Chris Joy: With the flat top plate the EVF should tilt, be located in the corner, or there should be a hump. This has the worst EVF placement I've ever seen.
I'd like to try the Foveon sensor, so I'll reserve judgement until I can rent one. But that looks like a mess.
I don't have an eye in the middle. If I had, the VF on the optical axis would be perfect. And not having an eye on my forehead is why this placement should works very well.
The obvious downside is that this design is strictly for right-eye shooters, so I can understand where you come from. But it's always a compromise:- VF in the centre is the best compromise I guess, as it kinda sucks for both type of shooters, but not to the point of being useless- VF in the left corner, rangefinder style is probably better suited for left-eye shooters, with this design you get the same on-axis placement as this sigma for right eye shooters- this design is definitely meant for right-eye shooters
fedway: I don't know why Sigma still tries. They can't be making money on camera bodies whereas their new Art line has elevated their lenses to another level. Some of their lens profits must be funding their losses from camera bodies. It's a family firm so they can lose as much money as they like.
You know, people who get this camera will need lenses for it. Those will be Sigma lenses, as only those are made in SA mount. I'm sure Sigma will loose money on every sale of this new sd. But those losses will be offset by extra lens sales. And if they can get enough volume going with this aggressive pricing, they might gain some momentum they need to stay in this market.
Besides, with a relatively affordable adapter, you will be able to use those SA lenses on those high performance Bayer sensor cameras from Sony.
Not to mention that this actually looks like it might be a decent general purpose camera.
veritalens: My mind is blown! I thought they were going to pull another SD1-pricing situation for this. I still want to see what the pricing will be for the "APS-H" version of this, but if it's similar, I will most definitely be purchasing one of them.
The sdQ H will surely be well over $1,000. But I'm certain they will adjust the pricing accordingly based on how well the base model is received. Still, people were expecting this to be launched at at least $1,500 and the H version at around $2,000. Glad to see Sigma surprising us. Now, let's hope the camera has enough improvements over dp series to be appealing to more general audience.
And I would not mind some dedicated APS-C/H primes.
Actually, the EVF placement looks perfect to me. There's a reason it protrudes so much.
As far as I know, this is the only camera on the market that has it's optical axis go through the middle of photographer's face in normal orientation. I'm pretty sure this is very intentional and would love to see how it feels in actual use.
MarcoSartoriPhoto: This interesting price could have another positive side: more people will actually try and buy the camera and see what these weird looking things can deliver.I'm quite tired of reading about "it's just an APS-C, it's slow, the grip is odd, battery sucks" and so on.When you use these cameras you don't snap around like someone with a smartphone or a paparazzo following an actor: it's a well dedicated and specific tool and you need to know what you're doing.The battery sucks, but that's why the Quattro cameras have two in the box.SigmaPhotoPro is slow, but if you know how toproperlyexposeyour photo you don't even need it (or you can use it only to turn the x3 raw file into a tiff for a SilverEfex conversion).Using a metaphore, a sniper rifle is slow at shooting, slow to reload, has a different form factor than a machine gun, which fires faster and reload faster.P.S. I own a dp2Quattro, a dp3Quattro with the 1.2x tele converter, and a dp0Quattro.
Actually, there's a chance this one will have a much broader appeal. It won't have the performance of a modern DSLR, but hopefully it will get close enough to not be an annoyance. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Terry Breedlove: Do these new Sigmas perform better at ISO above the base? Hasn't that been a problem for them ?
Even if they do improve it, it's not gonna match any conventional camera. The sd should have much better heat management and probably some improvements the electronics side.
But as maceoQ wrote, it will remain a low ISO camera, I'm sure. But hey, what are those f/1.8 zooms for? ;-)
It's better if you're monochrome shooter. Foveons always produced gorgeous monochrome images and they are still decent even if the color version already falls apart.
HBowman: Low price, yes, but MANY lenses won't work correctly on it especially tele lenses and Macro ... fail.
It's just a matter of time before more of those older models get a Global Vision Treatment.
Still, low price + limited lens selection is better than high price + limited lens selection. And Sigma has some impressive lenses in it's catalog. Although I would like to see more APS-C/H specific lenses.
Toni Salmonelli: @dpreview team: Did I miss something or is there still now review of this camera?
Please speed camera reviews and keep up the great work!
So true :-)
Toni Salmonelli: As another puzzle piece for success Sigma, should try to initiate some kind of cooperation with Adobe to make Lightroom fully compatible.
I agree. The only way Adobe would be interested in this is if they think that not doing so will mean lost sales and/or loss of reputation as a leader in this market.
For this to happen, two things need to change. First, Sigma's market share should grow. Second, Adobe's competitors should have this capability.
For the first time, I genuinely think Sigma has a chance of growing their market share. This looks like it might be a very nice camera and lens selection is not bad as well. Pricing is very competitive as well, almost everyone expected it to be north of $1,500 body only.
We'll see how it goes, but I think this might be the "all or nothing" for Foveon. I'm pretty sure that at this price, they won't be making money on those bodies. But if they convince enough people, Foveon might actually have a future.
K2TL: Not bad price, but I heard they are slow in many ways.
This one is probably a bit faster than dp series. But yeah, those cameras are slow compared to other modern cameras. Doesn't matter much, it's not like you'd be using it to shoot action anyway.
Well, from what Sigma's CEO says, they tried. But Adobe does not care, it's too much work to be worth it.
What they should do is to cooperate with independent software developers. And by cooperate, I mean giving them information needed to do the conversion.
Have enough third-party software that handles it and Adobe might be more willing to cooperate in the face of competition. But Sigma does not get it. It has proven to not be willing to do this. All third-party conversions at the moment rely on reverse engineering, and are to some degree incomplete.
ijustloveshooting: although i'll never handle one soon (at least in 10 years) it's great to see achievements...this will push boundaries further with all brands.competition is great!
I would not count on Pentax in that regard. Both MF and FF from Pentax rely on their legacy. Expecting them to introduce something completely new sounds far fetched. But who knows, they can come up with a surprise, I would not mind.
On a positive note, if they get pushed against the wall by this, they can probably drop the price on 645Z to remain competitive. That alone would be good. Lower prices are always good :-)
I'm pretty sure this is just a beginning.
But what's down the road? If they can grow this market, there is a chance that at some point in the future, we'll see prices that are not that far off current DSLRs.
For sure, this will always be an expensive system, but >$2k lenses are already here for smaller formats, so at least on that front it's not as shocking. Actually, professional DSLRs are already above a $5,000 mark.
The price gap is narrowing. My bet is that it will disappear one day.
JT26: And what a huge success this is going to be... 9,000 Dollars... Laughable.
Of course it's going to be a success. If Pentax 645Z was a success, than this will be as well. Even more so, I suspect.
I'm afraid this camera is not aimed at general public and your feelings about the price are completely irrelevant. Wow, you're not going to buy it. Big deal. The world is not comprised of you alone, so...
Still, this is another effort to lower the barrier of entry into medium format. And at the same time, unlike Pentax, it tries to appeal to broader range of photographers. A landscape photographer who hikes a lot would probably not be too happy lugging around a 645Z. But this? This is not much different to a DSLR he already uses (in terms of size and weight).
Astrotripper: Nice, another confirmation of how good this lens is wide open. Looks like Panasonic engineers got their priorities straight when designing this one.
For equivalence trolls, show me a 24mm FF lens that is this good in the corners at f/2.8 :-)
Your view of lens distortion correction is naive at best. And your idealizing of no-software corrections approach is a bit silly. Especially considering that all camera makers have some form of software corrections in place.
You seem to be annoyed that Panasonic and Olympus figured it out before anyone else and have built it into their system from the very beginning, instead of tacking it on later like Canon, Nikon, Sony and Pentax did. On an MFT camera, that distortion is invisible. In viewfinder, in video, in OOC JPEGs, in JPEGs exported from RAW files by most popular software. As a result, they can approach lens design in a different way. And in most cases, the final result is still of very high quality, so who cares. If they can give me a wide prime that's sharp corner to corner at f/1.4, I'll take it. You can keep you optically corrected lenses that need to be stopped down to get corners in order :-)
Software lens corrections are here to stay, deal with it.
Oh boy. You are aware that what you linked to is not distortion, right? It's weird that you would post that, considering the website you took that from also provides charts clearly marked as measurements of distortion. So, what's all that about?
And being an expensive prime does not mean all that much. Here's what $2,100 gets you with Canon 14mm prime: http://www.lenstip.com/upload2/54508_can14_dys_1D.jpg
Here's what $2,900 gets you with a Canon 11-24 zoom: http://www.lenstip.com/upload2/144960_can11-24_dys5D_11.jpg
I could go on.
In short, at least in some cases (UWA primes and zooms), distortion is pretty much unavoidable.
But hey, at least standard zooms don't need software distortion corrections, right? Wrong, here's what $2,200 worth of 24-70 zoom from Nikon has to offer: http://www.lenstip.com/upload2/154265_nik24-70_dys_d3x_24.jpg
But how are you planning to "shoot a little wider" with a prime like 24mm? If it was not designed to be wider to accommodate the corrections, than how are you going to get that FoV back?
Actually, the 24mm is not really a good example of this, because the distortion, while there, is not such a big deal. But UWA zooms for FF systems have as much distortion on the wide end as the 12-40 and 7-14 zooms for MFT. Only you'll have to deal with it yourself in many cases (not all DSLRs do distortion corrections as far as I know, and for sure they do not correct third party lenses).
Whether you like it or not, distortion correction is something you have to deal with on every system when wide angles are concerned. That the designers of MFT decided to embrace software corrections from the beginning (as opposed to adding it later, like Canon, Nikon and Sony did) does not really matter much. As long as the final result meets the expectations of the users.
malabito: M43 are great cameras with beautiful lenses, but I don't understand why will someone will pay so much money for a lens like this, which is as big as a apsc or even full frame equivalent lens, (yes maybe not light gathering, but push the iso and you will get as much light and same results). I don't see the need for it. I used to have an em5, great under good light conditions, but as soon as it got dark, it sucked. I decided to buy a Voigtlander .95 and it was a waste of time, and money, camera was as big as a nikon 610/DF with a 35mm 2.0 and you can obtain much better results with it. So why buy these huge lenses for m43, when for a much comfortable size you can get better results with a full frame? And that's taking out the Sony a7 system, which will make the m43 even more silly with one of these lenses...
But with an equivalent lens on an FF body, you will probably not get the same image quality as with this lens. Equivalence only works on paper. In real world, you need to consider actual lenses and their performance, not some ideal mathematical model.
And at least the Canon 24/2.8 is quite bad wide open in the corners, which suffer from massive coma and huge vignetting. That's not a lens I would pick to shoot starry skies. And shooting the stars is the only reason for me to be interested in this lens. For general purpose photography and for video, there are cheaper and better options.
And the price is simple economics 101. Niche, low volume product = high price. The Leica badge is there simply to make people more willing to part with their money (who would buy a $1500 Panasonic lens?). Sigma 24/1.4 for example, can be much cheaper, because it can sell to a market that is about 50 times larger than Micro 4/3 market.
Few points: - cropping is not how distortion correction works, it's just one of the consequences (basically loss of information) - if you correct barrel distortion on FF 24mm lenses, you will also end up with cut corners, but will no longer have the FoV expected of 24mm lens, although admittedly, the distortion on those lenses is probably something like 1/3 of this one - MFT lenses are designed with this correction in mind, so the FoV AFTER correction is the one specified
I'll take a straightforward geometric distortion over any other optical aberration (or one of those funky, hard to correct wavy distortions).
As for your reservations about software geometric distortions: get used to it. Every modern system does this. And with sensors getting more and more pixels, there is less and less reason to not use software distortion correction.
But for comparing image quality, it's inconsequential. You compare final result. And it stands up to this test.
Nice, another confirmation of how good this lens is wide open. Looks like Panasonic engineers got their priorities straight when designing this one.