Sigma SD10

[denisb]

Should I buy one?

The price at my local camera shop is £550 including a lense (something like 17-50mm).

The other option is to "follow the crowd" and but either a Nikon D50 or a Canon EOS350.

I have ZERO lenses at present.

Ta.

[Mr Noble]

The crowd usually follow the best options.

The latter 2 you mentioned are the most popular because they are the best. You just have to pick the one you like the feel of best.

That'll be the Nikon.

Greg

[chris.mapey]

I seem to remember reading a review of the Sigma in AP last year.

They quite liked it, but I seem to recall that it only shoots RAW, not JPEG, and that the Auto mode was not much cop. ie to get the best out of it you need to play with the settings.

Two factors to bear in mind if you are starting off:

1) Shooting RAW is another "complication" or hassle, as you need to "process" the files before you can share them with your mates, or upload them to a photo printers (such as photo box)

2) Lenses. Check the availability of lenses.

I have finally taken the plunge, and increased my lens count by using EBay. I have a D70 with the std 18-70ED lens (a cracking bit of glass BTW) I have recently bought two used lenses, a Nikon 28mm 2.8 AF with some filters & a Sigma 75-300 AF Zoom. Total spend was £150 for the two.

It's worth bearing in mind that if you buy a camera that is a bit of a left field choice you are restricting you availability of cheaper used kit.

Hope that helps & have fun whichever Nikon you choose to buy

Chris

edited to add that my D70 with the 18-70 lens was only £599 after the Nikon chequebak deal last year. I have reflashed the operating system with the D70s version, and it's great...

>> Edited by chris.mapey on Friday 17th March 10:53

[monkeyhanger]

Bear in mind this camera was launched over 2 years ago. For £550 you could get a bang up to date Canon or Nikon.

Hears a comparison from DP Review..with a few of what i consider the major "cons" highlighted.

Conclusion - Pros

* 'Single pixel resolution', pixel for pixel much better than Bayer
* Resolution of enlarged images virtually indistinguishable from six megapixel Bayer D-SLR
* Relatively good tonal balance although default curve can be a little contrasty
* Color accurate, improved color response compared to the SD9, especially green and blue
* Improved ISO range, low noise at higher sensitivities at the expense of color accuracy
* Very good automatic white balance, preprogrammed WB settings work well
* Color clipping / gray halos problem from SD9 now fixed
* Third EV exposure steps
* Nice channel split histogram, can magnify in histogram mode
* Undelete feature (recover last image deleted)
* Fast operation, good startup / operation time, although slow CF write performance
* Auto focus relatively fast, worked well even in lower light levels
* Sigma Photo Pro RAW got better, X3 Fill, memorized per-image settings, etc.
* New X3 Fill feature provides excellent shadow enhancement capability
* Firewire (IEEE 1394) and USB connectivity
* Easy to understand control layout
* Dust protector
* Once familiar the sports finder is useful, especially horizontal / vertical alignment


Conclusion - Cons

* No in-camera JPEG, storage implications of shooting RAW
* Very disappointing long exposure / night performance
* Gradual hue shift at higher sensitivities, softer images from ISO 200 upwards
* Heavier and bulkier than some of the competition (although never feels too big)
* Not as feature rich as other digital SLR's
* Sigma QC should ensure no dust on sensor from factory (we had none, others have had)
* Continuous shooting rate limited to 2 frames per second at Hi resolution
* No onboard PC Sync flash socket (req. optional adapter)
* The need to have Sigma SA mount lenses

[denisb]

Ta.

Whimped out, followed the crowd and bought the Canon 350.

Just need to learn how to use it now!