From: nospam on
In article <310520101735030226%rag(a)nospam.techline.com>, Mr. Strat
<rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> > Sigma has once again delayed the launch of its long-awaited SD15 DSLR,
> > Amateur Photographer understands.
>
> What loser is awaiting this POS?

<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1027&/sigma-slr-talk-
forum/>

the funny thing is, a lot of the hardcore fanbois are completely
disillusioned with sigma and the sd15 debacle.

if that doesn't spell failure, i don't know what does.
From: Scott W on
On May 27, 11:11 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigma's SD15 DSLR hit by further delay
> Thursday 27th May 2010
>
> Sigma has once again delayed the launch of its long-awaited SD15 DSLR,
> Amateur Photographer understands.

Does anyone care? No.
From: nospam on
In article <4c0638dc$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:

> Not to defend Sigma, but it's rather incredible that a rental company
> would even rent their lenses out in the first place. It would be like a
> tool rental company renting out tools from Harbor Freight. Products
> designed to be inexpensive and lightly used are not good products to
> rent out.

not all sigma lenses are low priced junk. look at the new 70-200
stabilized lens which is supposedly priced around $2000 (i don't think
it's out yet so no actual pricing that i could find).

they also have some niche lenses that nobody else makes. people are
willing to pay for sigma lenses, so why not rent/sell them? however,
lensrentals said they will *not* carry sigma when there's an
alternative.
From: J. Clarke on
On 6/2/2010 4:10 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4c0638dc$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to defend Sigma, but it's rather incredible that a rental company
>> would even rent their lenses out in the first place. It would be like a
>> tool rental company renting out tools from Harbor Freight. Products
>> designed to be inexpensive and lightly used are not good products to
>> rent out.
>
> not all sigma lenses are low priced junk. look at the new 70-200
> stabilized lens which is supposedly priced around $2000 (i don't think
> it's out yet so no actual pricing that i could find).

The price has no bearing on whether or not it's junk you know. High
priced junk is still junk. I'm not saying that the new 70-200 _is_ junk
mind you but based on past performance it's best to assume the worst
until proven wrong.

> they also have some niche lenses that nobody else makes. people are
> willing to pay for sigma lenses, so why not rent/sell them? however,
> lensrentals said they will *not* carry sigma when there's an
> alternative.



From: nospam on
In article <hu6ka701qjp(a)news5.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

> > not all sigma lenses are low priced junk. look at the new 70-200
> > stabilized lens which is supposedly priced around $2000 (i don't think
> > it's out yet so no actual pricing that i could find).
>
> The price has no bearing on whether or not it's junk you know. High
> priced junk is still junk. I'm not saying that the new 70-200 _is_ junk
> mind you but based on past performance it's best to assume the worst
> until proven wrong.

my point is that sigma is now offering lenses that cost *more* than the
exact same thing the camera makers offer. if someone is going to buy a
third party lens, it should be *less* expensive, or be wildly different
like the 200-500/2.8.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: My new photosite
Next: Samsung NX10 a disaster for video?