Sigma SD Quattro - Pride and prejudice

There's a review of the SDQ that is so full of prejudice and downright lies that I had to comment, -

Screen Shot 2016-11-09 at 13.47.18.png

This just simply isn't true. In fact I shot a video to show the speed of the AF. Yes the faster ART lenses are quicker than older lenses, but the reviewer is either inept or deliberately telling lies. For whatever reason. 

Well actually no, unless you have severe eyesight problems. Plus running Fuji X Trans images through Capture One Pro is fine if you like soft, mushy images. It's as bad as Photoshop at processing Fuji X files.

I was almost apoplectic reading this and got quite concerned for my blood pressure! It's just so far from the truth that it's probably libellous. Again Fuji jpg's are SOFT, SOFT, SOFT! Maybe this fool is happy with that. I'm not, I want the sharpest I can get and the Sigma SDQ's out of camera jpgs. are the sharpest out there, even when blown up to 39MP.

This is just so biased, so prejudiced and so far from reality that it defies belief. The lack of understanding of what the Foveon sensor is about is so obvious that it either shows a total lack of any experience of using Sigma Foveon cameras, or is nothing more than a shill / troll review. It's a bit like saying a smartphone is better than a 10 x 8 film plate camera because it's quicker to use. There is a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberately misleading) version of what the SDQ is about here. No, it's not an all round, do anything, cover any photographic task workhorse camera, but then it was never meant to be and to review it in those terms is simply taking the p**s. And admittedly this cretin isn't the first to do this, but it still makes a nonsense of the whole reviewing process if people get things so (deliberately or otherwise) wrong. 

No Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax or Olympus camera will yield low ISO quality as good as the SDQ. And it shows just how pointless this reviewer is if they can't see that. I would also point out that using the Sigma software needn't be that slow. - You would think that someone reviewing software would check this out, but no in this case they couldn't be bothered. 

The whole point of this is that in order to be useful,'reviews' have to have some accuracy or else they are just vanity exercises in promoting bias. I write some negative things about Sony cameras, but then I've bought them, used them and freely admit that the 42.5MP sensor is the best Bayer unit I've ever used.

But the Foveon sensor is something different, it works in a different way and it is most definitely NOT that great at high ISO's. I thought everybody who has done any research into it knew that. But again that's not the point. There are photographers, amateur and professional (including myself) who virtually never shoot at anything higher than ISO 200. And who want the best quality images they can get at those low ISO's. This can be out in the landscape or in the studio. Anybody who makes a living from photography knows that clients prefer low ISO images anyway, which is why many of us only work in good light, or if that's not available, bring the light (and / or a tripod) with us. 

All of this makes me despair at both the integrity, usefulness and yes, honesty of what appears on much of the photographic web. And yes you can accuse me of bias as well. But then this blog is something I do for fun. I make enough money from my stock sales not to have to rely on this and I buy all the gear I write about myself. I have no vested interest in promoting one brand over another. I don't get sent cameras to review and don't get any invites to manufacturers junkets.

If you haven't read my previous post on the SDQ then I urge you to do that and compare it with the above review. - I stand by everything I wrote in that review and I know that I will be selling SDQ images for many years to come. I don't promote unnecessary upgrades to pointless cameras and I don't glorify the mediocre. I also made it pretty clear that the SDQ is not a camera for everybody. And I never would assess in in those terms because that's just pointless and dishonest. 

Some of us want the best and we are prepared to pay for it. And we don't have any false and fake review criteria to justify our prejudices. Some of us don't have anything to prove and if tomorrow nobody read this blog then I would simply stop doing it. I have no financial entanglement with any camera manufacturer and I'm not beholding to any of them. As ever what you get is a genuine assessment of what I'm working with. If only that were true of most of the other photo journalism on the photographv internet, then maybe it would be a more useful place to come to decisions about what we should buy than it currently is. I live in hope. But then Donald Trump got elected president of the USA so that may be in short supply from now on!!