New Sigma DP Quattro

[scottelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

[andylynn]

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

other ways.

[scottelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Oh, and I found something for you to read Andy.</p>

<p>http://madshutter.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-saga-begins-sigma-sd1-merrill-vs.html</p>

[andylynn]

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.

[andylynn]

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.

[paul_rybolt]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p>"Too bad the Foveon tech landed in their lap."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>