Well luminous landscape hates the Quattro

GaryLH

GaryLH

Veteran
Local time
9:18 AM
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
6,141
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_dp2_review.shtml

Two different people review the Quattro..they hate it overall.. Image quality they liked. A one step forward two steps backwards type of review.

I can understand and appreciate the issues they have.. I think that the biggest issue is the change in design of the body.. U are either gonna hate it or figure out how to live w/ it. If your hands are the right size, u may actually be ok w/ the comfort issues that they mentioned.

Personally, I am happy w/ it.. But then again.. I don't use spp that much (just to extract the jpgs, mainly and deal w/ a raw to tiff here and there. I find the jpg engine is very good myself. And it helps that I am mainly shooting w/ small size raw (5mp non-foveon talk).

If I had bigger hands, I can c where the Quattro would be an issue to use though.

Would I buy another one... Nope... Not until they fix the stupid sd door.

I probably used the dp2m about 35 to 50% of the time compared to all the other cameras that I could use. W/ the high iso capability, better jpg engine, slightly faster af, I think my usage w/ the Quattro is going to be more like 75-80% level..only time will tell.

Gary
 
for some reason i find comfort in the report that the size increase was necessary for battery and heat dissipation reasons. makes me a little more sympathetic to the longer design, which i don't like. good to read it still has excellent image quality but the SPP issues sound horrendous.
 
Reviewers hated also original DP1 for almost everything and now what, it's fine camera for certain type of use; that said people used to machine gun kind of shooting still will be disappointed but once they realize this is different cup of tea there's no conflict.
 
dfatty said:
for some reason i find comfort in the report that the size increase was necessary for battery and heat dissipation reasons. makes me a little more sympathetic to the longer design, which i don't like. good to read it still has excellent image quality but the SPP issues sound horrendous.
Click to expand...

About maybe 15-20% slower than spp 5 overall is what it feels like if u are using large raw files. I just setup a batch convert to tiff and walk away. Since they have full size fine jpg embeded in their raw files, a jpg extract is super fast.

Gary
 
:eek::eek:

What, the Audi Quattro? What's not to like, and what do Luminous Landscape care?

audi_youngtimer_ur_quattro.jpg


;)
 
GaryLH said:
About maybe 15-20% slower than spp 5 overall is what it feels like if u are using large raw files. I just setup a batch convert to tiff and walk away. Since they have full size fine jpg embeded in their raw files, a jpg extract is super fast.

Gary
Click to expand...

Forgot to mention...

When u consider that the tiff16 went from an 88mb file to a 122mb, it is understandable why it is slower.

Add this to the fact, in the age of 64 bit apps, this one is still a 32 bit one.

I would not mind so much if they would allow cmd line hooks into the app so u could write some canned scripts for what I want to do.

Gary
 
Ludicrous Landscape

Ludicrous Landscape

Does anybody still take that site seriously? After that famously flawed film v digital they did a few years ago, they got completely owned by Tim Parkin over at On Landscape, when he proved them wrong. Look to the advertisements...
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Does anybody still take that site seriously? After that famously flawed film v digital they did a few years ago, they got completely owned by Tim Parkin over at On Landscape, when he proved them wrong. Look to the advertisements...
Click to expand...

Darn right. They made fools of themselves...and despite being proven wrong, they refused to address the issue. Poor scientific method.
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Does anybody still take that site seriously? After that famously flawed film v digital they did a few years ago, they got completely owned by Tim Parkin over at On Landscape, when he proved them wrong. Look to the advertisements...
Click to expand...
Why? Really why? They apparently made one mistake and you stop reading it? They still are capable photographers and when they USE a camera, I'll read it. Do you never make any mistake? Should we take YOU seriously?
 
I have a low opinion of the site in general because I personally believe they sing the tune they are paid to sing by their advertisers. I think there are better sources of information about photography on the web. Of course I make mistakes. I'm human. If I know I've made one I try to own up to it. Something, incidentally, as the previous commenter mentioned, they singularly failed to do in the instance referred to. I couldn't give a flying if YOU want to take ME seriously or not. That is completely up to YOU but either way it will not make any difference to ME. Really.
Cheers
Brett
 
I honestly don't understand why well heeled companies like Sigma and Fuji with unique and very capable sensors don't understand the importance of providing raw processors that are as good as their sensors.
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
I have a low opinion of the site in general because I personally believe they sing the tune they are paid to sing by their advertisers. I think there are better sources of information about photography on the web. Of course I make mistakes. I'm human. If I know I've made one I try to own up to it. Something, incidentally, as the previous commenter mentioned, they singularly failed to do in the instance referred to. I couldn't give a flying if YOU want to take ME seriously or not. That is completely up to YOU but either way it will not make any difference to ME. Really.
Cheers
Brett
Click to expand...

Well, this is a different remark then the one before. In that there was just one reason why you thought the the site couldn't be taken seriously, now you say you have a low opinion of the site in general. Fair enough, you either like it or you don't. I'm sure there are sites you like that I don't, that's normal.

Nice of you to reply to my post, now I know you care enough about my opinion to tell me you don't give a flying, really - glad I asked :D

Back on topic: when I saw the first pictures of this new Sigma I thought it looked like a crowbar, but a crowbar is a lever and that is a good thing, it isn't for a camera. Also, it didn't look like it was a nice camera to hold, and the review shows that.
 
Addy101 said:
Well, this is a different remark then the one before. In that there was just one reason why you thought the the site couldn't be taken seriously, now you say you have a low opinion of the site in general. Fair enough, you either like it or you don't. I'm sure there are sites you like that I don't, that's normal.

Nice of you to reply to my post, now I know you care enough about my opinion to tell me you don't give a flying, really - glad I asked :D

Back on topic: when I saw the first pictures of this new Sigma I thought it looked like a crowbar, but a crowbar is a lever and that is a good thing, it isn't for a camera. Also, it didn't look like it was a nice camera to hold, and the review shows that.
Click to expand...
Well in fairness you, apparently, cared enough about mine, to ask your question and I was simply answering a question that had been asked. But I really don't have anything else I would like to say to you except, live and let live. I certainly think our conversation is done. Past done, actually.
Cheers
Brett
 
It's a funny old world.. here's a review site complaining a camera is badly-thought out with performance issues; and their review is badly-thought out with performance issues. Their criticisms might well be valid, but given they present them in such a semi-literate manner, it's hard to care.
 
Kwesi said:
I honestly don't understand why well heeled companies like Sigma and Fuji with unique and very capable sensors don't understand the importance of providing raw processors that are as good as their sensors.
Click to expand...

They do, it's just slow. You might better ask why they feel they need to provide one at all, when they could just output dngs and let Adobe deal with it. The reason they don't is because Adobe has a **** raw converter, and they can do it better.
 
I had a DP-1 as my first digital camera, thought it was brilliant, if the Quattro is as good as that was, I'd be happy with it.

But then, I used it like a film camera, go out, take maybe 20 or 30 photos, no rapid fire, high ISO, video or anything like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom