Olympus vs Sigma

[Rick M]

Hey guys, I need some advice. I've had an Olympus E300 for about a year. I've taken about 2500 images and I'm relatively happy. I do mostly architectural and interiors work - mostly on a tripod. I've been doing a lot of reading about the Sigma SD10 and am intrigued. My question is, will it give me better results than the E300? What do you think?

[DSG]

Is the pope Catholic!....Of course it will ;)

Regards

DSG

[coldrain]

Does it give better results in pixel quality? Yes. But... you first have to know if it has the lenses available you want, and what quality the lenses are for it.
Also, some Sigma lenses with Sigma mount are almost impossible to get, no one has them in stock and need to be ordered from Sigma, Japan.

The Sigma has incredible image quality, and its 3.x mp photos have the resulting resolution that approaches 6mp DSLRs.

You only have RAW, and the RAW is different from all other cameras, since it does not need as much processing (no need to de-bayer).

It is slow though, and a new Sigma is on the way (has been on the way for almost a year now though.... when will it surface...).

[DSG]

"Does it give better results in pixel quality? Yes. But... you first have to know if it has the lenses available you want, and what quality the lenses are for it."

First thing you gotta know about me is I dont give a stuff about AF and the second thing is, I dont like to spend more than £100 on any lens....That means, I like to buy the best quality manual focus lenses available for as cheap as possible.
Most of best lenses ever made are actually manual focus/manual stop down models with MTF grades of 4.3 or more.
I have probably the best 28mm prime ever made...The Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagon T* (MTF grade 4.3) and I have probably the sharpest 50mm prime ever made...The Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T* (MTF grade 4.6)...Both are lightyears ahead of any Olympus lens yet made.


"Also, some Sigma lenses with Sigma mount are almost impossible to get, no one has them in stock and need to be ordered from Sigma, Japan."

Well, I woukd'nt know about that as I dont actually use ANY Sigma lenses on my SD10...I use lenses by Contax-Carl Zeiss (C/Y mount), Mamiya 645 (M645 mount), Nikon (Nikon-F mount), Pentax (PK mount) and loads of different M42 mount lenses.

"The Sigma has incredible image quality, and its 3.x mp photos have the resulting resolution that approaches 6mp DSLRs."

Actually its recently been shown to equal the 10mp Bayer Nikon D200!:

http://sigmasd10.fotopic.net/p30397051.html

"You only have RAW, and the RAW is different from all other cameras, since it does not need as much processing (no need to de-bayer)."

???...By their very nature RAW files need a lot more processing than jpgs!
Fortunatly they can be processed quite easily either with Sigma's excellent free software called "Sigma Photo Pro v2.1" (SPP2.1 for short) into Tiff's or Jpegs or with Photoshop CS2 or other good software into lots more formats.

"It is slow though,"

I agree, its certainly slower than the E300, thats thing flies!

"and a new Sigma is on the way (has been on the way for almost a year now though.... when will it surface...)..."

I would'nt hold your breath.

Regards

DSG

[Rick M]

DSG, I can see you are certainly a believer. Now, another question, is the SD9 that much inferior to the SD10? 9's can be had for a good deal less. Again, I'm interested in tripod work so speed, etc., isn't an issue for me. I rarely do flash work. Image quality is really my biggest factor. Your comments are appreciated. Rick

[DSG]

There are some major differences between the two:
The SD10 only needs one type of battery (AA's, CR-V3 or RCR-V3) but like a throwback to film cameras the SD9 needs an additional battery (A CR123 I think) to run the electrical side.
The SD9 has a non-removable IR filter so its usless for IR photography, a plain coated dust protector and it has no microlenses on the sensor but the SD10 has an easily removable IR filter (The "dust protector" is also the IR filter in the SD10) making it great for IR photography and it has microlenses on the sensor.
The microlenses on the SD10's sensor makes the SD10 2 stops faster than the SD9, so its a lot better in low light and higher ISO's than the SD9 (SD9 only goes to up to ISO400, the SD10 goes up to ISO1600).
On the downside the microlenses do make the SD10 a tiny bit softer than the SD9...But I do stress, the word "tiny"!
The SD10 has much more neutral colours than the SD9...The SD9 can exagerate the blue colour of the sky for instance, but some people actually prefer this.
And another major difference is that the SD9 user can only select 1/2 stops but the SD10 user can select 1/3 stops.
So while the SD9 might seem a bargain your really better off getting the SD10 IMO.;)

Regards

DSG

[Rick M]

OK, DSG, now give me your honest opinion. What is the better camera, the DS10 or the Canon 20D? I can pick up a 20D for not much more than the Sigma, and my first thought is that in a year or two the Canon will be worth more, and won't be an orphan in terms of repairs and accessories. Which would you go for?

Anyone else who wants to join in, please do.