03-19-2015, 09:09 PM
AiryDiscus, your post contains some pretty stupid sentences.
100% testing means "each lens is tested" - if you are such an experienced tester, you should know it doesn't mean "each lens is perfect". Others might test one lens per batch, Sigma is testing each. 100% failure free is an illusion, to each manufacturer. I don't know a single one performing on perfection level.
I'm pretty sure you never saw a Sigma testing unit based on Foveon sensor in action, so just stop babbling about. I'm also pretty sure, I never saw it in action, so I better also stop babbling about
But contrary to you, I use Foveon sensors and see what they do and see how they outresolve the Sony sensors.
What counts to me: each Sigma lens design since they started their global vision thing was great - at minimum, and usually better than that. Neither you nor I do know the numbers of lenses sent back. If you're not totally ignorant, a simple check of the usual test sites tells, you don't know much about those lenses - otherwise show some bad results concerning their current lens lineup.
Look at Nikon or Canon and at their prices. And each Sigma prime of the art lens beats their offering, not only in price but in superior quality, resolution and contrast. The last Nikkor I got is in the workshop because of a faulty VR - the one Sigma "copied". Well, keep on telling they copied. To me it appears, Sigma finished their work and makes their OS performing.
A company which keeps up manufacturing cameras although their reputation is only highly appreciated in small circles while the rest moos with the herd, although they are loosing money with their cameras and offering those kind of reasonable prices while the general tendency is "price it higher", this is a better company. In my eyes.
"One camera manufacture does lens QC by taking pictures of a bookshelf across the room. This is horribly insufficient." Well, that's easy to agree. And can be found on many pictures left on a SD card when you get back the body from service, throughout all manufacturers.
"but I do know a very high end limited production company does their QC by actually coupling each and every lens to an interferometer." Sure, you're shopping at those kind of companies, aren't you. I'm not. Actually they can check it with a crystal ball, I don't care, as long as the lens is helping me doing great pictures.
"This is the best form of QC. Any method that involves sampling the lens spot with a sensor without prior enlargement of the spot is insufficient." Well, as I said, you never saw their A1 unit. You're talking about stuff you don't know.
100% testing means "each lens is tested" - if you are such an experienced tester, you should know it doesn't mean "each lens is perfect". Others might test one lens per batch, Sigma is testing each. 100% failure free is an illusion, to each manufacturer. I don't know a single one performing on perfection level.
I'm pretty sure you never saw a Sigma testing unit based on Foveon sensor in action, so just stop babbling about. I'm also pretty sure, I never saw it in action, so I better also stop babbling about
But contrary to you, I use Foveon sensors and see what they do and see how they outresolve the Sony sensors.What counts to me: each Sigma lens design since they started their global vision thing was great - at minimum, and usually better than that. Neither you nor I do know the numbers of lenses sent back. If you're not totally ignorant, a simple check of the usual test sites tells, you don't know much about those lenses - otherwise show some bad results concerning their current lens lineup.
Look at Nikon or Canon and at their prices. And each Sigma prime of the art lens beats their offering, not only in price but in superior quality, resolution and contrast. The last Nikkor I got is in the workshop because of a faulty VR - the one Sigma "copied". Well, keep on telling they copied. To me it appears, Sigma finished their work and makes their OS performing.
A company which keeps up manufacturing cameras although their reputation is only highly appreciated in small circles while the rest moos with the herd, although they are loosing money with their cameras and offering those kind of reasonable prices while the general tendency is "price it higher", this is a better company. In my eyes.
"One camera manufacture does lens QC by taking pictures of a bookshelf across the room. This is horribly insufficient." Well, that's easy to agree. And can be found on many pictures left on a SD card when you get back the body from service, throughout all manufacturers.
"but I do know a very high end limited production company does their QC by actually coupling each and every lens to an interferometer." Sure, you're shopping at those kind of companies, aren't you. I'm not. Actually they can check it with a crystal ball, I don't care, as long as the lens is helping me doing great pictures.
"This is the best form of QC. Any method that involves sampling the lens spot with a sensor without prior enlargement of the spot is insufficient." Well, as I said, you never saw their A1 unit. You're talking about stuff you don't know.