Terry Breedlove: Do these new Sigmas perform better at ISO above the base? Hasn't that been a problem for them ?
Nobody knows if Sigma made some improvements over the current DP Quattro cameras. But i would not expect it. Sigmas are low ISO cameras.
fatdeeman: The upper settings seem pretty useless for most every day purposes although I guess they might serve a purpose in some situations like proving the existence of a rare animal or something?
But let's ignore that for a moment and appreciate the fact that this camera is as good at ISO 25,600 as my 350D, D70 and E-410 were at ISO 1600 10 years ago. It has the same quality viewed at 100% at 16 times the ISO with over twice the pixels.
And people say sensors are running out of room for improvement!
25'600 is actually "only" 4 times (or stops) better, not 16.
nerd2: WHY? 70-200 2.8 for FF lenses are just as light and cheap.
@svillav: exactlyAnd i guess the Sigma will perform better than any 70-200 2.8 on the market. (just a guess)
"FF f2.8 is equivalent to APS f1.8, in case you don't know."
No, it's not.
NoMirror99: This should be really really good since Trey worked on it. He's the #1 goto guy for HDR.
Hmm..i didn't know Trey Ratcliff, but when i'm looking at his images on google, my eyes are hurting :-/
olimpero: where Sigma cameras, SD1 for example?
So Adobe is the reason that we don't see any Sigma camera in the comparison tool?