Chris Yates: Sigma woke up one day and said "Let's stop sucking and kick some a$$ instead!" I just truly hope the quality issues and inconsistencies are over.
I think this has a lot to do with Yamaki-san and his vision for Sigma. A visionary with an operations background.
Based on the SLR Gear review, at this price this lens is one of the best values in all of photography. Go Sigma.
yabokkie: should give it the highest priority over all other reviews.
Yab: I agree with you. There. I said it.
cgarrard: Gotta say I love the puns, I'm really in touit. Maybe we ought to collect all of them together in one package and provide a link touit. They are the go touit lenses I hear.
This type of humor is intuitive.
Put an 85 f/1.4 on this and I'm in heaven.
Scottish Kev: Is it me or does this also look very much like the New Olympus OM-D E-M1??
Ummm - it is quadruple the sensor size.
Two things about photography that I find mentally challenging:
1) Learning how to express oneself accurately and aesthetically through photography
2) Yesterday I was looking at this thread on DPR's Sigma Camera forum: "If you are interested in what is inside your Sigma raw."
Scrozzy: Why don't you create a dedicated forum to discuss DoF equivalence with crop sensors? And then somehow, when people go in there to post, sort of lock the door so they're all trapped inside and can't get out.
Good one Simon. +1
Kudos DPR. Especially "feedback and suggestions." This improves collaboration that will benefit members and DPR.
mausta: It is pretty clear.IF the Government had purchased the copyright to this sculpture then the artist would not have any claim.Likewise if someone commissioned an artist (you) to make a work of art, then printed millions of copies of it and made over 17 million dollars, WITHOUT PURCHASING the copyright from you, don't you think they would owe you some of that money?The reason there is copyright protection is because of instances such as this!The artist is not to blame, he is exercising his (copy) rights to his original creation. Again if the govt. had purchased these rights from the artist he would not have the copy"RIGHT" anymore!!!! Don't bash the artist, he apparently still holds the copyright.All of this bitching and moaning about how we can't take pictures of anything because someone else made it is absurd. Copyright law defines what is and what is not protected. If you are profiting from your photography better consult the copyright law or better yet a copyright lawyer.
Good job bringing this mish-mash into perspective. You nailed it.
call me Skippy: I have to say, I find the ruling outragous. Ownership and right of property have no intrinsic value whatsoever in my opinion. In my opinion it is functional: As long as it is beneficial for the whole society to guaranty these rights, they should be protected. In this case, this work of art occupies public space (the memorial I mean) and I dont think it is beneficial to guaranty any right of ownership in this case to the artist. Such rights impede on usage of public space in this case. People may feel otherwise - which is ok. But looking at the proliferation of creativity one can observe, all this money-grabbing might get very nasty. If a public administration - for example a local authority - commissions such work of art, the should really make the treaties water-tight and buy all the rights in order to prevent such rulings. Artists who dont want to go along shouldnt get the job. Just give the newcomer a chance - who will be happy to be paid at all.
I respect your right to your opinions. I do believe that national constitutions are strong indicators or evidence as to what that society values. I see Article 14 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany is about property rights. While I am not an attorney, I believe your article 14 and our Amendment 5 are very similar. We too allow appropriation for public use, often called "eminent domain" in USA. Your opinion may differ as to whether the inclusion of property rights in constitutions is evidence of "importance" in a free society, but that's fine with me. I have said what I wanted to say. You can have the last word if you wish.
@ call me Skippy
"I would be strongly in favor for a non-ownership policy on cars. Would be way more efficient"
Like I said, you seem to have a loose concept of property rights. I don't know if you are an American citizen, but in our country we have, in Amendment 5 of the US Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights, something that says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The fact that this is part of our Constitution is evidence that property rights are an important part of a free society. Property rights are not a "special flavor of political opinion" in the USA, they're the law. It's your interpretation of property rights that is a "special flavor." And I wasn't talking about property rights in totalitarian states, I was talking about free societies.
@ Call me Skippy
Your concept of property rights is rather loose. The entity that purchased the art for public display has to buy out the rights to the art. Then the entity has to release it in creative commons so anybody can use it. Wiping out the money to buy the rights to the art will wipe out a lot of the art. It's not "money vs. creativity." Just the opposite, money relates to the creativity, they're not opposed to one another. Property rights are an important part of a free society. Taking property rights away from people--where does it stop? Can they take your money out of your bank account? Can they take your personal possessions that you value - the pictures you took of your loved ones? As you say, think it through.
absentaneous: in some way it of course make sense but on the other hand I wonder where would be fair to draw the line. for example, I come across a great looking sports car on the street and I take a picture of it and turn it into a poster and I sell copies of it. does that mean the company which designed and constructed the car can sue me? by that logic one couldn't possible take a picture of something man made or designed and use it commercially without permission without getting sued.
Ferrari is a brand and you can't use their brand in ways that they don't want you to. Like you can't put dog s**t on the hood and photograph that next to the Ferrari logo. So you have to get permission. Paint does not have a brand image to protect because blue paint looks blue period. You can't do a close-up of the tire that shows the brand name without permission of Pirelli etc. Same thing with the sculpture. The owner of the art has to give permission as to how you use their art.
Good job on the new test scene, DPR. After reading about a hundred of these comments I suggest DPR create a limited run of 1,000 suitable for framing prints, on archival paper, of the previous test scene. Sell these to the aficionados who have become emotionally attached to the old scene. Invest the proceeds in faster reviews. It's a win-win.
Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.
Then there is the question of pricing: D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000
Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.
So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.
"Then there is the question of pricing: D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000 D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000"
Estimating Sigma's price for this lens is highly speculative, considering what Sigma did in the SD1 pricing debacle.
Paul B Jones: Fantastic! It's the Mountain Equipment Co-op of stock photography. I got a form letter on Flickr from Getty asking me to sign up with them. No way. But Stocksy's kind of worker self-management is the way of the future (and clearly threatening to some of you folks).
"Stocksy's kind of worker self-management is the way of the future." Agreed. This does have potential to change the industry. Self-owned businesses provide more job satisfaction and out-perform public corporations that live for quarterly earnings per share. This venture holds out the promise of giving artists a fair deal long-term, not only in its start-up phase. Kudos to Livingstone.
Marty4650: "despite it's sub-par movie mode and less than stellar autofocus performance, it earns our coveted gold award, by a whisker"... and this is also despite all the times it locked up and crashed.
Every camera has pluses and minuses, but these minuses aren't minor issures. These are very serious and major flaws. And it seems Dpreview overlooked them because the camera was "thoroughly enjoyably" to use.
I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver.
Marty 4650: "I'm looking forward to the new Dpreview Platinum Award for cameras without any serious flaws. Because Gold is now the new Silver."
Nobody's tastes and values are exactly the same as anyone else's. I suggest it's more useful to base decisions on the words and pictures in the review rather than dwell on the gold or silver icon at the bottom.
The E-M5 jpegs are better than than the D5200 jpegs in the comparison tool.
I am skeptical that the D5200 can do as well as any m43 camera. Since you are "sure", here is how you can prove it: 1) Download the D5200 raw samples from the comparison tool, 2) make whatever adjustments you would like in Photoshop, documenting the steps so that people can repeat what you did and verify the results, and 3) post the improved jpegs from the D5200, showing that they are better than what you can get out of the E-M5 at stock settings.
That would end all argument, wouldn't it?
Yes, I agree. As you say, D7000 may be better because of handling. I do think one possibly great application of the D5200 is for birding. 24MP will crop well and there is the Nikon 300 f/4...I said something about that here a couple of days ago.
That wouldn't end all argument, because the E-M5 images were made with the 50 f/2.0 macro, one of the sharpest lenses ever made, while the D5200 used a lens that can't resolve well in the corners. So the comparisons are apples and oranges.
bobbarber: Question. I've been wondering about this a while.
On the watch in the lower right-hand corner in the studio comparison image, are there supposed to be two white lines where the numeral 1 should be, or only one?
Both the OMD E-M5 and Panasonic GH2 show two lines there. The D5200 shows one line there.
Which is it?
If this is another camera-lens combo that fades out towards the edge of the image, then the 24 megapixels don't give much of an advantage, at least not without expensive glass. I'm assuming that the studio comparison was taken with good glass. I didn't check.
"If this is another camera-lens combo that fades out towards the edge of the image, then the 24 megapixels don't give much of an advantage, at least not without expensive glass. I'm assuming that the studio comparison was taken with good glass. I didn't check."
Bobbarber you make a good point about camera-lens comparisons. The camera-lens combo is producing misleading results when comparing D5200 with the OMD E-M5. The Oly images used the 50 f/2.0 macro which is one of the sharpest lenses by any manufacturer. The D5200 uses the 50 f/1.4 G which has problems in the corners. Comparisons are very similar near the center of the images but the chessboards in the corners show how much weaker the Nikon lens is. In fact, the Oly lens would have been even sharper at f/4.0 than these shot at f/6.3. Source: SLR Gear comparison charts.