That's a fairly serious criticism - I always felt that Sigma had been
treated unfairly (such as by people insisting on quoting one-third of
the effective pixel count).
Have you sent the objection to DPR? They should be prepared to respond
to a serious question like that.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 19/11/2009, at 2:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I think you can sum up DeepPee's ideals and philosophy to ACR with the
> following quote from the Sigma DP2 Review:
>
> "The Sigma's results are rather over-sharpened by our standard
> workflow
> because it includes a sharpening step to compensate for the
> low-pass/anti-aliasing filter (which the Sigma doesn't have)."
>
> So, what you have here is their own default setting designed for the
> normal
> Bayer Array that they didn't even bother to adjust for the non-Bayer
> Array
> in the Sigma! They complain that the Sigma is "OVER-SHARPENED" when
> it had
> absolutely nothing to do with Sigma, but their own dogged, head-in-
> the-sand
> ways.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|