 images (all have original size available):
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner/santorini2007
I also think (now that I read the admin response in that thread more carefully) it’s highly disingenuous of SigmaDSLR.com to claim credit for work that Laurence Matson and others have undergone through the years. SigmaDSLR.com was not giving Sigma ideas for enhancements that appeared in the SD-14. SigmaDSLR.com was not hanging images at the Sigma booth, produced entirely by volunteers, through many a PMA and Photokina. SigmaDSLR.com has not posted thousands of full-size images such as the members of DPReview have done (through http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr, maintained by Laurence and others). In short, SigmaDSLR.com has done nothing but run away and take his ball home, and not play nice with others, then imagine he has been any help at all. Thanks but no thanks.
Julin,
This didn’t sound at all right to me so I researched you total history at dPReview. You had four posts. Your questions were answered politely and people went out of their ways to help you find answers. What you are saying here is simply dishonest. Here is a link to your complete history with your questions and the answers given you. NOWHERE is there any “bickering” and nothing but politeness. You owe these people an apology.
http://www.lin-evans.net/dpreview/julin.pdf
Lin
Julin:
If you’re actually the one who posted at dpreview.com (which I’m beginning to doubt), you asked one question about the lense, and requested some sample photos.
Kendall posted six photos for you, and you then thanked him. There was a total of three posts, period. No bickering.
I have a strong suspicion that Rich Morgan is lifting names out of Dpreview.com and posting fake complaints here. Hey, Rich, …say it ain’t so!
More deception from the fanboys.
Do a search and you’ll see that Julin has 52 posts at dpreview, 21 of which were in the Sigma forum. Not 3. Not 4.
Why lie about the number of posts?
Yes “Sam” why do you lie???? Here are the results from a search of the Sigma forum from dPReview. Now you run along and lie to someone else.
http://www.lin-evans.net/dpreview/julin.jpg
Lin
I calls ‘em as i sees ‘em. HERE are the results:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hhiziiilhxig
Now what was that about owing an apology?
A search of the Sigma Forum at dPReview returns exactly four posts for the query “Julin”. Try it for yourself. Your link shows more so I read each of them from the Sigma Forum very carefully.
Now Sam, I’ve looked at each and every post Julin made on the Sigma Forum at dPReview over his entire posting history and there isn’t a single instance of bickering or unanswered questions. I don’t believe “Julin” ever posted here at all. I believe the same person calling himself Rich Morgan posted under Julian’s name here and probably under Laurence Matson’s name as well.
I don’t know who you are or what your interest is here, but I do know a rotten fish when I smell it.
A search of the Sigma forum using the dPReview search for the name Julin returns exactly four results. Looking at the link you provided shows more than four and I took the time to read and research every single one made at the Sigma forum. Not in any case whatsoever was there any mention by Julin of any problems or anything except sincere thanks to the people on the Sigma forum for their help. Not in any case was there any “bickering” or discussion other than people going out of their way to help Julin.
The “apology” is still owed by whomever posted the lies whether Julin or someone posing as Julin which is my assumption.
Now you can email me at data2@lpbroadband.net or you can reach me through my own website at http://www.lin-evans.net.
I have a real name, I’m a real professional photographer and my name, address, website and a posting history under my own name goes back about 8 years at dPReview and even longer at a number of major photography forums. I live in Berthoud, Colorado. Now let’s get some of your personal information so we know who we are “really” talking to.
So let’s start with who you are, Sam. What’s your real name, where is your website, what is your email address and where do you live? Your opinions and comments will be much better appreciated if everyone knows who they are conversing with rather and some anonymous poster calling himself “Sam”.
Your turn,
Lin
I do not think this Sigma is a good camera, but why all the bickering?
You said something false and I caught you. Admit it. Move on.
To everyone involved in yet another sewage vortex generated by Steve-Susie-Stusie, I would suggest that we just end this. S/he is now hijacking not only the thread but the identities of everyone else to make it appear that dissention exists outside of the demented vacuum between his/her ears. This is what s/he did on her/his own site before it was taken down (can’t possibly be from too many hits and a lack of bandwidth).
Stusie is certainly one of the more interesting perversions on the Internet. Over the years, s/he has managed to overwhelm every single discussion in which s/he has become involved going back to Altari computers. Whether this is the result of a serious injury during service in Bosnia is something we will never know.
Dear “Sam”, or whatever your real name is:
Here are Julin’s exact words: “I bought a Sigma 24-60 EX lens two months ago. I asked for help from these same people in the DPreview Sigma SLR Talk forum and got nothing but bickering back and forth.”
There were a total of three posts involving Julin on this subject in the forums. So, no one on this side of the debate is telling anything but the truth, … verifiable truth.
Your side, on the other hand, is suspect.
I don’t know which Kendall that was posting earlier, but that was not myself - I am reporting that to the owner of the site, but I just thought you should know I am more with Lin on this than Sam (who most likley is pretending to be me, not a far step from already pretending to be someone else).
OK maybe liar was a bit much but if it wasn’t a lie it was a botched search. Either way its a screwup. Julin had a total of 52 posts. You’d think with 8 years on dpreview Lin would know how to search!
Now why can’t anyone admit the screwup rather than coming up with these bizarre stories about Bosnia or pretending to be someone else.
Sam:
One more time. Maybe this time you’ll get it.
Here are Julin’s exact words: “I bought a Sigma 24-60 EX lens two months ago. I asked for help from these same people in the DPreview Sigma SLR Talk forum and got nothing but bickering back and forth.”
Julin was referring to one exchange, about the lense. Nothing else. There were three posts about that lense. The number of other posts he may have written about other subjects have nothing to do with his complaint.
So, you’re the one who should be “admitting to a screwup”
Steve,
Why don’t you just worry about healing your sickness rather than spreading your poison. You have posted enough in others’ names, including on your own site.
And you are not following anyone with your series of names. In your stupidity, you overlook the fact that all of us know each other and can quickly communicate by e-mail away from here if need be.
Boyo, Stusie, you really fooled me that time. You are a real expert at being a nasty “Chuck” and then a nasty “Laurence”. What you don’t know is that we all agreed to only post at a certain minute on the clock when replying to each other. So maybe you need to figure out what time I should have received a response from Chuck.
You are sooooooo clever.
I’m pulling out of this little game. The admin at this site has been notified of the name hijacking. Knock it off now, and I won’t go any further than that.