Sigma DP1 samples

fdigital said:
Still better than any other compact digital camera in the world for DOF control
Click to expand...

Gavin,

DOF control? Perhaps, I would just miss having a faster lens which would be useful for what I enjoy shooting. There are so many compact digital cameras out there where it is difficult to get shallow dof.

I'm sure this is a good one, and the samples look good everything in focus notwithstanding :)

Best,
David
 
David - my apologies - I thought you were commenting on the lack of DOF. Indeed a faster lens would have been more desirable, but do you think they could have made a 16.6mm f2.8 lens in anywhere near the size the current f4 is?
 
Different people have different sensitivity to how objectionable they find aliasing on straight lines, but the DP1 certainly shows plenty in some of those test shots.

Same as the DP14 - due no doubt to the fact that Sigma think the pictures from that sensor look better without an AA filter. They may of course be right, I've never seen shots from a Foveon with the filter.

Check out the jaggies on the rails in this one...

http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/img/SigmaDP1-009.jpg

But with the optical viewfinder attached I still think it looks fairly attractive as a high-quality P&S. After all some people have been buying the GRD and this looks a bit better to me.

Strangely enough I was thinking of it as a good camera for my little girl to learn photography: very deep DOF, nice wide angle (which seems right to her somehow - she seems to want pictures to cover a lot of the world), optical viewfinder which she finds much easier than LCD, etc. All-in-all a way for her to focus on composition and content and still produce results that we can print and frame.
 
ISO 800 is pretty reasonable ... better than my D70s which to be fair is a little dated now!

I wonder how the Canon G9 stacks up against it image wise?
 
The highlights are really well controlled ... has a different look compared to most digital cameras

the ISO 800 looks useable
 
nothing special to me. slightly above-the-average digital P&S crap
1 year ago I dreamed about something like this for night street work (think about iso 1600 at same level as good DSLRs)
but it didn't happen
 
I am completely in love with the concept of this camera, but even the limited reality isn't what I'd have hoped for. Leaving depth of field completely aside, in my normal shooting life I often find f2.8 to be too slow for me. Unless I'm looking at a tele zoom, f4 just isn't attractive.

Still, I give Sigma props for being the first to step up to the plate and offer a compact digital with a bigger sensor. Hopefully others will follow.
 
I was initially excited about this camera, but the closer I looked, the less enthused I became. My "puny" Casio EX850, whose sensor is clearly outclassed by this camera's, can shoot in somewhat lower light.

I think I'll borrow a friend's G9 and put it through its paces...


- Barrett
 
Those pictures posted on the dp1 site sitemistic are pretty impressive. If you ask me, the level of detail being captured and the crispness is reminiscent of a canon 5d, but possibly actually more crisp.
 
sitemistic said:
Gavin, it looks like it will blow Canon and Nikon away just like Sigma's magic foveon cameras always have. :)
Click to expand...

Touche sir, and thats why I shoot with a d300 and not an sd14 (previously 5d).

However, for probably the 4th or 5th time in this thread, I'm extremely impressed with the level of fine detail and crispness in the photos posted on the dp1 sample page. Especially considering it came from a camera that is only slightly larger than a credit card. Unfortunately the equivalent point and shoot style nikons are extremely lackluster in performance, and the Canon G9, while I'm sure a very good camera, does not match the dp-1 in image quality either based on those samples.

And as far as I can see from the samples posted on that particular page, the ricoh gr-d isn't even close.

If you haven't already, have a look at the full sized samples on the dp1 page. If you can't see what I'm getting excited about, you're probably drunk or blind.



http://www.sigma-dp1.com/sample-photo/
 
fdigital said:
If you haven't already, have a look at the full sized samples on the dp1 page. If you can't see what I'm getting excited about, you're probably drunk or blind.
Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone is drunk or blind in this thread, but I do know that people get emotionally invested in one system or another and often cannot 'see' what others think of as clear (and visible) advantages.

I saw a lot of very average grainy low-light shots from the GRD, in which people waxed poetic about the filmic quality of the grain and etc - looked like the same digital noise my Kodak digicam makes, to me. But they can see it, they say. OK, maybe they can.

I can very clearly see the differences you are talking about - the comparisons between the low-light shots are so dramatic as to almost be laughable. I understand your frustration if people continue to insist they can't 'see' that.

But there you go. It's reasonably clear that the DP1 will follow the SD9/10/14 into 'cult' status, just like the GRD and some other digital cameras that a few become enamored of and others just don't see the point.

The only other thing I've noticed about cult cameras, film & digital alike, is that not only do they attract their share of enthusiasts, but also their share of detractors, who for whatever reason, take great pleasure in poking the bear with a stick whenever possible. When the DP1 began to look more and more like typical vaporware, many were the people who came onto Sigma and DP1-related chat rooms and discussion forums for the express purpose of going "Ha, ha, you idiots, that camera will never be released!" Never got what the pleasure is behind that, but the world is full of Nelson Muntzes, I guess.

I won't be able to afford the DP1 in its first incarnation, regardless of reviews. But I share your enthusiasm for the images it appears to be capable of producing, and if it survives long enough in the marketplace, hopefully the price will drop a bit and I may be able to get my hands on one. At this point (and subject to the in-depth testing I am sure is on the horizon for this camera), I believe I'd like to have one, even with my objections to the focal length of the lens and the lack of an integrated optical viewfinder.

To my eye, any comment that the samples "look just like my crappy digicam" are so silly as to be laughable, but then, people claim that GRD photos possess some magical quality that I can't see, so there you go.
 
sitemistic said:
DOF from here to eternity
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said except this. DoF is clearly very different with this camera from other digicams, based on the sensor size. A quick look at DOF Master reveals that. At 10 feet and f/4, as I posted, the DP1 has much deeper DoF than I'd like - but the GRD literally *is* infinity - and at their vaunted f/2.4, too.

I see several sample photos that reveal some control over DoF, with blurred horizons, etc. Not enough for me, but it is clearly much better than a standard digicam.

So I'm not sure I understand your gripe here.
 
sitemistic said:
bma, as I mentioned earlier, I think Sigma's problem is more in the ad department then with their cameras, which are pretty competent. But they promote every camera as unique, breakthrough products that will obsolete everything that came before.

Look at the full pages ads - using the same model it seems - in the photo mags that come out with each new DSLR, showing a close up of the models face with every pore and hair in high def! As if everyone is going to shoot close up models with 100,000 watt seconds of flash, f22, with perfect cross lighting.

They raise expectations so high their real world products can't live up to them.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't? My choice of beer doesn't get me babes, make my hair grow back, or even enable me to see my toes again. But they sure like to imply that.

That seems to be picking nits, really. Don't like the camera because they tout it too much?
 
minoltist7 said:
nothing special to me. slightly above-the-average digital P&S crap
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't shot one and probably won't buy one at this stage, but I think your assessment is too extreme and too hasty.

To "bring product to shelf" they obviously settled for the slower lens in the first generation. As we know, mounting a faster lens on there has certain technical challenges (CA), and I think Sigma would be very foolish to invest heavily in the lofty goal of going head-to-head with a fast high-end rangefinder and charging $2-5k for that capability... before first thoroughly working out the kinks at smaller apertures and building confidence.

Any way you slice it, the dp1 is the future: in a decade or two we will be using foveon-like sensors with bigger photosites and excellent noise characteristics. Out of left field, the RF design will eventually sweep SLRs aside. The removal of mechanical motion in the camera is something that camera engineers and manufacturers like very much. But there will be more refined focusing capabilities in future editions.

So.. I don't see the concept as "p&s crap" at all, I think it is a pretty exciting glimpse of the future. If it doesn't fill your needs, fine don't buy it! But stay tuned, and remember how many of us thought dslrs were crap... a mere decade ago.
 
Last edited:
keithwms said:
Any way you slice it, the dp1 is the future: in a decade or two we will be using foveon-like sensors with bigger photosites and excellent noise characteristics. Out of left field, the RF design will eventually sweep SLRs aside. The removal of mechanical motion in the camera is something that camera engineers and manufacturers like very much. But there will be more refined focusing capabilities in future editions.
Click to expand...

This is really interesting, and probably deserves a separate thread. It's funny, because when I was out shooting yesterday morning I was thinking about a DRF design which would preserve the rangefinder patch, but add auto-focus as an option, i.e., manual focus could be maintained with the same tactile feedback of manual focus lenses. Put the focusing in the body (move the sensor), not the lens.

And while we're at it, why is the focal plane shutter sacred? I'd just as soon have leaf shutters. An in-body leaf shutter system (a la the Olympus Ace) could be engineered.
 
Trius said:
This is really interesting, and probably deserves a separate thread. It's funny, because when I was out shooting yesterday morning I was thinking about a DRF design which would preserve the rangefinder patch, but add auto-focus as an option, i.e., manual focus could be maintained with the same tactile feedback of manual focus lenses. Put the focusing in the body (move the sensor), not the lens.

And while we're at it, why is the focal plane shutter sacred? I'd just as soon have leaf shutters. An in-body leaf shutter system (a la the Olympus Ace) could be engineered.
Click to expand...

I agree with you - but I suspect the engineers will be figuring out new ways of looking at things and doing them soon enough. They need two things - differentiation in the marketplace, and lower costs of manufacture.

Some random thoughts...

1) Manual RF is probably a non-starter. Not enough people are left who even know what it is - let alone why they'd want to use it. It would require people (average photographer - even enthusiasts) to learn skills.

2) Manual focus minus a mirror for dSLR, as far as I know, still depends upon focusing using an LCD. While I've had some discussions with various forum members who claim they can manually focus using their bridge digicam, now that I have one myself (Kodak P850) I can say from experience - nope. Can it be done? Barely, kind of. Critical focus? Not a bleeding chance. Focusing on an LCD is nothing even resembling focusing using an optical screen. However, if the technology for this were highly revamped, maybe. I understand that the DP1 has this - a 'magnified area' on the LCD back where you can twiddle a knob and perhaps focus manually. I dunno. Willing to believe it is possible - but not really.

3) However, if that bugaboo is ever beat, then form is no longer chained to the traditional SLR shape, and the distinctions between digicam, bridge, and dSLR will begin to blur in a serious way.

4) There are currently only two major advantages that dSLR cameras have that film cameras do not - besides immediacy. One is ability to set WB on the fly. The other is ability to set ISO on the fly. dSLRs have some drawbacks in that they have less dynamic range than color print film. However, this could change. Which brings me to

5) Kodak recently announced they have a new non-Bayer filter sensor design (non-Foveon, too). They originally announced it was going to allow them to build some high-ISO digicams, but then they announced they dropping a lot of their low-end digicams, and in general, they've just kind of farted around with their digicams recently. HOWEVER, if you follow the Kodak tech news (like I do, how sad is that), they recently partnered up with Motorola on new 5MP cell phone camera sensors - ultra small - but using their new technology, ISO 10,000, supposedly. Granted, this is not that great of a thing for us - but it may have application in larger sensors.

6) Fuji has had some luck with their S2~S5 dSLR cameras that wedding photogs love, due to their Nikon lens and body designs, with a different sensor - Fuji implants a combination of large and small sensors in the design, extending color sensitivity and dynamic range - which every wedding and event photographer needs. Kodak also claims enhanced dynamic range with their new sensor designs.

7) The next step is sensor designs that produce dynamic range that exceed that of all film, bringing ISO 10K and higher to the dSLR without penalty, or without as severe a penalty as both film and digital suffer now when those speeds are attempted. This will fundamentally change available light photography forever, not to mention make flashes much more useful.

8) I can imagine a sensor design that gains up or down in DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE SENSOR on the same exposure - imagine that. HDR in real-time. More like the way our eyes work.

9) With software tools like Dx0 that adjust for optical aberrations (and I've been reading patents, uber geek that I am), there is no reason that the next generation of dSLR cameras can't have 'cron emulation in their firmware - or Ultron, or whatever. Guys writing their own and passing them around like plugins.

10) The patents covering the ability to refocus are interesting and more is liable to be done in this area. The argument against small sensor size could be overcome if a) small sensors produced less noise and b) you could obtain the same DoF control in a virtual way as you can now with a physically larger or smaller recording medium. No reason, technically, why a digicam with a tiny sensor could not produce the same DoF effects as an 8x10 view camera. I would not want to write that software, but the theory is pretty clear at this point.

11) Electrostatically-controlled liquid lenses. Oooh.

There's more. I love being alive at this time in photography. New worlds opening up. Photography is in flux - at the moment, digital is eclipsing film in availability, but not yet in capability. In the future, it will begin to do things no film process ever could - and then we can REALLY have some fun. All the old rules out the window.
 
bmattock said:
2) Manual focus minus a mirror for dSLR,
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, I was trying to get away from the DSLR paradigm, doncha know? :D

And God forbid anyone should have to learn a skill. Oh, it's just TOO MUCH!!!
 
Trius said:
Yeah, well, I was trying to get away from the DSLR paradigm, doncha know? :D

And God forbid anyone should have to learn a skill. Oh, it's just TOO MUCH!!!
Click to expand...

Just trying to be realistic. We're here because we're freaks - we are actually willing to try new things and master new skills. For 99% of humanity - it really is too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom