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.
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