NYT on Sigma DP1

Read the Pogue piece a day or two ago, and just watched the accompanying video (with Pogue being surprisingly straight-man about it...mostly). For a non-enthusiast-aimed review, I'd say he did a respectable job, although a few people here will no doubt want to take him down a peg or two for stating that the DP-1's issues are not simply a matter of six-of-one/half-dozen of the other.

Of course, some had said the same of my beloved Hexar Autofocus, when I still had it...


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
"But did it have to be such a lame camera? No zoom, no stabilizer, no focus lamp, no optical viewfinder, no live histogram; weak flash, washed-out screen, quarter-size movies, infinite shutter lag, loose lens cap. Hello, Sigma? 1998 called. It wants its camera back!"

Hardly a glowing report ... but I'd have one if it was a bit cheaper! 😀
 
The bit that interested me was "Sigma, an admired lens company that only recently started making cameras". Did I imagine all of those older Sigma SLRs? No, really, did I?
Like amateriat said, this really is aimed at somebody who doesn't know anything about cameras. "The closest you can get to your subject and still attain focus is about a foot". That's pretty good, in my estimation, when I'm used to a couple of feet. The things he says are for the pros/advanced users he knock, and then says they won't like. Sure, it is flawed, but this man is being a complete ass.


In fact, he should come over to the UK and work for 'Which Camera?'.
 
Tom: I know what you mean. But Pogue is about a light-year or two better than the sort of stuff that the Times would put out in the past, be it about photography, or especially audio (Hans Fantel, anyone?). The sins in Pogue's reviews are mostly those of omission (although the big about Sigma being only a recent "player" in the camera biz was a rather obvious misfire). To me, the fact that he (and, by extension, the Times) gave this much coverage to the DP-1 at all is interesting by itself.


- Barrett
 
Interesting in that they are at least looking beyond your average P&S stuff, or interesting because they had to fill up pages with poorly reseearched and somewhat (I mean incredibly) unbalanced opinions on something which the writer clearly isn't qualified to rant about?



I will be becoming less tetchy shortly, I'm on my second coffee of the day, so I won't be as full of resentment soon as I am now.
 
sweathog said:
"The closest you can get to your subject and still attain focus is about a foot". That's pretty good, in my estimation, when I'm used to a couple of feet.
Click to expand...

Most if not all digi point and shoots close-focus down to a couple of centimeters in some special "macro" or "super macro" mode. COmpared to that, a foot (how much is that? about 33 cm?) is pretty "bad", yes.

You have to realize that people familiar with rangefinders and hexar af-type higher-end fixed-lens autofocus cameras are very very rare.
Masses nowadays are either the digi x-times zoom y-megapixel point and shoot camp, or the "enthousiastic amateur" dslr fans. For most people, the DP1 lacks the "basic features".

Just yesterday I tried to explain to our technician (a very clever and handy guy with serious technical background), why the "extra digital zoom" he should not use in his camera.
"But it zooms closer" he kept on repeating" so it is better!". (Not that the "optical zoom" is not enough- His optical long end of the lens corresponds to above 500mm - the new panasonic lumix something - ).
 
I think it's a pretty good piece, despite the factual errors. He's expressed exactly the disappointment I felt about the DP-1. I really, really wanted it to be good, but found there were just too many things that got in the way of making pictures. I was disliking the camera for what it couldn't do, rather than valuing what it could. YMMV, of course.
 
Pherdinand said:
Most if not all digi point and shoots close-focus down to a couple of centimeters in some special "macro" or "super macro" mode. COmpared to that, a foot (how much is that? about 33 cm?) is pretty "bad", yes.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but then one must consider that the DP1 isn't made in or for that market. I'm trying to think up a decent metaphor, but all I can think of is tractors and cars. The tractor, as a mode of transport, is inferior to a car. However, in its own field (no pun intended) it is very good.
The writer seems not to quite have grasped this point.


That being said, the speed (or lack thereof) of the DP1 is very disappointing.
 
yes, the question is, what is "its field" (the DP1's fielde, not the tractor's)?
The long shutter lag and relatively slow writing times make it a less than ideal street/people shooter... The weak close-focus ability cuts the field of macro or semi-macro...the lack of zoom and larger size distances it from the general pocketable point-and-shoot digitals...the fixed lens and no optical VF makes it much less flexible than a dslr or a digital rf... the lack of image stabilization or a really fast lens makes it weak for low light shooting... there's something in every direction which makes it less than ideal.

And it's not cheap.
 
Aside from some factual errors, the reviews nails the soft under belly of the DP-1. The size of the final package ultimately limited the write speed and the lens choice for this camera.
 
Pherdinand said:
The long shutter lag and relatively slow writing times make it a less than ideal street/people shooter...
Click to expand...

There is no shutter lag! When I use it for street, I just put it on manual focus and set the scale for 1 or 1.5 meters. Unlike, say, the Fuji F30, when you push the button, that's your picture. The perceived lag comes from using AF, which is kinda crappy and slow.

I thought the writing in that review was simply awful. But it's true that there is a lot to be annoyed by on this camera.

And yes, it really is made of metal...
 
Does the NYT have any photographers on staff? Maybe an older one who has handled something other than a DSLR in his professional life?
Why a guy like this for a camera review?
 
In the end, even if you don't identify with the reviewer, there's a lot of objective fact in there that's hard to deny. It is terribly slow (the biggest disappointment for us here), many people will be turned off by not zooming, and it's rather pricey (things that people here don't mind so much I guess). Having not handled it, I can't confirm the other things, like the washed out screen, but other more knowledgeable reviewers come to similar conclusions, if not with the same details.

Face it, the DP1 is a very flawed camera. I know we all wanted to love it and Sigma for finally going the right way in compact camera design, but in its current state it really isn't usable for even most RF diehards, much less the average consumer.
 
breathstealer said:
In the end, even if you don't identify with the reviewer, there's a lot of objective fact in there that's hard to deny. It is terribly slow (the biggest disappointment for us here), many people will be turned off by not zooming, and it's rather pricey (things that people here don't mind so much I guess). Having not handled it, I can't confirm the other things, like the washed out screen, but other more knowledgeable reviewers come to similar conclusions, if not with the same details.

Face it, the DP1 is a very flawed camera. I know we all wanted to love it and Sigma for finally going the right way in compact camera design, but in its current state it really isn't usable for even most RF diehards, much less the average consumer.
Click to expand...


I actually think, as others have said, that he exposed the essential weakneses of the camera. It's just annoying to have someone make basic mistakes and bad assumptions when reviewing.
 
I was probably one of the first people to get their hands on a DP1 as I had a long standing order with Amazon and had the camera in hand within days of its release.

I returned it almost immediately for all the reasons that Pogue wrote about.

Very nice try for Sigma -- but it's simply not a very usable camera IMHO. WAY slow...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom