Sigma SD14: Quick Look at a Quirky Wonder
by Wesley Fink on June 3, 2008 4:20 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Final Thoughts
The Sigma SD14 is a huge refinement of everything that came before it. It is solidly built, well balanced, and easy to handle, with features that are much more contemporary and competitive than the SD10. These include a good viewfinder based on a real pentaprism with 98% accuracy in the view. The viewfinder is definitely one of the most significant improvements in the SD14.
The 5-point AF system is not state-of-the-art, but compared to the SD10 it is light years better. The AF module is new, so perhaps we can understand that it has trouble finding the right AF point, but it will certainly get better in the future. As a whole, the AF is much faster than the SD10 AF and much more flexible.
The electronics are something of a question mark. We initially had issues with very long start-up times with the SD14, but that turned out to be a CF card compatibility issue. With the change in CF cards start up was very fast - a second or less. However, the SD14, like its predecessors, is still plagued by agonizingly slow image processing. 2 to 3 seconds to image display followed by 6+ seconds to write a RAW image can only be described as slow. The JPEG support is also a nice option, but I think Sigma has achieved a first in that JPEG processing is actually slower than RAW. That is still a mystery.
Once the CF problem was sorted out the reliability of the SD14 was excellent in our continued testing. We are still sorting out the random lock-ups we first experienced with the SD14, but it now appears they were mostly related to a CF card design the SD14 definitely did not like. We have not experienced a single lockup since the CF card change. That certainly makes the SD14 an easier camera to live with than we first reported, but no matter how we recast these results there is no ignoring the slow image processing and write times of the Sigma SD14. We can only wonder what a Canon or Nikon or Olympus could do with the Foveon sensor, and whether the issue is the Foveon sensor overhead requirements or Sigma's issues with building processing boards. Until others release a Foveon camera, we can't answer that question.
With the limited image processing options and the extremely slow image processing of the Sigma SD14 you might conclude that there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to buy this camera. You would be wrong. When used properly, there is an almost three-dimensional appearance to Foveon images that nothing else can duplicate. It is very close to slide film with the kind of fluidity and color depth that is hard to describe but easy to love.
Sigma makes a big
deal of the SD14 being easy to operate, and we would agree that it is very easy to operate. However, that does not mean that the SD14
is easy to use. To use this camera properly requires more work than competing cameras - and a lot of
knowledge about photography. You have to be willing to shoot RAW most of the time
and spend the time in Sigma Photo Pro and Photoshop to get the most from your images.
Frankly, Sigma Photo Pro does a great job on Auto and you can safely batch process
images and save as TIFFs for Photoshop manipulation. For most images this is all the post-processing you may need, which can speed up the process for everyday shooting.
Photoshop CS3 is also reasonably good in the latest Camera RAW support in converting Sigma RAW. It's not quite as good, or as quite as flexible, as Photo Shop Pro, but it is not the disaster that past Photoshop RAW conversion was with Foveon images.
Our title said it all in this case. The Sigma SD14 is a quirky camera that is very slow in processing any images that it captures. Despite that, it is a significant upgrade and refinement to the earlier SD10 and SD9. It is certainly usable in the SD14 version as long as you keep its limitations in mind. If you choose the SD14 you learn to live with its quirks - for the gorgeous quality of the Foveon images. You have to be dedicated to live with an SD14 as there are much easier ways to achieve great results with competitive cameras. However, nothing from any competitor is quite as incredible as the best Foveon images, so there are definitely reasons to try to work with this camera.
The SD14 is probably best in the studio, in macro work, and possibly in weddings where the image quality might make your work stand out. It is even suitable for candids where speed and burst capability are not important. It would, however, be a terrible "candids" camera for sports or family action events or anywhere where slow image display times or slow image processing would be serious handicaps. In the right hands, the SD14 can be a remarkable photographic tool, but in the wrong hands it will just be a source of annoyance.
One thing definitely deserves mention in this review, however, and that is Sigma's extensive line of lenses for their SD series cameras. There are 39 Sigma lenses in their current catalog that are listed as available in the Sigma mount. Sigma-mount lenses are not easy to find, but the better ones we have worked with are very nice indeed. The 18-200mm f3.5-6.5 OS displayed very nice quality and a very competent OS implementation. We shot a number of images at 3 to 4 stops lower than the 1 over focal length rule that were very usable. It was also an absolute joy to mount a 15+ year old Sigma Macro on the SD14 and see it work exactly as it should. It was noisy compared to the best motor lenses form Sigma today, but the AF and exposure was exactly where it needed to be.
Last, after some experimentation and research it was clear the Foveon is better at highlights than at shadow detail. It seems to handle overexposure much better than underexposure. In the end, the best shots came by overexposing about 2/3 of a stop and letting Auto take care of it in RAW processing, or doing a little further exposure compensation on top of auto. This generally gave decent highlights without losing so much in shadow detail.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Friday, June 6, 2008 - link
We have now used two 16GB CF cards that initialize in about a second and write as well as anything to the Signa SD14. They are 150x 16GB TopRam, which is a generic brand available from a number of eBay sellers in the US and around the world. The second is the Transcend 133X 16GB avilable at amazon.com at http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS16GCF133-16GB-Co...">http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS16GCF...ctronics.... The Transcend CF has a reputation for being slow on some digital cameras but it is as fast as anything we have tested on the SD14 and provides 16GB capacity for $84.n4bby - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
hi wesley,the macro sample images are a distinct improvement over those in previous articles, but i still think more demanding/representative subject matter would be helpful. e.g., shots that specifically show the sensors contrast and tonal range, shadow retention, highlight handling, etc... macro shots are more a test of the optics used, and are not particularly demanding of the sensor. i have seen some very fine, professional-quality macro work done on an old Canon PowerShot G3 with a macro adapter.
as a suggestion - nice sample images of PEOPLE would be very helpful. you can often tell a lot about image quality from how a camera/lens captures portraits and candids of people, particularly those of an impromptu nature - and after all, that's what most of us will be shooting much of the time. if you had to name the #1 subject matter of all photographs, it would have to be people!
cheers,
marc
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
After further testing it was discovered that the start-up time issues and lock-ups with the SD14 were related to a CF card compatibility issue. We have done further testing with CF cards, both a 16GB and a 4GB card, that work much better with the SD14. With the new cards start up is about a second which is completely acceptable. The random lockups that were first described in the review are also gone.THE REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UPDATED TO REFLECT THESE NEW FINDINGS.
melgross - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
Let's understand something about the CF card issues.Neither Canon or Nikon have those issues. As far as I know, neither does any other D-SLR from any other manufacturer (even if they use SD cards).
Therefore it IS an issue here, with this camera.
The best thing for readers here would be if you gave the name of the cards to us, so that those who might have this camera wouldn't make the mistake in buying them. This is no doubt a firmware issue that Sigma should resolve.
Secondly, I always have problems with camera images with different resolutions being shown at a native size in comparisons. No one looks at images that way, and it is unrealistic in testing results as well.
While the Sigma images may look at though they are sharp, and that noise is well controlled up through 200, a real comparison with equal image SIZE would show different results.
I realize it's somewhat difficult to do this on the web, but it's the only realistic comparison. A straight bicubic interpolation will give a closer representation than does that small image. I've done many of these tests, and prints.
An 8 x 10 is an 8 x 10, after all (or 11 x 14, etc), no matter what the resolution of the sensor.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - link
You are certainly wrong about neither Canon nor Nikon having problems with high-speed CF cards. In fact Canon cameras often have problems with the UDMA file structures in some of the fastest CF cards above 4GB since the 40D and 5D do not support UDMA. The Olympus E-3, Sony A700, and Nikon D300 DO support UDMA. This appears to be a similar problem, and it is likely related to UDMA.The problem cards are a generic no-label 280X hi-speed cards that are manufactured with Samsung chips - the same chips used in Extreme IV cards. We are not trying to protect any manufacturer, but it is difficult to name a brand when there is not one on the CF cards. The 16GB cards from the same supplier ALSO have lengthy initialization times on the SD14, but the 4GB cards from the same supplier initialize in about a second.
In addition ANY 4GB or smaller card we have tested is fine in the SD14 and initializes in that same one second. So does another 150X 16GB card that advertises complete compatibility with Canon cameras. This is what alerted us to what may be potentially going on.
Compact Flash memory is another subject that we really should do more with in the future, but our advice for SD14 users and potential customers is to buy cards that advertise Canon compatibility. This should be easy since neither the 40D nor the 5D support UDMA. We suspect the SD14 needs a further firmware revision to better handle UDMA cards - the CF cards worked after all but were very slow to initialize. However we need to do more testing to say that with confidence.
For now SD14 users can stay with 4GB or smaller cards or use larger cards that promise Canon compatibility. The 16GB card that works with 1 second initialization for us in the SD14 is the Topram brand, and you can find it from numerous resellers on eBay or direct from sources in the US, Taiwan, Australia and other etailers. The supplier whose 280X cards were problems for us also advertises 16GB 133X memory cards that are "Canon Compatible" that should work fine in the SD14.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
What you're doing here is confusing the ability of a camera to support UDMA, which as of now, only four cameras support, and issues with using cards properly at all. The 1DS III also supports it.We have two Canons here, at home, my 5D, and my daughters 40D, the same ones you have mentioned in your post, neither camera has a problem with our 4 or 8 GB Sandisk Ducati cards, and I've not heard of other problems either. The cards neither give a problem on startup, or give errors upon use. Do they run at the faster UMDA speed? Of course not. But they were bought to run faster with our Sandisk UDMA FW 800 readers. future cameras should support UDMA, so they are a hedge against that time.
If you used generic cards to test a camera for publication—shame on you!
If those cards work properly in other cameras, you should also have said that. If they didn't, then you shouldn't have used them at all.
[quote] We suspect the SD14 needs a further firmware revision to better handle UDMA cards - the CF cards worked after all but were very slow to initialize.[/quote]
By saying that the camera needs a firmware revision you are now agreeing with what I said. So after disagreeing with me on this, you now agree with me on this. Confusing!
I'm also shocked that you are advising people to buy memory cards on eBay!
EVERY authority states quite firmly to NEVER buy memory cards, OR, batteries on eBay, as most are fake, and can be dangerous, particularly batteries.
Only buy these from a reputable dealer, with a money back guarantee.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
It is true that Canon has updated their firmware so that most UDMA memory will now work just fine in their DSLR cameras, but of course it does not run at full speed since UDMA is not supported. However, that was not the case with early UDMA. The 16GB CF that also throws long initialize times on the SD14 is also a problem card on the 40D - which is why it is not used in reviews. The 8GB CFs we use for reviews did work fine in the 40D and XSi.We have reviewed memory for far too long to take your words of wisdom too seriously. Almost no memory marketers make their own memory chips. They buy chips on the open market and most also buy the PCB on the open market as well. The only unique item is the SPD programming in desktop memory where most generic makers err on the side of caution rather than trying to squeeze the last bit of performance from the memory.
Only buying name brand flash memory is generally good advice for consumers because the manufacturer stands behind the memory with a warranty and tech support. That is a valuable feature, but if you know what memory chips to look for you can do fine with generics.
We also have name-brand SDHC cards that won't work correctly in some cameras that support SDHC. The advantage of the name brand, however, is that the manufacturer will replace these with SDHC cards that have been revised and work correctly, where the generic mfg won't generally replace. For some the risk of generic, which often came from the same factory as name brand, is worth taking when some name brand flash memory has a 400% higher price than quality generic.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
You state that MY a about buying memory cards isn't good, but it isn't MY advice you should be taking, its the advice of Popular Photography, Rob Galbraith, who has the longest running, and most reliable database of cards that they have tested, and numerous other well known publications and people you should be taking the advice of. I don't know who this "we" is that you're referring to in your statement about reviewing memory cards. Who are you associated with that we can look to here. I don't ever remember seeing any memory card reviews from you anywhere else.Why don't you show who advises buying memory cards from eBay. I'm sure your readers would LOVE to see that.
Until you can produce some well known authorities, people would be well advised to stay away from eBay and unknown brands, some of which MAY be legit, but some of which are coming out the "back door" of the factories at night. If you want to buy some of those, go ahead, but don't advise others to do the same.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I did not say your advice was not good advice. I specifically said buying brand name flash cards was generally sound advice for most consumers. But your advice that generic memory is always bad memory is just not true. That line is the standard line from camera stores and branded flash manufacturers. Many of the exact same plants that make the recognized name brand flash make the quality generic flash memory you criticise.I have reviewed desktop and notebook memory on AnandTech for years and I have toured a number of memory manufacturing plants in the US and Asia. If you click the memory tab you will see that almost all the memory reviews for the past 5 years at AT have come from me. You will also see articles from memory plant tours of companies that make flash memory in addition to desktop and notebook memory.
If you are concerned about a company that will replace your memory if it fails or most times swap it out for you then the extra protection of brand-name flash memory is certainly worth the extra cost to you. If price is near the same brand-name is definitely the better choice.
However this is an enthusiast site and while we might recommend a brand-name computer (Dell or HP) that we review once in a while, we would never tell our readers that unless they bought a Dell or HP they were getting inferior quality. Most of our readers build their own and they and we know better. Assembling your own does not make the computer inferior. You do have to be smarter in selecting components, because no one is making those decisions for you - just as you do in selecting generic memory based on chips you know are used in the best flash memory produced.
If you recall you began all this by telling me I asked for the problems I found if I was "Stupid enough" to use generic flash memory. Generic memory was not the issue. I can send you a hand full of Brand-name failed and problem memory if it will help you to understand the memory problems like this can occur with ANY memory - whether it is labeled SanDisk Ultra Extreme or Lexar Professional or PNY Optima OR Transcend or AData or Topram.
melgross - Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - link
I never accused you of being stupid. I double checked just to be sure, because I wouldn't do that. I certainly do not think you are stupid. Exactly what I said about that, was this:"If you used generic cards to test a camera for publication—shame on you! "
That's very different, and I stand by it. I've made many tests of equipment over the decades, and I always make certain that all ancillary equipment used for the tests are functioning properly beforehand.
If these cards did function properly with other cameras, the it shows the Sigma is deficient. If they weren't tested before, how would one know that they are functioning properly?
The difficulty with generic cards is not that the will always be bad, but that the likelihood that they will be is much higher than with well known brands bought from a legitimate source.
Despite some (check the post after this) having no problems (or thinking so), many others seem to. Cards are not that expensive these days, and saving a few bucks only to find your fairly new card has failed during a shoot, isn't worth it.
And as I said, much memory coming from those manufacturers sees to leave out the back door. How much of it is substandard, no one knows. A good deal of it even has fake labels from the majors. This is also well known, and likely to be what is bought on eBay at those "too good to be true" prices. Most people won't even know that the amount of memory stated on the label is wrong, or that the performance is less. They'll think the cards are just fine. It isn't even the idea that it will be replaced, but the loss of the files that is the big problem.
Again, Wesley, I don't think you are stupid. I think you're a very smart guy. I just don't agree with everything you say in these reviews.