5D vs. Sd-14

This might seem like a strange comparison, but I've been vaguely thinking about how to get the best quality within my 'want to spend' range out of the studio stuff I find myself doing and liking more and more since getting my strobist act together. Has anyone used both the 5D and the Sigma SD-14? The sigma puts out some amazing images, but with a lot of cons. The 5d puts out some amazing images, but for me to get a 5D Id be looking at body + lens(es) as minus my 50 mk I all my lenses are APS-C and I have no intention of getting rid of my 30D or lenses for the rest of what I do (though I've used a 5d before, if I could get paid more for some of the on the side stuff I do that could change).

Cost wise the sigma would currently run about $1600 for body and 2 lenses, which is less than the 5D body, and if I were going to go there Id get the 85L so Id be looking at about 4k ish for what realistically would be a limited use camera.

So back to the original question, has anyone used both these cameras and for my specific use (lighted portraits) knowing the pros and cons of both would you consider the sigma over the canon? *sigh* then 4k makes me think Im almost halfway to a ZD... damn this hobby!

I have been following the Foveon stuff for a while as I believe it is inherently a better technology, but it just doesn’t look like it’s going to take off any time soon. I’ve never shot with a Siggy but some of the pics you see on the web are outstanding. But it’s still way behind in some other areas, like only a 5 point AF system and such, though I got to admit, their new dust reduction system is far and away better than Canons. So, for now I would still shy away from the Siggy. They still have lots of work to do before matching the quality of even the new Rebel.

I know all that, I'm asking even with the cons of the sigma for an opinion of someone who has used both in terms of output.

It occurs to me that might have sounded dismissive which wsnt my intention. I've spent a decent amount of time researching the sigma bodies so i know of their (many) pitfalls. Thus why I tried to be specific with what I was asking. I know you were only trying to give advance warning if I hadnt looked into it and I do appreciate that.

I would buy the sigma if the canon lenses fit. I read an article stating that the user could switch the sensor filter and turn it into an infra red camera then switch back to regular shooting. That would be killer on a Canon camera. Thats awesome.

Have you seen this:

http://www.ddisoftware​.com/sd14-5d/

The guy's 5D results seem a little suspect. He should have used DPP as it would probably render color more accurately than Bibble in some cases. Also, some of his 100% crops, such as the leaf under "My Final Take" and the full res flower image are pretty poor examples of the 5D's resolving power...at least as far as I've experienced. It is an interesting comparison nonetheless.

bacchanal: yep, seen it and have the raw files. when I get around to side by siding them I will use DPP, its unfortunate none of the shots are worthy of true comparison.

bacchanal wrote in post #5582976
Have you seen this:

http://www.ddisoftware​.com/sd14-5d/...

Very interesting article. I wish Canon would WOW us and use the Foveon in the new 5D. Couple the Foveon advantages along with the world class engineering of Canon and that would make for one heck of a camera.

nadtz wrote in post #5583126
bacchanal: yep, seen it and have the raw files. when I get around to side by siding them I will use DPP, its unfortunate none of the shots are worthy of true comparison.

Yeah, it's difficult comparing two different systems, since the lens, AA filter, and RAW converter are all going to make a pretty significant contribution to the output result. You might also consider looking at the Fuji S5, which is Nikon F-mount.

Though...I think in the long run (once you can afford the glass), you'd be pretty happy with the 5D.

gjl711 wrote in post #5583167
Very interesting article. I wish Canon would WOW us and use the Foveon in the new 5D. Couple the Foveon advantages along with the world class engineering of Canon and that would make for one heck of a camera.

And let nikon design the body!

^eh?

bacchanal wrote in post #5583205
Yeah, it's difficult comparing two different systems, since the lens, AA filter, and RAW converter are all going to make a pretty significant contribution to the output result. You might also consider looking at the Fuji S5, which is Nikon F-mount.

Though...I think in the long run (once you can afford the glass), you'd be pretty happy with the 5D.

I've looked at the s5 as well, for some reason the sigma images appeal to me more. And I know Id probably be happy with the 5d, but I'm trying to determine given price/performance is it WORTH it (for my use) if the sigma is as wonderful as it seems. Why pay almost double if I don't have to?

_aravena wrote in post #5583312
^eh?

I prefer nikon bodies over canon for ergonomics and handling. My perfect camera would be canon innards with a nikon exterior. Oh, and with a square sensor.

bayer sensors are better at resolving detail.
foveon sensors are better at capturing color.

Color is something you can add in photoshop. Detail isnt.

Ill stick with detail.

What downside does Bayer have re: Foveon? I'd say *only* a small loss in "color resolution".

What downside does Foveon have re: Bayer? Current cams don't have anti-alias filters. Yes!-you really do want one to eliminate the all-to-obious stairstepping artifacts. Also, due to the non-linear response of pixels to color/brightness input, very complex raw-to-image conversions are needed, and from what I've seen and read, Sigma doesn't have this even nearly perfected. Noise, enough said. Finally, due to the higher cost and lower pixel count of Foveon, you get better luminance resolution from Bayer, and the color resolution ends up being close to the same on equal size prints.

Too many "web experts" judge the snappy/sharp Sigma images as better, when a more thourough examination might reveal some hidden truths.

That's *my* opinion...

Anyone who has actually used both? For what I intend to do with the camera color means more to me than detail. The images will end up web sized (mostly) and I hate editing to correct canon skin tones at times.

Its easy to say 'you can add color later' but a simple test I've tried a few times shows me adding color and adding color to match another cameras output or real life after shooting are wholly different things. For some of what Id be doing color accuracy would be important as well, so the less editing Id have to do in that respect the better.

Meh, this is definitly one of those times I wish digital cameras were more like film. what Id give to be able to grab a foveon back for my 30D and call it a day.