Professionals View: Sigma SD14 and the Foveon X3 sensor
June 20, 2007 | Filed under Digital Cameras, Electronics
This is a comment from a professional photographer named Lin Evans, he left a comment on the post about the sigma sd14 14.1 megapixel dslr and it was such a good comment we thought we would feature it as a post on a Professionals View of the Sigma SD14 and the Foveon X3 sensor.
Comment by Lin Evans:
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.
Get the latest news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or follow us on Twitter.
Mr. Evans has written eloquently and simply, but some of what he writes borders on gobbledygook and sounds very much like the sort of hype that PopPhoto and other publications/reviewers think we can without, ie “unparalleled image quality,” “the SD14 will refresh one’s education in photography,” “it doesn’t tolerate photographic fools” (what SLR camera does?), “it will force the photographer to rethink the basics,” etc. That last statement is then very abruptly contradicted by “and rigidly adhere to sound photographic principles.” Is Mr. Evans saying that “the basics” are not “sound photographic principles?”
Mr. Evans believe that his Sigmas produce far better prints than his Canons, Nikons and Kodaks…which he considers Sigma’s “counterparts.” They are not even remotely counterparts to the much more basic Sigma. With the exception of the housing for the Kodak SLR/c or SLR/n, they are all far, far more complex cameras, built to significantly higher standards than any Sigma camera ever made, able to capture and render images in a far wider range of environments and circumstances and — perhaps more importantly — will accept lenses of higher resolution, sharpness, contrast, build quality and color fidelity than any Sigma lenses I know of.
Mr. Evans is quite right when he suggests that one of the purposes of a camera is to “provide a slice of time.” My own experience of the Sigma camera is that it will produce far fewer, ACCEPTABLE “slices of time” than the much more flexible Canon and Nikon DSLRs. This has been my biggest problem with the Sigma SD10; the rather low “keeper rate.”
Finally, I can’t help but wonder what Mr. Evans is suggesting when he says that the Sigma SD14 “is 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.” Does this mean that Nikon, Canon, Leica, Olympus and other cameras are the “lazy person’s route to good photography?”
We are ALL dedicated photographers, Mr. Evans. We’re ALL willing to do what it takes. And in the process of “doing what it takes,” some of us go into regions, climates and environments that would wreak havoc with an unsealed, unweatherproofed camera like the Sigma. For that matter, and even more basically, we sometimes go into very dimly lit regions…nighttime or otherwise…to shoot as unobtrusively as possible, without flash and at very high ISOs. For that kind of work, the SD10 or SD14 is the last camera I’d take.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times: the Sigma/Foveon concept and cameras are capable of good to excellent pictures. But there is no way on earth that their camera designs are the equal of cameras such as the Canon 5D, Canon 1Ds, Canon 1D IIN, Nikon D2x, D80 and D200 or even the new Fuji S5. I’ve made the comparisons. I’ve made the large prints. I’ve had many, many people view and compare images, including professionals, gallery owners and educators. The concensus is always the same.
I have been shooting with the SD10 ever since it came out and it is therefore that Stephen Garey’s response baffles me. Is what Lin Evans said not based on real life experiences? On careful comparison?
My own experience is that most of my SD10 shots have been keepers. Perhaps it does depends on one’s shooting environments, but then again, I do not expect something else or different of a camera I already know what it is capable of, and then put it down if I push it over and beyond its own limits. That would be very unfair.
I think of my SD the same way I think about film. Should I fault Velvia for being incapable to shoot in low light? No I don’t, and neither would we do that with the Sigma cameras.
True, some cameras do a lot of tasks better than the SD10, but when it comes to shooting in good light, the Sigma SD10 and 14 provide an amazing IQ that has to e sen to be appreciated.
This shouldn’t be a war between Sigma and all the rest. Why can’t we celebrate each and every GOOD camera in its own right? The goodness of a camera is determined by its sensor and its lens; the in between stuff doesn’t need to be all that fancy. Sigma keeps to the basics, intentionally. View cameras are very simple, but are capable of extraordinary IQ. Let’s stop all this nonsense about bells and whistles, which in real life really don’t get used all that much. I personally welcome and applaud the simple straightforward design of the Sigma.
By the way, as you can gather by now, consensus is a rather subjective statement and has nothing to do with real objectivity.
Adri: yes, some cameras do a lot of tasks better than the SD10 or, I must assume, the SD14. That is why statements such as “unparelleled image quality” have no place in an honest assessment or article about any paticular camera. The Sigmas would NOT be unparalleled on a dark NYC street at 2 in the morning, and would NOT be unparalleled shooting horses and their riders going full speed at the Kentucky Derby (except, perhaps, by luck).
There really is no war between Sigma and all the rest. The “war,” if there is one, is between Sigma users who persistently try to make it seem as though the Sigma SD cameras outclass every other DSLR made, IQ-wise, and those of us who can readily see with our own two eyes that that’s most often not at all the case.
I LIKE my SD10. I like what it can do. I like its simplicity. I like its qualities when it comes to color, and I have faith in the Foveon concept. In the here and now, however, there is not one Sigma shot I can point to that is the equal…much less BETTER than…images taken with my Canons and my Kodak SLR/c. Indeed, when it comes to color, I have yet to work with a camera that comes even close to the color rendering provided by the Kodak, an otherwise quirky and demanding piece of gear.
I think Stephen Garey misses the point.
No one is saying that the Sigma is the equal of, say, the D200 when it comes to speed of autofocus or number of consecutive exposures per second.
Although the new SD14 is miles better than its SD9 and SD10 predecessors, it is still not the equal of the Canon or Nikon dSLR families when it comes to capturing fast-moving subjects in low light. However, for deliberative photography, e.g., landscapes, portraiture, studio work, the SD14 captures images with higher IQ than cameras like the D200, D30, D40, and 5D. Yes, the latter give you more pixels in the final image, but do not resolve down to the pixel level… or if they do the resolution is often false (based upon Bayer algorithm processing artifacts instead of what was in the viewfinder).
The Bayer approach has been to keep increasing photodetector (individual light-detecting regions on the sensor) count in an effort to reduce the photosite (collection of photodetector sites that are used to calculate a pixel value in the final image, currently at least 4 photodetectors for Bayer sensors) area to a size smaller than the camera’s lens, and then average things out to get an image at max lens resolution.
The main problem with this approach is that resolution becomes diffraction-limited at f/16 at the 5D’s current photodetector area size (identical to the SD10’s photosite/photodetector size). In effect, a 10 MP Bayer image is really only able to detect about 62% of the theoretical resolution and that’s only under ideal conditions; actual resolution can drop to 25% depending on the color distribution. In the real world, 10 MP Bayer sensors are equivalent to up-rezzed 3 to 4 MP Foveon images, and the quality of the up-rezzing depends solely on the quality of the Bayer image processing algorithm used by a particular sensor.
The Sigma/Foveon premise is that photographers are better off starting with 4.3 MP of real data, instead of 10 to 12 MP of interpolated/calculated/guessed data. In this respect, the SD14 is to its Nikon and Canon 10 to 12 MP brethren as a Leica 35mm camera is to a Kodak Brownie 120 camera.
If I were capturing news photos, I’d grab a Canon or Nikon dSLR… or do as many photojournalists are doing and get several digicams like the Fuji F30 for ruggedness and redundancy with an image quality that is good enough for web, newspaper, and news periodical photos… after all, can you tell the difference between a 6 MP digicam image and a 6 MP dSLR image in a 2″ x 2″ web picture?
For fine art or any instance where image quality was the primary goal, I’d grab the SD14. Different tools for different jobs.
I would add my amateur experience with both the SD14 and SD9 as being very satisfactory cameras for general use. I have owned other cameras to include film SLRs, and other digital imaging systems. I do not have the luxury to own my modest “tool kit” of Sigma DSLRs and lenses so I will not attempt to compare the Sigma results to the more established brands. I will simply echo the comments of Messrs Adri and Evans that the Sigma SD14 produces images of spectacular quality. I state this based not only on my modest work products with this instrument, but upon inspection of the impressive images produced by my fellow Sigma users and displayed on major photo hosting sites.
I am bewildered at the defensiveness of the posters here and elsewhee who devote such intensity to discrediting the opinions of satisfied Sigma users. Do not Canon, Nikon, Leica, et. al and their many satisfied users claim virtual market domination. Do the claims of the comparatively few thousands of Sigma users pose such a disquieting presence that their posts must be disputed beneath a veneer of civility? I find it hard to imagine that bold claims are never made on behalf of the digital establishment cameras by their enthusiastic owners and users. “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
I don’t think the Sigma enthusiasts posting here and elsewhere are trying to “sell” the camera nor do I expect anyone to blindly spend (currently) up to $1600 for the SD14 on the say so of a few enthusiasts. If one is curious read the extensive comments of SD14 owners here and on specialized forums related to the equipment, information on the Sigma websites, handle the camera if you have a better camera shop which handles it, and above all view the images. There is room for a few thousand more satisfied Sigma users without driving our friends who use other brands (as do many of us) to discrediting our genuine enthusiasm.
Best wishes,
Ed
Quote: “With the exception of the housing for the Kodak SLR/c or SLR/n, they are all far, far more complex cameras, built to significantly higher standards than any Sigma camera ever made, able to capture and render images in a far wider range of environments and circumstances and — perhaps more importantly — will accept lenses of higher resolution, sharpness, contrast, build quality and color fidelity than any Sigma lenses I know of.”
It is a myth that if you want to use a Sigma DSLR, you have to use Sigma lenses.
You do not need to use Sigma lenses if you use a Sigma DSLR unless you unable to use a lens that does not have AF.
Many photographers these days greatly over exaggerate the importance of Autofocus and they seem to forget that there was a very long period in the history of photography where there was no such thing as Autofocus, yet photographers somehow managed to get by just fine without it.
If like me you prefer the greater focussing accuracy of manual focus and using manual aperture control though then you need not be limited to just using Sigma lenses and many of those lenses that have quote: “higher resolution, sharpness, contrast, build quality and color fidelity than any Sigma lenses I know of” are also available to Sigma DSLR users too.
I am a long term SD10 user who prefers to do everything manualy and I my lens collection which currently ranges from 17mm to 1100mm includes some of the best quality lenses ever made and none of them are made by Sigma, or have AF.
Lenses such as the Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagon T* and the 85mm f1.4 Planar T*, the latter being sharper than any Canon L series equivalent, has arguably better bokeh, has great build quality, and also has great contrast and colour response.
I did’nt like the Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar T* though as it has awful ni-sen bokeh so I prefer the Canon FL 55mm f1.2 instead as its bokeh is far nicer.
Erratum
“I do not have the luxury to own my modest “tool kit” of Sigma DSLRs and lenses…” should read “…and those of other manufacturers, so I will not attempt to compare…
Disclaimer: I am one of the photographers who shot sample images for the Sigma-sd14.com website. That is to tell the reader just where my biases lie, an aspect not at first as evident wit other posters - but also to help understand the degree of experience I have has with the SD-14 to date, still a relatively new camera.
That said, I can clear up some issues from other posts.
First, “Unparalleled Image Quality” to means, consistent image quality. this is nicely described and quantified in an article Mike Chaney (developer of QImage):
http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/
Basically a camera like the 5D (or any Bayer camera), turns out to have more resolution for some colors than others. And so while in some cases it offers higher resolution, in an image with multiple colors focus can actually appear subtly different as colors exhibit varying levels of details - this can manifest itself in “weak” looking red or blue subjects if the colors are close to primary.
I have personally done my own tests against a D200 (another camera I was considering purchasing instead of the SD-14), and I found the SD-14 to be more pleasing overall, and with equal resolution without again that varying level of detail that occurs in colors in a Bayer camera. The Fuji S5 is lovely in terms of color, but simply put it really does not offer close to the same resolution as an SD-14 (or a D200) as it still has the same 6MP bayer sensor of the S3 (an enhanced version, but essentially the same resolution). For a landscape camera, or other uses that require very good levels of detail, the S5 is just not built for that.
As for weather sealing, StephenG ignores one of the more vital areas of any camera that is ONLY sealed on an SD-14 - the sensor chamber.
I have had the opportunity to tromp around a good portion of the planet at this point, mostly outdoors and in all forms of weather. I have been on many dunes of blowing sand. I have been in Hilo on the Big Island during downpours. And all that time, I have been using Sigma cameras.
I owned a fully weather sealed film system before, and I have not missed it - because water on the body has to be so extensive, that you yourself are wanting to be covered and inside anyway, before it’s really a problem for the camera as long as you are careful and wipe the camera off from time to time to avoid buildup. What does however become a problem rather more quickly is if water or other contaminants get into the sensor chamber - and there the SD-14 dust protector excels. I have been in situations where water would have got into the sensor chamber, but it landed on my dust protector instead and I could just wipe it off instead of having it fry the innards of the camera. Similarly large amounts of sand can also be kept out making the act of changing a lens during heavy wind or rain a less risky proposition. Yes self-cleaning systems help, but they will not help against water, only short out along with the sensor.
Also, the SD-14 does offer light weather sealing in that there is a rubber ring around the base of the lens mount so as to more fully seal the bond between lens and camera.
There is a good description of light rain affecting “weather sealed” cameras on a trip to the antarctic:
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml
(Scroll down to Canon)
An excerpt (from a light rain):
“Three Canon 5D’s died that day, with one subsequent recovery. Two Rebel XTi’s lost their rear LCD’s, though otherwise continued to work (which is a real hassle, because though one can keep shooting, there’s no way to change any settings, or at least to know what the changes are).”
What good is weather sealing, if you can’t actually be out in the weather and rely on it? I have yet to have a failure of my SD-10, or SD-14, due to weather - even using the Sd-10 while boating on a sea kayak in Alaska during a pretty heavly drizzle, and that is less well sealed than the SD-14.
I also have to wonder how StephenG can comment so extensively on a camera he has never used. While the Sigma SD-10 and SD-14 come from the same company, the SD-14 is a different camera in many aspects from handling to exposure latitude to ISO support to improved AF. The SD-14 is simply a different, and more modern, experience. He notes the lower percentage of keepers he has had for the SD-10 - fair enough, but there again the SD-14 is much better at the metering works more often, highlights are preserved better, and more shots are in focus more quickly to enable you to take the picture you wanted. Some of those aspects do work better on other cameras (the D200 does have a great and very fast AF system, but is that a surprise to anyone) BUT it is unfair to claim a camera has to have better AF than a Nikon AND better low light performance than a Canon to be worthwhile. Why can a camera not simply excel in one area like image quality, while other aspects of the body sit firmly in the middle between best and worst across a spectrum of cameras?
As for tests StephenG has done - I often find that if you run a test looking for a particular result, for some reason you will always find it. I have to wonder what compels someone to come back so often just to spread negativity about a camera, and if that negative attitude he exudes does not help “guide” his test subjects to deliver the results he wishes, subconsciously or otherwise.
I too have done large prints, have had them hung at PMA on the wall of the Sigma booth. I did not hear complaints from the discerning crowd that visits PMA, and saw a number of people examining the prints very closely indeed.
For those of you reading - these are just words. How are you to really evaluate what the camera can do? I would recommend the Sigma sample galleries:
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/index.html
(Disclaimer as above - I took some of those, though I do not work for Sigma)
But even more importantly, check out the SD-14 user galleries - images from SD-14 users all over the globe, with a variety of experience with the camera. These images are generally posted as full size (use the “Original” size link below each image) so you can best evaluate the quality the camera delivers in real world shots, of places and things you may know.
The gallery is here:
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_sd14
In the end it’s all about the images the camera produces, if you are going to the trouble of using a bulky camera shouldn’t you carefully consider a wide set of images from cameras you are considering?
Lin may be a ‘professional’ but he has intimate ties with Sigma Corporation and is a highly biased Sigma user. He beta tested the SD-14 and his work was on display at the Sigma booth at PMA this past year. When the SD-9 came out several years ago, Lin was not impressed with the camera at all, claiming that other 6 megapixel cameras were significantly better than the 3 megapixel SD-9. Now he claims the opposite. Isn’t it amazing what free cameras and lenses can do to sway someone’s opinion? Don’t they call this being a shill?
Kendall at least has the decency to admit his biases, however, his quote is ironic:
“I often find that if you run a test looking for a particular result, for some reason you will always find it.”
Kendall then goes on to cite a test that explicitly set out to prove that the SD-14 was comparable to a Canon 5D!
Scrutinize Mike’s numbers, and it becomes clear that Mike made several errors and bad assumptions and his conclusions do not even match his test results. Nevertheless, the Sigma fans love that test because it ‘proves’ what they believe. If the SD-14 is really that good, why have nearly a dozen other tests and reviews consistently found the opposite?
Show the Sigma fans a test that criticizes the SD-14 (or anything related to the technology) and they’ll rip the test and the reviewer to shreds. Witness Lin’s claim that the Popular Photography reviewers were incompetent and that the camera doesn’t tolerate ‘photographic fools.’ Can he be any more insulting and condescending?
Bottom line - the camera is not selling well because it is simply not competitive with other cameras, including ones that sell for substantially less money. In fact, this past week, SD-14 prices were slashed by as much as a staggering $400 at some retailers! Nobody wants to be stuck with dead inventory, including Sigma.
The other Foveon camera, the Sigma DP-1, appears to have been cancelled before it was even released! It no longer shows up in on-line searches at B&H Photo, Adorama, Canoga Camera, Willoughbys and Amazon - all of whom sell the SD-14. For those who bookmarked the DP-1 at B&H, that page now shows ‘Discontinued’ in the availability field. It certainly looks like Sigma is cutting their losses before they lose any more money. Maybe they can turn this fiasco into a tax writeoff.
“Here we go again.”
This camera was also voted “most unique”.
Pangea: does it ever cross your mind, that perhaps this camera is indeed so unique, that even experienced users, who are nevertheless not familiar with Foveon technology, have a hard time, at first try, to get the best images out of the Sigma? Many news SD14 users have initial trouble.
This is also my frustration: I am an avid SD10 user: the camera is capable of extremely good images, but the SD14 would be an entirely new learning curve for me, and hence, despite the price drop, I am still sitting on the fence. I am ready for the initial frustrations, the learning involved? The trials and errors?
BTW, the price drop has been instigated, not because it is a bad camera, but because its price point was too high and thus unrealistic in today’s market, and so, a much needed adjustment was made.
I honestly do believe that this camera can “fool” even the best reviewers, because even many new SD14 users are having a hard time getting to learn its hidden strengths. Also, most importantly for this camera, is its processing software, and this where all SD14 users want desperately to see some major improvements. The camera is much better than the software can bring out.
Even the SD9 and SD10 images have has benefited tremendously from the new software, but it needs to go several significant steps further in this development. Thus, many of the image problems cannot be blamed on the camera, but on the software. Keep that in mind.
Once these issues are resolved, SD14 users will be amazed to see what their camera can do. But do take a look at the good SD14 images posted on http://www.pbase.com, and then when you see a good image, know what the camera is capable of.
If you look only at bad images, then every digital camera in the world is a horrible failed piece of equipment, because of every camera you see plenty of horrible images posted on pbase. Most all of them operator and processing errors.
Again, the SD14 is indeed so unique that, honestly saying, it can and will fool the operator in initially. This is a thinker’s camera. But those who have learned how to use it best, are getting stunning images with it.
I once owned the famed Hasselblad Superwide Biogon lens camera, and I couldn’t get razor sharp images with it. It was all my fault. I was ignorant of some major facts of how to use wide angle lenses, but once a friend of mine explained it to me, the results were consistently fantastic.
If this makes it a bad camera, because it requires too much work on the part of the photographer, then it says more about our spoiled, over-demanding, culture than about cameras. Today, we want everything handed to us perfectly. Is this the the new art of photography? It hasn’t been this way since the dawn of photography, when every photographer using film had to think twice before pushing the shutter button. I am sound old-fashioned, but it’s a good thing that Sigma is a company that still adheres to many of these old traditions. Amazingly, they do this with modern technology.
Do not be so hasty with judging and belittling, and truly, can you really trust all these reviews, which differ so widely? Ever heard of the grain of salt expression? Apply it!
I am a professional BW portrait photographer.
I have an old Calumet catalog form 1989. In it are all sorts of cameras. View cameras, Leica M systems, Canon slr, Hasselblads, Mamiya C330S system, ect… At that time we choose a sysstem upon subject matter and shooting style and never asked one system to behave like another. Why does this current climate of manufacturers and consumers ask the current crop of digital equipment to do so much? Now technology has to do everything perfectly.
Up until two months ago I was a dedicated film user in medium format - the negs being scanned on my Imacon scanner and worked up to large 24″ digital prints. Then I purchased a SD14 having never purchased a piece of Sigma gear previously. I had been intrigued by the SD 9 / Foveon idea when it first came out and just prior to purchasing the SD14 I had tested a Canon 5D. For whatever reason I hated the 5D and recommited myself to film. But now I was curious and remembered my earlier interest in Foveon. I had a look to see what Foveon was up to. This is when I learned about the SD14. I thought I’d have a look at the SD14 and perhaps purchase one for small jobs and the little bit of color I do. This I did.
(Immediately, I began to make BW images/portraits and abandoned the initial reasons for purchasing the SD14.)
Even though I am celebrating my 20th year as a professional, I initially found the SD14 perplexing. I had to completely re-evaluate how to make an exposure in order to optimize the signal to noise ratio needed in digital imaging. Once, I did this, I had to decide when to sharpen and resize in order to create the big, beautiful prints I sell.
After all this was done (with sensitivity), I have to honesty say that the SD14 produces prints, large prints, with an organic and lively character that simiply out shines the work I was producing with my film/Imacon combination. In my studio, I actually have the SD14 prints hanging side by side with my film work and the evidence is there for all to see.
I don’t ask this camera to do more than it was designed to do. Within these perameters, I (more than anyone) am shocked at the high quality of what I am producing. The 70/2.8 lens (which I shoot purposefully use between f2.8 - f4) I use for most or my protraits is outstanding. I have a 24″ print from a file shot w the 70/2.8 at f2.8 - it looks as if it was shot w an 8×10 camera! With every eye lash crisply focused. And too this is an image that I never could have produced w my Contax/Carl Zeiss equipment.
As for percentage of usagable images, my percent is way, way up.
I read these forums every so often. I am always struck by the bias people have. I was in my local professional supplier’s shop a month ago and asked a few questions about dslr’s and technology. I did not tell the person with whom I was speaking that I owned a SD14. He went on to talk about this and that and then came to Foveon. Told me about the sensor and then with a disappointed tonein his voice said that Sigma was making the camera in which it was housed. He had never shot a Sigma.
I was lucky. I came to the SD14 without any bias or expectation, a lot of photographic experience and a determination to optimize the possibilties. Look at http://www.paulthacker.com
Then go to portfolios/Artists Project.
All the 2007 images were shot w the SD14. The others were shot w Contact G2 and the 90/2.8 Sonnar. What do you see?
I am only a hobbyist, so am unable to comment on a lot of the points discussed here. However, I am about to move up from a Kodak bridge camera which has given me lots of pleasure, especially for its colour treatment, to a DSLR. Like most first-timers I first looked at Nikon and Canon models, and then the recent Olympus Evolt-E510 before curiosity led me to look at the Sigma SD14.
Initially I was rather skeptical about the camera, knowing full well that the Sigma website would be full of stunning professional shots, and secondly the first reviews were extremely mixed.
When I discovered pbase.com I spent several hours comparing the images for various models by Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sigma, and for some reason the SD14 gallery outshines the rest. My choice is now made…