It was a bit bumpy and hard road for me to SD1, but you just have to be putting up that there is not a camera like any other. There are things where you have to simply change.
And if you did that, which is, however, rewarded, with the, in my opinion, best image quality.
I'll prop. From the full-size bearings and have, after a relatively long period with the 5D Mark III, now has about 1.5 years nurnoch photographed with the A99 from Sony (from when I tested other cameras).
But the SD1 can not just test times so you have to get involved in it, and will be rewarded.
Those are a lot of little details that can be initially perhaps not so perceived or observed but that is already beginning when I have a simple landscape photography and I realize "Somehow sees the SD1 image better".
Same scene with the A99 photographed, definitely, the SD1 looks better, try several RAW Converter, nope, SD1 is better.
But why? And when you look at a picture then you realize precisely eg so things like at the Sigma every tree a kompeltt own color, has a completely own shade of green and, depending on the tree even every single branch slight differences in the Farbnouncen.
With the A99 image compared ne, just green. Slight differences in brightness but hardly farbnouncen.
Against the Foveon X3 sensor of 24 megapixels my a99 not stand a chance. Will there also again a few test samples of Imaging Resource grudge showing the.
+ The color separation is much better. Red is red and pink is pink and when I turn the high saturation until the red is beautifully lush red, not explode pink tones in the image. And if there is the finest gradations of color in pink, you'll see at the end also. A dark red and bright red are two different sounds, not the same with slight differences in brightness for Sigma. There are two distinct colors.
+ The color resolution is much higher. Not just the sharpness impression by the enormous color contrast and color gradation is much larger, and the actual resolution is much better.
+ The Lens System from Sigma. Sigma is currently pretty much one of the few manufacturers that do not Ultra Compact Lenses build for people who like to other photographs undetected when Nasepopeln and it lose quality, on the contrary. Sigma is currently building monster lenses where users of other systems envious look over.
Examples are all lenses from the ART series as the 18-35mm f / 1.8, the 35mm f / 1.4, 50mm f / 1.4 and one of the best lenses, I think is the 120-300mm f / 2.8. This is awesome. A zoom lens with the power of a fixed focal length (as the 18-35mm f / 1.8).
And then of course there's the huge set of EX lenses of all focal areas. From 8mm fisheye to 800mm f / 5.6 and more. Alone 5 macro lenses.
So what concerns the lens system, the SD1 I think by far the clear winner over the other popular systems.
+ The sensor brings out more resolution of the lenses
The lens must indeed dissolve a fairly small area and the smaller the pixels are, the harder it is to resolve this for the lens.
The 46 megapixel Foveon sensor are however on the 3 layers and not next to each other. Thus, the lenses must be able to resolve only ~ 15 Megapixel APS-C. It uses the existing edge of the lens so much better.
But now everyone has already written enough praise on the SD1, what about the negative points.
- 5fps continuous shooting speed and buffer for only 7 images + long processing time
- - The camera has 46 megapixels, but this is the bomb
- - You can see the resolution of the camera in RAW to 24 megapixels turn down
- - - The camera then 6fps (At eye higher with 5D3 and A99, faster than D800)
- - - The camera then buffer for 14 shots instead of 7
- - - The images are processed much faster.
The speed, especially the continuous shooting speed, so are perfectly normal. They come a relatively slow because the 46 megapixel, but that is now times a price you have to pay. However, one has the choice, when Sigma can unscrew 24 down in the A99 I can not screw on 46 high.
- Little autofocus fields
The SD1 has actually only 11 autofocus areas, however, all 11 twin cross-type sensors are (for comparison, the 5D Mark III has 5 double cross, A99 and D800 have a single) and the AF points are pleasant and well distributed over the image field.
When the AF-performance lens is working properly and quickly 100% fail. Just as it should be.
- SPP (The Raw Converter Sigma Photo Pro) is incredibly slow
As long as you do not go to 100% view it is prop. Acceptably fast, prop. Hardly slower than others. Only at full resolution, he goes to his knees but hey who needs me 46 megapixels work that must not be forgotten. Most people begin already at the D800 with 36 megapixels to cry because everything is so slow and that the omitted when oh so highly praised Adobe for performance reasons on perfect pixel quality.
However, the SPP has incredible advantages, especially the X3F Fill Light is an absolute highlight of the converter I've no other Found. Too bad, for landscape photography is a must have.
- The display of the SD1
This really is not that great, but that one does not need really. The camera has not always live view and you can see on the screen only the embedded JPEG preview. It served its purpose and is therefore not a points deduction worth mMn
- The noise behavior
If you completely normal in RAW photographs. Until ISO 1600 you can use the camera easily and rushes there about the same rate as the current 24-megapixel APS-C, however, with 46 megapixels! So I would argue that the SD1, has given the megapixels, by far the best noise performance on the market.
The SPP, however, is optimized for the noise of the SD1 and the noise gets damn good out, I know as no other RAW Converter. If I take an ISO 1600 image I get the noise out easily and can still make 100% Crops, at A77 which is no longer possible, for example.
- The camera is not a good all-rounder
Did not know why that one often hears. The camera does everything you need for a camera and dominates all sectors.
I think the camera is to use very well as a fully-rounder and I also use it for all sorts of purposes. Just for the studio it's too bad.
The AF is fast enough to capture and sports scenes and who goes to 24 megapixels also has enough buffer and shooting speed and everything else has a camera just be well made and have good image quality, and there strikes the SD1 the competition by far.
- The Sigma produces false color
Can I really not so confirm. It has several color profiles in RAW Converter and if you put on the neutral colors are exactly neutral and real.. Real than any Bayer camera I've ever seen in my life.
And Finally, a big plus for the manufacturer Sigma and its Firmenphilosophy (but I will not let flow into the rating but I think just personally very postiiv)
- No unnecessary advertising
- Low administrative costs
- Low turnover (in Japan itself leaves an average of 1 employee per year, the company), most employees are in the company for over 15 years
- The complete profit is put into research and development. The CEO is convinced that only a small growth is necessary and it is important to develop new and unique products that you can offer the customer at a good price.
- Family business since its foundation
- "Made in Japan"
It took a few tries, but in each test has so much new positive emerged about the Sigma and you could have as much negative points refute one has so heard from all sides that I am currently at the point that I no longer with my to photograph A99.
When I then but times take with the A99 and a really ingenious motive think I think, "Man, if I had the Sigma now doing with these colors and these details". That to me is the point where I've noticed it's the right camera for me.
Still on the subject of sports, the 120-300mm f / 2.8 makes the Sigma an outstanding figure. Super AF performance super zoom range (450mm by Crop at the end) and even with 2x teleconverter even autofocus with really excellent imaging performance.
Although this camera has an APS-C sensor, I see the competition in full size range and not with the other APS-C Cams. When the noise SD1 may not be able to keep up, but noise performance is pretty much (although it is often presented differently) one of the least important factors of a camera.
The camera delivers excellent results to ISO 1600 and where there is no light need, I do not take pictures.
Also worth mentioning is positive that I saw for the first time an intuitive and effective unconverted QS menu (Canon Q Menu and especially Sony Fn menu are far removed therefrom)
