Marty4650: I just don't get it, as many others have rightfully pointed out.
Since this is a single focal point fixed lens camera, why wouldn't an optical viewfinder that slid into the hot shoe make more sense? Like the ones Leica and Voigtlander make for rangefinder cameras, or the one Olympus made for their 17mm f/2.8 lens?
Of course it would... but that would be simpler, cheaper, and much less grotesque. Which would defeat the whole "Quattro Concept." And it wouldn't get enough laughs.
The camera does have a hot shoe, so why not provide a slide on EVF like so many other manufacturers have? That would also be simpler, cheaper and much less grotesque, and it would provide an eye level EVF that would provide the added benefit of tilting upwards.
There is already an OVF
phazelag: All these criticisms from people who havent used a sigma DP or held this one in their hand used it. I know several people I trust that say after an hour they love the camera ergonomics. Usually a radical design like this has some smart thinking behind it, but very few are open to even trying to understand it.
tmawest: For many years prior to the Quattro the DP designs were as boring and anonymous as anything out there. They were criticized for being bland and unoriginal. And now they are criticized for being too original.
Yet they have always been lauded for having exceptional image quality. The more things change...
Most people here don't care about image quality. They are driven by GAS :-)
RStyga: As much as I like Sigma, they need to drop this Quattro-design fiasco A-S-A-P before they surpass the SD1 original release-price fiasco. WHAT ON EARTH did the designers think when creating the Quattro??? IT IS ugly, IT IS grossly not ergonomic, IT IS not compact in any conceivable way!!! There is nothing positive to this design at all. Sigma wake up...
Have you used one? I have for the last 2 months, and it is has very nice ergonomics. Much better than any other camera I have used.
You may not like it, but...
Kim Letkeman: I'm a little disappointed. While the images are very nice, they are not nicer than images shot with any other recent m4/3 model. I don't see any action shots, so they don't illustrate the AF performance. I don't see anything at truly high ISO, which is really peculiar since there are always really high ISO shots to illustrate both sensor and jpeg engine performance. In the end, this is a NOOP for me.
GH4 is a video camera. Period. :-)
It's a excellent video camera, not much for photo. I have the GH3, but only for video. :-) I'll consider upgrading to GH5/6
lem12: This x100s is probably one of the nicest looking rangefinder camera out there.
after Leica though...
BarnET: "Large 18.4-megapixel CMOS sensor"
Large compared to what?!.Lmao!!!!!
Large compared to a pin head ;-) I also find it curious when they write: Rangefinder-style mirrorless
Where is the Rangefinder?
If they would scale this up to an APS-C sensor it could be interesting.
Monochrom: Remember when no one could believe the price for the RED ONE to be true?Five years later and you get about the same specs for a quarter of that money.A shame that the lens you'll need will still cost you at least 10K...
Why not put a $10k lens on a $6k body?
UnitedNations: As expected only a poor 1% increase in score over the X-E1. Which I think is still overly generous ...because the 'newer' X cameras(X-e2, X-t1, X100s) all have major problems with their JPEG engine.
The 'newer' Fuji X cameras not only render their JPEGs in an unnatural waxy way, but even bigger problem is that their JPEGs have severe limitations in Dynamic Range. This is a problem which was NOT present in the X100, X-Pro1, & X-E1.Simply speaking the JPEGs are nearly unusable in the 'newer' Fuji X cameras IF you are coming from the early X cameras.
It is Fuji's free choice to suddenly make their X cameras into mostly 'RAW Shooting ONLY' cameras, but I am not sure if people who bought Fuji's early X cameras will be happy & be willing to buy the 'newer' X cameras knowing that the usability of the JPEGs has been significantly deteriorated.
Any camera is RAW only as far as I'm concerned. Who uses JPG OOC in 2014?
DonSantos: Well I'm about so sell my "gold" award x-e2 with the awesome fuji 35mm 1.4 and upgrade the the "silver" sony a7 + zeiss 55mm 1.8.
Am I crazy?
Yes. The A7(r) is underwhelming and I think one need to wait 2 or 3 gens before something good comes along. Besides Sony does not know to make lenses.
vincent0923: despite the fact that the iso rating is over stated. the iso 6400 X-E2 shots still beat many other camera's iso 3200 shots.I really hope Fuji would allow Auto iso max 12800, which is more like iso 6400 for other brands.
I can also see that the X-pro1 retains better detail at high iso, giving a notably less waxy look for skin tone
Well that depends on whether you enjoy details or NR
Provia_fan: Photography is no longer what you can do with you camera, but what can your camera do for you, if I am judging by some peoples perspectives from their comments.
Well, most of the time is it the person behind the camera that is the limiting factor. But as for DR, then our eyes are far superior still.
Shunda77: Why are all the Canikon fan bois running so scared over these Fuji cameras?
Is it because Nikon's woeful jpeg engines and Canon's outdated sensors are developing into festering sores on the buttocks?
Fuji is sure doing something right! Nikon and Canon are clinging on to their old technology.
That said, I'll wait for 2nd or 3rd gen sensor from Fuji before buying into yet another system
It is still just a Bayer sensor after all.
Do you use the inferior Adobe software to post process? The RAW images looks rather soft compared with m43.
GPW: Great interview. At least he didn't try to push some low end BS DSLR cameras like Nikon and Canon. I just wish their lens IQ was on par with the big two. I think a lot of people are fed up with Nikon and Canon forcing their customers to buy cameras with minimum upgrades. Great job Sigma
I believe you will find that some of the recent Sigma lenses are above the quality of the Canon and Nikon equivalents. At least according to reviews and tests. Not my claims. :-)
This great interview sums up why I stick to Sigma products (cameras and lenses)
And yes, they have already made me said WOW several times. I cannot forget when I "developed" the first RAW files from my DP2 Merrill. Even if I was used to Sigma camera's RAW files, I was just taken aback by the stunning quality.
abluesky: For me the, a very important issue is the hight ISO performance. Does that mean that now the max ISO is 800? I'm not familiar with the Foveon upper ISO limit.
Depend on what you mean. The foveon sensor excels at normal ISO, not at high ISO. For colour photos you cannot go very high up in ISO, but if you do B&W then you can go much higher. I try to limit colour photos to ISO 320 in low light, but one can do up to ISO 640 and get good results with the Merrill cameras. For B&W ISO 1600 is not a problem and it gives nice grainy noise. You can even go to 6400 if you are careful when you do the shots.
So to sum up Foveon cameras do not have the high ISO capabilities like the Bayer cameras, but Bayer cameras do not have the image quality as the Foveon has at ISO 100-200. For me it is the latter which is important.
(unknown member): A one stop increase in ISO performance is as modest as it gets and would not cause me to upgrade from my Merrill series Sigmas. The extra length over the Merrill series DPs is also not something I would prefer. I hate to say it but I don't see how this upgrade is going to attract new users or cause existing users to want to upgrade. That said, I love my DP Merrill series cameras.
I have all DP Merrills, but I'll also get the dp2Q (at least) because of the improvements that it has. I'm particularly interested in 14bit RAW.
That said, I'll keep my Merrills as I have kept my original DPs. I even use the original DPs now.
Here is a every day shoot-out between the original DP2 and DP2 Merrill for those interested: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prebenr/sets/72157634524714567/