Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by c_watson|1, Feb 10, 2014.
It’s a simple but powerful lineup that delivers medium format-level image quality anywhere, anytime. Take all three with you and select as needed for the perfect shot.That made me laugh. Instead of making an interchangeable lens camera they expect you to buy all 3 cameras. Then you'll have 3 batteries to keep charged, 3 memory cards to get mixed up and a bag capable of carrying 3 cameras. I think they've finally lost the plot.
If Sigma ever want their Foveon sensors to be taken seriously they should produce a Micro 4/3rds camera so that masses of photographers could instantly put their lenses on it.
That's nice. I don't understand the 39mp thing though - if it has 4.9mp from it's green and red layers and 19.6mp from the
blue layer where does the 39 number come from? And have they improved the AF and speed issues or are they still
relying on claims about magic sensors to sell the things?
I wonder how close the lens element is to the sensor? Perhaps it is so close that it is more practical to manufacture fixed
lens cameras rather than an interchangable lens camera. Just a guess. I suspect sigma considered IL camera designs,
and for what ever reason (r&d costs?) decided on a fixed lens again. Being a former film user, the foveon sensor
intriguing, and for landscapes, I don,t mind taking my time with camera and tripod. After all, these are niche cameras
designed for the enthusiast/pro interested in IQ over speed and photo journalistic convenience.
With several cameras all with their main and back-up batteries I share the complaint about keeping batteries charged up and depreciate the way manufacturers change battery and charger between models.
There is a lot to be said for fixed lens cameras and the only reason I went to MFT was for the larger sensor and I only had one lens for it the 14-140 which meets most of my needs until for fun I got a bug-eye recently .... for years I only had one lens for my SLR [ or any of my other still cameras]... the digital age has caused people to be spoilt
Photography is taking pictures not changing lenses
I think they've finally lost the plot.I think they never found it in the first place. These guys were the first to produce a compact camera with a large sensor and they still haven't figured out how to make an appealing product. Too bad the Foveon tech landed in their lap.
I wonder how close the lens element is to the sensor?It doesn't matter - they don't need to keep that distance if they decide to do an ILC system. They also use Foveon sensors in their DSLRs, so it's not like they require optics close to the sensor surface.
there are optical advantages to having a sensor matched to a single lens. and for pure IQ, these cameras are probably gonna be pretty good. i didnt see anything in the press release about AF speed though, so it looks like these are gonna be just as slow as previous models and therefore not all that great for anything but landscape/studio photography. hopefully this means the current DP models will go on sale.
I think they never found it in the first place.I agree. Surely Sigma could have made a fortune by selling their Foveon sensors to other manufacturers... just like Sony does now. But no, they chose to cling on to it and tried to do the whole thing themselves. The DP cameras and their hideous DSLRs were always destined for failure. It seems they still haven't grasped reality. It's a shame because their latest high end lenses are very good.
I think if the sensor were really that great another company would have made Sigma an offer they can't refuse by now - or
made a better offer than Sigma for the Foveon company back in '08. I think that in reality the magic sensor isn't so much
of a market advantage, which is why Sigma sells so few cameras. If they want to make money on it they're going to need
more of a value proposition.
I am thinking of buying a Leica X2. So
what's the difference, really?
Let's see the images and how they
compare to similar cameras, cost
aside. People love the Foveon sensor.
It has to be for a reason.
Karim, not all of us love that sensor. Colors can be a bit off at times. While I love the concept of a full color sensor it's just not there yet.
I don't know why Sigma don't just make a knockout camera with a great standard zoom using the Foveon sensor, they always seem to hobble it somehow (way too expensive, non interchangeable lens). The same with their DSLRs. They have a set of great lenses and a great sensor (according to them), but never seem to be able to put them together. This DP Quattro looks dead in the water to me.
Fuji came up with the X100, Sigma came up with this. Somebody needs fired.
Surely Sigma could have made a fortune by selling their Foveon sensors to other manufacturers... just like Sony does nowPerhaps things have changed with this generation, but my understanding is that the last generation of these cameras could produce incredible low ISO photos but were near-unusable above ISO 400 or so. Among most photographers, I doubt low ISO quality is that pressing a concern compared to high ISO quality.
If this technology is solving an interesting problem but one that most people don't really have, most manufacturers probably aren't interested in it.
If this technology is solving an interesting problem but one that most people don't really have, most manufacturers probably aren't interested in it.You're probably right. It could be an interesting avenue for medium format digital backs as they're also useless at ISO 400.
after reading the comments on this thread, it makes me question whether we need tricked-out sensors attached to cameras that can't shoot except under extremely limited conditions, or we need more performance-oriented bodies which dont get in the way. the Foveon sensor and three different focal lengths could have been cool in bodies more attuned to street/candid photography, but snappy AF and high-ISO is a must, and stabilization would have been nice, since the size suggests handholdability. a compact camera which needs to be tripod-mounted is somewhat counter-intuitive.i'd rather see a stabilized improved-AF version of the Ricoh GR in different focal lengths, and more f/1.8 or f/2 lenses.
Instead of making an interchangeable lens camera they expect you to buy all 3 cameras.Switching cameras is much faster than switching lenses. You don't have problem of dust getting onto the sensor either.
there are optical advantages to having a sensor matched to a single lens.Is there any indication that the sensors of the DP line are different and each is made to match their specific lens?
People love the Foveon sensor. It has to be for a reason.People like things that are different even if they don't provide an advantage. Reason's got nothing to do with it, to paraphrase from Unforgiven
Switching cameras is much faster than switching lenses. You don't have problem of dust getting onto the sensor either.You can switch ILCs too - there's nothing preventing you from doing that. And when they break, you still keep the lenses. If these cameras would be inexpensive, it might make sense, but they cost as much as an ILC.
Sensors matched to lenses isn't a real thing. The lenses are designed for short flange distance and sometimes the
firmware has the lens-specific corrections. That's also something you can get with interchangeable lenses, like with the X-
For what it is worth, a few of my personal favorite photos were taken with the Sigma Merrill, which has the same sensor. It was a bit clunky (in terms of speed), but the quality was there. I loved using that camera.
For what it is worth, a few of my personal favorite photos were taken with the Sigma Merrill, which has the same sensor . . .Which ones? Wow! Senior editor! You have a really nice portfolio . . . please post more often!
That is so nice - thank you. This photo was taken with the Sigma Merrill dp3. It captured the colors of that day that I wanted to capture.
Definitely a controversial sensor.
I am intrigued by these cameras but the ISO noise is the killer. How many of us are going to spend a significant amount of time using a camera we can't go above 400 on? It can only ever be an addition. I've heard many things about how nice the output is within it's limitations, and the images I have seen do look good, but they do not look so good as to spend the money and time and working-around on. What Sigma really must do is ACTUALLY bring out a medium format camera with this sensor and three ultra-high end lenses. Then the people who can actually afford them will see huge benefit- companies shooting for Audi, Louis Vuitton and the like. It would be costly but sensible for Sigma to invest if they can literally make the output from a D800 look flat and uninteresting. This sensor needs to be used in a controlled environment.
Stop mucking about with the mirrorless Jo Bloggs crowd Sigma- seek out the high end professionals who can create the conditions to show the sensor at it's best and for whom a radical new look might actually make a lot of money..
the DP3 is about $550-$600 right now on amazon if you get a japanese model. obviously not going to work as a primary camera, but intriguing as a "dedicated portrait compact" ... of course the x100s, coolpix a and ricoh GR have much better hi-ISO capabilities and AF.
Jamie, the DP series cameras have ALWAYS been single-lens cameras. They are nothing new, and they have received rave reviews for their image quality for many years now. The current line of DP cameras capture image quality equivalent to a Nikon D800, but at a much smaller, lighter size. Two DP cameras with their attached lenses are lighter than one Nikon D800 with a single lens. You can put one in a large pocket (some pockets in tight jeans won't accept ANY camera). Currently the problem with the DP cameras is their lack of battery power. One battery, though very small and easily carried in another pocket, can only provide about two or three film-rolls worth (about 50 to 75) of photos - just not enough for most people. Sigma has addressed that issue with this new camera, while reducing the file sizes (and therefore the processing requirements), increasing the speed of the processor, improving the review screen, and improving the ergonomics of the camera. This camera is, of course, not for everyone. The DP cameras never were. But if you're looking for a particular focal length (wide or maybe normal), and you want stellar quality photos from a very compact camera, then the DP 2 Quattro just might be a camera you would like.
No, these are not interchangeable lens cameras, like the Sony NEX or A7/A7r. They're not micro-4/3 cameras. I wish Sigma would make a line of micro-4/3 cameras myself. But they are certainly something special and very capable. Most buyers love them, and no doubt this new generation will prove to be better than ever. The 39 megapixel images will be second to none in the point-and-shoot world. They may even be better than what comes from a Nikon D800! (at less than 1/3 the price)
Stephen Conkie, it seems to me that you don't have a clue. Sigma does not make medium format lenses. They have proven that medium format lenses are unnecessary. They have created cameras that allow people to forgo the heavy, bulky medium format world. Before the Nikon D800 came along, the Sigma SD1 stood proud, the only camera in existence which could compete with the medium format cameras . . . and at less than half the price and weight . . . offering an entire range of lenses from 8mm to 800mm (that's a 100x range!) for photographers who were discerning. Today the image quality of the Merrill sensor is finally being recognized, but for a long time people laughed at the claims that Sigma made. Today we have a great deal of proof that shows the only camera in its price range that competes against the Sigma SD1 is the Nikon D800. And that Nikon competes very well, with faster buffer clearing, live-view, and video capabilities. It even bests the Sigma SD1 in dynamic range too. But I don't think you will find many who will say the Nikon D800E does not compare to the older 22 megapixel medium format cameras and even some new medium format cameras (like the Pentax 645 D), when it comes to image quality. Honestly compare the results from a Sigma SD1 against the Nikon D800E and you will understand that Sigma really did have a camera that compared with medium format image quality at the time it was put on the market. If you know nothing of those comparisons, you can skip it. It is a history not worth learning, but it is out there, if you want to know about it.
So why would Sigma step backward and produce a medium format camera? Sigma is moving forward, providing excellent value. I don't think we will see a pricing blunder from them again. I think they have seen the ignorance of people and how that controls the market. I believe comparisons against medium format is a thing of the past. In the future we will see more and more high-quality images produced by photographers using Sigma's high-value cameras and lenses. They will stick with their 35mm range, in which they are heavily invested. THAT is what Sigma is really all about . . . not competing in the medium format market.
That said, the latest sensor in an SD1 would be a very good thing, upgrading image quality, while reducing file size, automatically improving performance. If noise really does come down, we will see that the SD1 is capable of superior image quality even at ISO 800, when compared to the Nikon D800, which it bests today at ISO 100, ISO 200, and ISO 400. With a resolution increase, we may see detail in photos from Quattro sensors that is not achievable, even from a Nikon D800E. Wouldn't THAT be something?
Not really. You'd still just be pixel peeping at a camera with a thin system that doesn't have stand out performance in any
You're right in a way Andy. The Sigmas do not have stand-out performance in other ways. It is only about image quality . . . the way the Leica S2 system is all about image quality. The nice thing about Sigma though . . . you get that quality at less weight and a lower price than the competition, not more. The Nikon is more expensive and bulkier. The Nikon is slower in bursts too. The Sigma can shoot about 50% faster (in a burst). The new technology of the Quattro may bring even greater advantage to the Sigma line. An SD1 Quattro could end up having a bigger buffer, greater image detail, better noise characteristics, and more. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Oh, and I found something for you to read Andy.
If they gave it a bigger buffer, better AF system and improved the speed and general performance all around, and sold it
at a price in line with other high end DX cameras, and given the improvements Sigma's been making in their lenses,
they'd have something.
You're right. I'm too hard on Sigma. They just get frustrating - they have a few pieces of promising tech and I'd like to see
them turning out more products that push the envelope and make the other companies work harder, but they keep getting
things wrong with the cameras and failing to make a meaningful market impact. They seem to be content with selling
impractical cameras on the strength of sensor resolution.
I've read nearly all of these posts and my initial reaction is that only two or three people have actually used the camera and understand where it is positioned. It is not a street shooter camera or even a camera for someone who wants to go out and get some snapshots on a trip. It's really a replacement for a medium format camera. It's slow to use, slow to focus and slow to write to the card. Pretty much the same thing that you experience with a Hasselblad or other medium format camera. The LCD finder sucks but not any more than the ground glass on a film camera. If you go into it with the expectation that you are going to get an extremely high quality file if you take your time and act deliberately you're going to be happy with the cameras. If you point and shoot you are going to be disappointed.
I have all three. I also shoot with the Fuji X Pro system and the Nikon FF equipment. I use the right horse for the right course and it all works out splendidly.
"Too bad the Foveon tech landed in their lap."thats the point, they have the super sensor and a super lens, in my case the 30mm on the DP2m, and they are not able to produce an, at least "so so la la", body.
Separate names with a comma.