From: E. Magnuson (edjpgcom_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: Mon Jun 14 2004 - 19:32:12 EDT

• Next message: Bob: "Re: Question on depth of field"
• Previous message: Keith Clark: "Re: OT - IRAQ WMD CONFIRMED -- NOT!!!!!!"
• In reply to: David Kilpatrick: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Next in thread: Georgette Preddy: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Reply: Georgette Preddy: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Reply: Georgette Preddy: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On 2004-06-14, David Kilpatrick <iconmags3_at_btconnect.com> wrote:

> Again, I have to differ - all the images looked to have weak, washed out
> skies except the Sigma.

I guess it depends on what the skies were like that day, that place.

> For anyone selling library pix, the Sigma
> results were very much what is needed in the thumbnails to even get a
> client to click the shot.

Yes, but the question in a camera comparison context is usually which
is more accurate. It's hard to be sure, but you have to balance the
likelihood of *all* of the other cameras getting it wrong with the
frequently observed tendency of the Sigmas to exaggerate blue skies.

--
Erik

• Next message: Bob: "Re: Question on depth of field"
• Previous message: Keith Clark: "Re: OT - IRAQ WMD CONFIRMED -- NOT!!!!!!"
• In reply to: David Kilpatrick: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Next in thread: Georgette Preddy: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Reply: Georgette Preddy: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Reply: Georgette Preddy: "Re: Sigma10D review in a Japan web site."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]