Sigma SD9 Review Posted

Yes, the sensor is pretty awesome, but to get from there to a photograph, you need a camera and a lens.

The sigma falls short of the current offerings by a longshot - but I do NOT want to see it "die on the vine."

The camera has some SERIOUS shortfalls - look at the sample photos - there are CRAZY halos and ghosts of lights in all the images Phil discussed. Something is not right.

Sure you use sigma lenses for the SD9, but that's ALL you get to use. If you buy an S2, you can use Nikon, Tokina, and GASP, Sigma lenses.

If Sigma had but a Nikon or Canon mount on their camera, then consumers would get to choose the brand of lens - but they didn't. The want to sell Sigma lenses. As a result, (and the fact that their camera is 9 mos late) the will probably eat dust in this market segment.

My opinion only,

Cheers

James

Maybe the lens was fogged up on that occasion it was summer time in UK - Very Damp!!!!

Here is a shot taken with the SD9 last week by a fellow journalist in Dubai, this is just to prove a point. He was reviewing the Sigma for magazine suitablity.

I am hoping that I get to see some of the underwater shots soon.

Wow, what started as just an anouncement has started an interesting and lively debate. I love it.

It has been pointed out this older tecnology has now advanced to 6, 11 & 14 mp, but at what cost - even if the performance could match what the x3's can at under 4 mp?

I don't know. My 6mp D100 cost me $2000. As for the others, yes, there is a cost, most of which consists of the full frame sensor. In Canon's case, you've got a professional body. I did find the X3 images superior to the D30 and the D60, but the one thing that bothered me was the color clipping, obvious white/gray areas absent of color.

The net investment on exta lenses for use underwater is minimal anyway - maybe 3 + a few diopters and an extension tube. Most newcomers would probably opt for just 1 zoom coming in at $250 - $450.

Wait, how can one use the argument about value in choosing the body, Sigma=$1800, Nikon=$2500, then trivial the cost of adding 3 lenses. Especially if you just replicating glass that you already have in inventory. Plus, if you are spending $2000 on a camera, I would think it wise to invest in lenses for underwater use only really did the best job, e.g. a true macro lens and wide lens. Pros have a different mindset. Purchases are an investment with a return. For amateurs, there is no return, only cost.

Secondly, the reality for amateurs is that they don't want nor can afford an underwater d-SLR and a top side d-SLR. I already catch hell for carrying all this photo gear on dive trips, usually three cameras, but at least I don't have to double up on lenses. I haven't even tried, "Honey, if you only pack one outfit, I think I can fit the 4x5 field camera in the suitcase". (sound of camera crashing on my head). I'm trying to reduce the equipment I carry. I'd love to pack just one body and four lenses. OK, maybe two bodies.

Professionals for a long time to come will still be shooting film for the majority of their work, but they will, and are using digital systems in areas it excells like Press photography where speed to hq is important. We are also using the digital technology as a replacement for pre-shot Polaroids - here it's saving a fortune.

 

While we are on the subject of film: You should also check out the advancements in this technology too before blindly insulting its future potential or its very place in future photography.

I'm not sure who this was directed to, but I've got no digital bias. I do see the professional market moving far more quickly to digital than you think. Each obstruction to converting to digital is slowly being dismantled. The three reasons I switched to primarily digital are 1) work flow 2) work flow and 3) work flow. I still like my chromes better. There are several areas where the affordable d-SLR comes up well short (e.g. high speed flash sync, continuous shooting). I still haven't thrown away film in the fridge.

A 16mm lens on the SD9 will still offer 105 degrees without adapters and the abilty to be just mm away from a subject.

Sort of. Your calculation is for a fisheye, which is 180 degrees corner to corner. As for a non-fisheye, the Sigma 14mm will get you around 85 degrees.

I have yet to use the fisheye underwater with the d-SLR so I am still curious as to the results. Topside the fisheye has been less than satisfactory with my D100. The fisheye is more of an "effects" kind of lens. With the focal length multiplier, it goes from 180 degrees to 120 degrees. You lose most of the wierdness "effect" of the fisheye AND get curved lines. Kind of the worst of all worlds. I'm hoping that the curved lines won't be noticeable underwater.

Back to my original comments. Even if there were no issues regarding image quality, I would still question the selection of the Sigma as my d-SLR. My issues with the camera are not related to the quality and technological superiority of the sensor. While some of these issues may be moot underwater, the reality is that most people want a camera that will work both underwater and topside. I make 4-5 dive trips a year, excluding local muck diving. Even on these trips, I do a lot of topside shooting. I shoot a lot more topside than underwater. I need things that the Sigma can't do (e.g. long exposures, high ISOs). I use accessories designed for Nikon, electronic cable releases, cords for off camera flash, MB-100 battery pack w/ vertical grip. I would be concerned about the availablity of accessories.

These are not the grumblings of someone who has already purchased a D100. These are the observations of someone who has examined all the requirements before purchasing once before. And of course, you forget a few until after your purchase. I waffled between the S2 and D100. I felt strongly that the S2 images were slightly better out of camera than the D100. There were other factors that made me select the D100. In hindsight, I could have gone either way, but I would not opt for the Sigma.

Again, this is not necessarily a knock on the Foveon sensor (but high ISO limitation, high ISO noise and color clipping are issues).

Price comparison: Sigma - $1800 (no onboard flash) Nikon D100 - $2000 Canon D-60 $2200, Fuji - $2400

Given this narrow range of prices, I think it's less than optimal to select by body price alone. You have to consider accessory costs in the equation. Penny wise, pound foolish. I've been pound foolish many times in my life.

Non-image quality Sigma issues again:

Lens mount compatibility

No JPEG option N/A underwater (for me)

Slow synch speed (all d-SLRs suck) N/A underwater

No onboard flash N/A underwater

Accessory flash compatibility N/A underwater

Focal length multiplier of 1.7

ISO limited to 400 N/A underwater

Limited exposure times N/A underwater

Wow, this post was way too long. Sorry.

Adding more fuel to the fire, Steve's Digicams just posted their review of the SD9 plus another batch of sample photos. This and the reviews at dpreview and imaging-resources makes three.

If we just skip to the bottom line and look at the conclusions:

Steve's Digicam:

With the Nikon D100 and Canon D60 being available for only $200-400 more, I'd pass on the SD9 until it matures a bit.

Imaging-resources:

I think users give up an awful lot of capability for the roughly $400 in price that separates it from the competing models from Nikon and Canon (and the roughly $800 diference relative to Fuji's S2 Pro). I do think though, that the SD9 will nonetheless find happy homes with many shooters drawn by that price difference...

dpreview:

Phil gave it a "Recomended" rating; he gave the D100, D60 and S2pro all "Highly Recommended" ratings. This was before Dave from imaging-resources pointed out to Phil that his noise tests are incomplete, and caused Phil to reexamine his tests and post an update.

Before deciding to jump in on a major investment in body, lenses, and housing, read all the reviews carefully and examine the sample images. The clipping and noise problems metioned in all three reviews are noticible in lots of these shots. Take this one from Steve for example. At the risk of sounding overly patriotic, I don't think an American flag should have red+orange and white stripes.