Ouch! DPReview absolutely slams Sigma DP-1

Frankly, I've never seen so many "Cons" in proportion to the "Pros" in a dpreview

review:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page21.asp

 

Summary:

 

"Great for: Landscape photography in daylight"

 

"Not good for: Low light, indoors (social snaps), movies, anything that requires

speed"

 

I guess my large-sensor, compact-cam "ship" has not yet come in...

Actually, the conclusion was not very well done - yes it has some negatives, but the

conclusion reached seemed to be more about buying a DP-1 vs. a DSLR.

<p>

But that's not the real question - the real question is, is the DP-1 good at what it tries

to be, a "serious compact" as they with DSLR quality? And there the review shows

it does succeed. It has far lower noise at ISO 800 than the GRD-II. The color

resolution tests show what those of us already shooting Foveon cameras have

already known for a long time, that in real world conditions (i.e. color) the camera

can deliver results better than just about any other camera (including the M8,

renowned for sharpness):

<p>

<a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp">http://www.dpreview

.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp</a>

<p>

Indeed, there were many positive points like that scattered through the review,

including resolution tests that show it almost matching a 12MP bayer camera and an

11--stop dynamic range from RAW.

<p>

The negatives there are things that may put off some buyers, but they are buyers

better off with other cameras anyway. The DP-1 is for people whose primary

concern is image quality, even in low light - and there the DP-1 delivers. It delivers

on resolution, on color accuracy, and dynamic range. If that's not your ship, I have

news - your ship is not coming.

Kendall, I'm interested in hearing more. I AM looking for a good low-light compact, and I'm willing to both pay the 800 bucks and to wait awhile between RAW shots (heck, I use a Sony R1 now).

 

You say, "The DP-1 is for people whose primary concern is image quality, even in low light - and there the DP-1 delivers."

 

But dpreview says, "While the DP1 can produce some brilliant results in daylight it is almost completely useless in any low light situations. At higher sensitivities you'll find large amounts of chroma noise in your images and you start losing detail. Turning on the flash won't help you much either, it is very low power and takes ages to recycle. Chances are you would not be able to focus anyway. The AF gives up completely once you dim the lights and there is no AF help light on the DP1."

 

I do think that eventually a compact camera with SLR-like low noise levels at high-ISOs will come over the horizon. But the review makes it sound like the DP-1 is not that camera, and the fact that regardless of quality it doesn't even offer any ISO higher than 800 - standard now in SLRs that cost less than the Sigma - isn't encouraging.

 

Am I mistaken? Are there low-light, lots-of-shadow-area, ISO 800 samples from the DP-1 available for inspection online?

Go find yourself a used Fuji F31, and then be ready to overpay. Otherwise, you are still waiting.

I already have a drawer full of Fujis (F10, F20, F30, F31, F50 and S100fd). They're good considering the sensor size, but I'm still curious what a manufacturer could do with an APS-C sensor (or even 4/3!) and an f2.8 lens (or faster; remember the Canon G3's f2 lens? Granted, that was a small sensor, but that was 6 years ago(!} and surely if a manufacturer put their heart in it they could accomplish something at F2.8).

 

Perhaps I should look at the Live-View Olympus SLR with the pancake lens...

I've recently found the formerly very reliable dpreviews reviews not to be of the caliber they used to be.

The Sony R1 had an f/2.8-4 lens, using an APS-C CMOS sensor. Sales were pitiful, and camera makers took note.

 

As far as the Sigma review goes, it falls neatly with the plaudits and (serious) complaints seen thus far in other reviews.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma-dp1.shtml

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DP1/DP1A.HTM

Might Kendall Gelner's opinion here be a little biased? He does after all work for Sigma. Many promotional images for the DP1 and SD14 on Sigma's websites were produced by Mr. Gelner. He should have disclosed this relationship when offering his comments so we could gauge just how much salt it is indeed worth in this discussion.

 

While I agree that dpreview.com reviews recently have been variable, their review of the Sigma DP1 is consistent with what I have heard elsewhere. It is slow and full of limitations for anything but daylight landscape photography. This gathering consensus of all but the most ardent Sigma/Foveon loyalists, is leading to slowing sales (they are down to virtually nothing in Japan) and used DP1's are already turning up for sale all over the internet. The market doesn't lie.

 

It is a shame really, as there are many, like myself, who have been waiting for a camera like this -- a DSLR-quality sensor in a compact P&S body. One hopes that the experience of the DP1 doesn't put off other manufacturers from producing a product for this space. This type of product still has great potential. It just requires a manufacturer with better project management and execution skills, the ability to tap into extensive digital P&S design and production experience, and, perhaps, a manufacturer not wed to the Foveon sensor.

Sony's got the engineers and plans somewhere in their old Konica-Minolta files, if they'll just pull them out and make it a digital camera...

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/konhex.htm

 

This camera in digital form I would pay DP1 prices for. The DP1, I won't.

If it is true that Mr. Gelner works for Sigma, mention of that fact is indeed a very troublesome omission from his post. Some other tidbits worth mentioning:<P>

 

<I>resolution tests that show it almost matching a 12MP bayer camera</I><P>

 

<B>No.</B> The resolution tests show it matching a 5 or <I>maybe</I> 6 MP Bayer DSLR, or a 7 MP Bayer compact. Specifically, DPReview reports 1500 and 1525 lines of absolute resolution. On this point, they say it "cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR". The extinction resolutions are values of only minor secondary interest, probably mostly artifacts of the lack of (or only weak) anti-alias filter. It's like the film fans who want to talk about film resolution past the 50% MTF limit--you might get a little more detail, but mostly you get grain and stuff--not really useful image. Granted, the color resolution is comparatively high, but for the most part the B&W resolution is what we see as fine detail.<P>

 

<I>an 11--stop dynamic range from RAW</I><P>

 

Not exactly. They say 8.8 stops, but then note that if you shoot raw, aren't affected by red channel clipping, and are willing to put up with color shifts and such, you can get more--they say that the more you get isn't very useful.<P>

 

To be fair, they do give it a 9.0 for image quality, although I think that is compared to other cameras with 4.7 MP and of that small size.<P>

 

I do hope Sigma or somebody can produce a digital equivalent of a Canonet G-III QL17: big sensor, good <I>fast</I> lens, compact, full manual control, reasonably priced. Theoretically, the Foveon sensor appeals to me. But the DP-1 does not look like the real deal. Maximum aperture of f/4, bad noise above ISO 200, and that much money?!

Lotus - I do not work for Sigma. As I have stated on this board in the past, I did

take some of the sample images they used in the official DP-1 gallery - but I have

not, nor I have I ever, been a Sigma employee. I arrived at the position of using a

DP-1 prototype because I had enjoyed using past cameras and gave images to

Sigma for use at PMA and other tradeshows. I probably should have disclosed I

took some of images but I was in a hurry in my initial post and I had not yet

mentioned them, and honestly If I say that in every post it would sound more like

bragging than a disclaimer. Why you think someone who has a month or two more

experience with the camera than most people commenting on its abilities, is a

mystery to me - as is your continued bashing of Foveon cameras on this and other

boards. Odd you chose not to disclose your years of Foveon bashing which seems

rather more relevant to your post than any of the things I said (which I note you did

not dispute, only bothering to attack myself) ...

<p>

I post foremost and singularly as a happy user - and is not that the very experience

people seek to draw on in responses to learn more?

<p>

On the Fuji - I totally agree with Ralph. I think Fuji is indeed the best compact P&S

around, for general use - I bought Fuji digital P&S cameras for my extended family.

But that does not mean they come anywhere close to the clean images you get from

the DP-1, even with some chroma noise at higher ISO...

<p>

Ralph, on low light... I find the AF does work in lower light, but it is slower and it

needs some point of contrast to lock on and then it will work. If those conditions

can't be met though, there's always the manual focusing which thanks to the wheel

and on-screen display is far more usable than any other P&S camera I've ever used

(the DP-Review helpfully mentioned the MF mode along with the great magnification

feature it offers making fine focus possible).

<p>

The end review mentioned Chroma noise but really that is mostly a problem when

shooting JPG, not nearly so much shooting RAW. It's not just as simple as high

ISO having chroma noise though, as using ISO 800 outdoors or using flash yields

pretty good images without much chroma noise, whereas incandescent and florescent lighting is harder to capture without noise (but honesty, given the

spectrums in question all cameras have to work harder and have more noise).

<p>

Some examples of this are this ISO 800 image:

<p>

<a

href="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4717962_rRZTG#279263932_YCiRn">ht

tp://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4717962_rRZTG#279263932_YCiRn</a>

<p>

<img src="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/photos/279263932_YCiRn-M.jpg"/>

<p>

and this ISO 400 image:

<p>

<a

href="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4717962_rRZTG#279264151_Hi7Be">ht

tp://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4717962_rRZTG#279264151_Hi7Be</a>

<p>

<img src="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/photos/279264151_Hi7Be-M.jpg"/>

<p>

Both of those were taken indoors, but with a fair degree of natural light coming in

from windows as it was daylight outside. Here's one where the outside light is

fading:

<p>

<a

href="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4831516_hUUf5#287542558_5fSeD">htt

p://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4831516_hUUf5#287542558_5fSeD</a>

<p>

<img src="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/photos/287542558_5fSeD-M.jpg"/>

<p>

Also the noise generally only appears in underexposed regions, if you are willing to

forgo some of the higher dynamic range by dropping the shadows a bit much of the

noise is gone, as in this ISO 800 image:

<p>

<a

href="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4831516_hUUf5#287530225_dJrqk">htt

p://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/4831516_hUUf5#287530225_dJrqk</a>

<p>

<img src="http://kigiphoto.smugmug.com/photos/287530225_dJrqk-M.jpg"/>

<p>

That image was taken during the day, but deep in the bowels of the Orlando airport

where no outside light reaches the poor workers beneath - so it's really only artificial

lighting at work. Here you can see the kind of noise they are talking about in the

darker regions of the ceiling.

<p>

Those images all have full-size originals - hover over the image with your mouse,

and in the menu that appears click "Original" (or you can also download them to

examine yourself).

<p>

On a side note, while the camera officially only has an upper limit of ISO 800, you

can get a bit further by pushing the exposure and bringing it back in the RAW

converter - here's a great example of that technique, that shows you can work color

up to about ISO 1200 in good light, and pretty far beyond that if you are OK with a

B&W conversion:

<p>

<a href="http://www.rytterfalk.com/2008/03/01/sigma-dp1-first-

impressions/">http://www.rytterfalk.com/2008/03/01/sigma-dp1-first-

impressions/</a>

<p>

That's another beef I have actually with a blanket statement that it can't work in low

light, when there's no other P&S that can give you B&W results like the ISO 3200

stuff he's showing there.

<p>

If you want more sample images, there are a lot of original size images on Flickr

(search for DP1 I think) and also on PBase, where many people post full size

originals as well. I don't think at this point there is a paucity of general examples

from which to make up your mind!

<p>

I can understand if the limits in the end are still too much for you, but if indeed you

are really after image quality and don't mind small delays here and there the DP-1 is

an awesome camera.

<i>I do hope Sigma or somebody can produce a digital equivalent of a Canonet G-III

QL17: big sensor, good fast lens, compact, full manual control, reasonably priced.

Theoretically, the Foveon sensor appeals to me. But the DP-1 does not look like the

real deal. Maximum aperture of f/4, bad noise above ISO 200, and that much

money?!</i>

<p>

<i>I've recently found the formerly very reliable dpreviews reviews not to be of the

caliber they used to be.</i>

<p>

they have slammed the GRD before and didn't consider it to what is is... a

photographer's camera catering to the original GR with a tiny sensor...

<p>

all things considered, smallish camera designs need to compromise something,

unfortunately... My main thing is street photography and I have used everything you

guys can imagine, Leicas, Canon EOS Elan/10D/5D, or a Rolleiflex on occasion and

the Ricoh GRD for a year and a half.

<p>

I also shot a Canonet QL17 for a while and not everything is candy, either. The

aperture and shutter controls are cluttered around the lens and are way too finicky

for serious work. The meter doesn't do more than ISO 800 (which doesn't matter to

me, since I can ignore it) - while the lens is fast it, lacks in the contrast department,

but I'm not bashing this sweet 30 year old cam from the yesteryears.

<p>

 

The GRD was a great deal to me, since it was the only small digital camera with

dedicated controls, just like a "big" camera. I've taken great shots during the past

1.5 years with it - mind you, I'm not a bokeh creeper nor a pixel peeper, even

though the results count and I'm not excluding good post-processing. The GRD did

good and I still have it.

<p>

 

Needless to say, I anticipated the DP1 ever since it was announced and finally got

my hands on it by the end of April. f4? seems to suck initially, but working the

streets I want to zone focus and f4 gives me sufficient depth-of-field for focusing

error to begin with. check.

<p>

 

autofocus on the DP1 is yucky, maybe worse than on the Ricoh, so I don't use it

with the DP1. The DP1's manual focus with its dedicated wheel beats Ricoh's snap

mode and is still not on par with a manual lens (I also use a Leica, but hell I'm not

spending 5k on a crippled M8) and I'm used to guessing the distance. The DP1 has

a focus wheel with distance indicator. check.

<p>

 

DP1's lens is ace, sharp, virtually no distortion, vignetting at f4 is negligible <p>

 

The DP1's image quality is outstanding at any given ISO in decent light - yes, I have

to shoot RAW in order to achieve the best image quality and it slows the camera

down. same with GRD. or shoot film. check.

<p>

 

In all honesty I used the GRD w/ jpg from day 2, since the RAW writing speeds were

so slow. The truth is that the GRD sensor/processing barely benefits from RAW. jpg

is faster here and I'm getting great results. period. check.

<p>

 

The ultimate gratitude -and grain of salt at the same time- is shooting the DP1 in

RAW mode (even more so than with a Bayer sensor, believe me). the grain of salt:

you'll need to process your images on your computer with Sigma Photo Pro, which

is obviously perfected for the Foveon sensor, but will take it's sweet time, even on a

fast computer (I'm using a 2x2.33GHz Mac), but the results will blow your mind.<p>

At first, you'll see the thumbnails in SPP and be surprised - low ISO images look

ace, but anything above 200 will make you ask "wtf!?" saturation sucks, sharpness

sucks - but once the Sigma software pulls it plugs on the RAW files, gets in gear,

and works its magic with your optional manual settings... the images don't look like

anything I've seen before from a pocketable digital camera ever. this thing is on par

with a crop DSLR from one generation ago (say EOS 10D). let alone scans from a

Canonet. check for image quality. uncheck for worflow.

 

<p>

just my 2c from a street photographer's view

One more thing - for those interested in more of an exploration of the DP-1 dynamic

range, here's a great test with the DP-1, D-LUX and G-9 together:

<p>

<a href="http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/05/dp1-shootout-pt-6-dynamic-

range.html">http://www.seriouscompacts.com/2008/05/dp1-shootout-pt-6-dynamic-

range.html</a>

<p>

Also thanks for the detailed comments Markus, it's good to hear from people who

have spent more time with the more advanced compacts than I have.

<center>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/2479162529_1d8917176d_o.jpg"><br>

</center>

<p>

My solution, quite close in size and shape to a Leica M, is a Panasonic L1 with the

new Olympus ZD 25mm f/2.8 lens fitted:

<p>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/panasonicL1_olympus25/">link to

Panasonc L1 beauty shots</a>

<P>

The more I use it, the more I like it.

<p>

Godfrey

I just noticed Dave's comments, which contain this:

<p>

"No. The resolution tests show it matching a 5 or maybe 6 MP Bayer DSLR, or a 7

MP Bayer compact. Specifically, DPReview reports 1500 and 1525 lines of absolute

resolution. On this point, they say it "cannot really compete with a modern 10

megapixel DSLR". The extinction resolutions are values of only minor secondary

interest..."

<p>

There are a number of corrections to make here.

<p>

The first is that the resolution charts were all shot JPG only - and as the review

itself said, you get more detail from RAW.

<p>

The second is that my comments are based on how close the image results are to

the 12MP 450D when upsampled, and on personal results from printing. Why are

you spending time considering only test charts when even the review itself has

perfectly fine sample images to examine?

<p>

Also, the extinction values are key to why the Sigma images can achieve this -

because the detail you see past that 1550 point is generally representative detail,

that echos the actual image contents. You can see that in the test chart - the

number of lines may not be exact past the single pixel level of detail, but as the

review noted instead of much you see there are lines there. In real life that

translates to seeing window blinds instead of a blank window, leaves on trees or

blades of grass instead of green mush, and hair that looks like hair and not molded

plastic.

<p>

Furthermore in commenting on resolution charts only reaching 1550, you oddly

neglected to mention the color resolution charts as well:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp">http://www.dpreview

.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page20.asp</a>

<p>

For a red line on blue background (say approximating fall leaves against the sky) the

non-Foveon cameras could not match the Foveon captured resolution. If the DP-1

is supposedly only a 7MP camera how is it then that a 10MP camera like the M8

cannot even come close to DP-1 results on this chart?

<p>

Do you shoot zebras in the real world, or do you shoot color? I shoot color subjects.

And that remains true even if you do only B&W work - your subjects at time of

capture are in color, you only convert later and then it helps to have had a consistent image as a base to do your conversion from.

<p>

To better understand the true variety in detail a bayer image delivers with color

subjects and why the Foveon chip can deliver more detail than you might expect,

this article comparing the SD-14 (same sensor resolution as the DP-1) with the

Canon 5D makes for excellent reading:

<p>

<a href="http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/">http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-

5d/</a>

<p>

Along with this article comparing prints (in the end should not a good print be a worth

goal?) from the SD-14 to the 14MP Kodak 14n:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx.htm">http://www.whisperin

gcat.co.uk/scans/sd14vs14nx.htm</a>

<p>

Dave also said:

<p>

"Not exactly. They say 8.8 stops, but then note that if you shoot raw, aren't affected

by red channel clipping, and are willing to put up with color shifts and such, you can

get more--they say that the more you get isn't very useful.</p>

<p>

If you look at the very end of that page:

<p>

<a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page11.asp">http://www.dpreview

.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page11.asp</a>

<p>

You'll find they note the usable range is 10.3 EV for SPP default, and 11.5 EV for

SPP best (which is where they complain you start to see more flattening than real

detail). Of course since the flattening looks better than sharply clipped highlights, I

find some value in that and that's why I averaged the figure to 11 instead of saying

11.5.

<p>

Red channel clipping is also not much of a problem in real shooting, you go down

perhaps -0.7 EV for very strong reds. But since you have so much range to work

with that's not really an issue. A poster on another forum brought up the interesting

idea of using a cyan filter to address that and allow you the full use of the range

again, I may try that at some point.

Godfrey - very nice image, but the Panasonic L1 is just not as pocketable as the

DP-1 - with a camera overly large for a pocket, I might as well bring a DSLR.

<p>

For those interested in DP-1 macros, here's a very nice set of examples on Flickr

taken using close-up adaptors:

<p>

<a href="">http://www.flickr.com/photos/seng_merrill/sets/72157604502731331/</a>

<p>

An example:

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2455288180_302eed4378_b.jpg"/>

<p>

Of course, to use close up adaptors you need to bring along the adaptor and lens

hood (which has the 46mm thread for the filter). But that can be kept in a different

pocket and easily attached when needed...

There is one place where the DP1 is getting better image quality than some DSLR.

Bright sunny day landscape shots. The DP1 is a lot lighter than most DSLR so it is my

number 1 candidate in taking up in the air. I took both the DP1 and my Nikon D60 up in

my electric helicopter and in my opinion the DP1 is consistently coming back with

better image quality than the D60.<div></div>

Now the D60 shot.<div></div>

<i>..<br>

Kendall Gelner:<br>

Godfrey - very nice image, but the Panasonic L1 is just not as pocketable as the DP-1 -

with a camera overly large for a pocket, I might as well bring a DSLR. ..<br></i>

<br>

Never said it was ... it's just my solution to the compact camera problem. I love the size

and shape of the Leica M as a compact camera, had them for many years, but I'm not

yet quite willing to spring for the $8K or so necessary to go with an M8 plus two lenses.

<br><br>

The trick to the Panasonic L1 fitted with the Oly 25mm lens is that it is just about the

same size and weight as that M8 (body is thicker by 10mm) yet it is a full DSLR system

camera that I can use with a wide range of lenses depending on circumstances. It fits

handily in a very small shoulder bag (or largish belt bag) and is not heavy. The control

organization and responsiveness is excellent, and it handles ISO 800 very nicely, even

ISO 1600 in a pinch.

<br><br>

I was very enthused by the DP-1 when it was announced, but honestly: I just got tired of

waitng for it and, now that it's finally available, I find it less appealing and not worth $800

to me. It does take nice pictures when exploited for its strengths.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

Far more meaningful to me than test charts or comparisons of 100% crops of pictures I'll never take are the photographs and the experiences of <i>people actually using a camera to take real-world pictures</i>.<p>

 

Therefore, I'm very glad that Markus and Kendall, who have been out using the DP1 for picture-taking have commented here at length. And since I'm a street snapper (an enthusiast, really) who admires Markus' photos, I'm especially interested to hear what he says.<p>

 

From the dpreview conclusion, I came away with the sense that the DP1 would be a very capable camera for landscape or architectural photography in ample light -- two kinds of photography I generally don't do. Now perhaps I'll need to rethink this.<p>

 

Interesting also to read Ellis' comment about dpreview. I don't <i>study</i> enough reviews there to generalize. But one camera with which I'm a bit familiar, the Pentax K10D, did comparatively poorly on dpreview's image quality "scoring," resulting in that camera being downgraded to "Highly recommended (just)." <p>

 

That's disturbing, at least until you realize that the camera's lower dpreview image quality score was a byproduct of its less-than-optimal handling of straight-out-of-the-camera jpegs taken at default settings. <p>

 

While I believe it's fair, for purposes of standardization, to test and to criticize a camera like the K10D, or any camera for that matter, on the basis of how it handles straight-out-of-camera jpegs at default settings, I doubt most photographers interested in the camera would rely principally upon that output. <p>

 

And if they are relying upon that output, well, I say they shouldn't ! :-)<p>

Michael - you make a good point that DPReview places a bit too much emphasis on

JPG quality over RAW, and that can hurt camera scores. The DP-1 score was I

think lower more because of other things added to that - but as I've said before I do

not think sufficient weight was given to the things the DP-1 does very well, like

manual focus which to my mind takes a lot of pressure off AF in low light where no

P&S does very well anyway. The DP-Review review data shows the DP-1 has good

ISO 800 images (though there again they relied too much on JPG when there is a

huge difference in noise quality between that and RAW) so it can work as a low light

camera if you are willing to live within the photographic parameters of the lens and

ISO, and at times push exposure a little.

<p>

Also one more thing of note - the DPReview resolution chart result was around 1525

LPH. This I am now putting in question, due to two things:

<p>

1) The link I posted above with the color resolution comparison measures the SD-14

at 1700 LPH, and the Canon 5D about the same as DPReview rated it (meaning he

knows how to use a resolution chart)

<p>

2) In a much older review of the Sigma SD-10, which has about 17% lower resolution

- the camera scored HIGHER than the DP-1 at 1550 LPH! There is simply no way

the DP-1 does not have more detail than that older camera - it has better glass, and

more resolution with a newer sensor. Much of the difference there may be because

the DP-1 res chart was shot with JPG, and the SD-10 was shot with RAW (the SD-

10 only had RAW output, no JPG).

<p>

So I would take the resolution numbers with a grain of salt.

Wow this is all too technical. Just take some pictures with one and decide whether

you like it or not. If I had listened to dpreview I'd have been an unhappy owner of a

G9 as my second camera. Not that it's not a great camera, but I really wanted wide

angle in my pocket.

 

I went to the shop took pictures with the cameras I was interested in and chose the

one that produced the pictures I liked. Take your laptop! For me it happened to be a

Ricoh GX100. dpreview confused me to bits so I used my own judgement.

Sounds to me like it just needs a better autofocus, be a bit quicker on the draw, and maybe a 3x optical zoom to be a real winner.

David:

 

1) Better AF may be a possibility, in either firmware upgrades or future models (the

AF speed has already improved a little in the last two firmware upgrades.

 

2) It may be a little slow to turn on right now, but you can leave the lens extended

and the LCD off to have it ready instantly. If the AF takes too long you can leave it

in MF mode and then it's just like shooting a DSLR.

 

3) 3x optical zoom would probably make the camera too big to pocket, but we'll see

what they come up with if they do a second model.

For $800 you'd expect them to throw in higher ISO, IS and/or an f/2.8 lens.

 

Maybe the DP-2 will have such things.