I don't reply to private messages.
micarr: I browsed someones work and its nothing special, its just like point and shoot photo taken with an expensive gear. I can say photo quality is good because of good camera specs.I aslo saw some work of photographers shooting with the old Nikon D40 camera but the results have the wow factor. :-)
I'm just a photography beginner in the sense that there is a lifetime road to travel ahead.
Non sequitur!Though technology doesn't create a talent, it does help it to thrive. A talented person more than anybody else would know the limitations of the equipment and more than anybody else would benefit from the technological improvements. But even a mediocrity can produce a better c**p with better equipment. So technological advances is always a boon.
forpetessake: DSLRs is a dying breed. Nikon should focus their attention on mirrorless market before it's too late.
@ ocir, keep on dreaming, mirror is a liability, not an advantage. The mirrorless will not doubt drive DSLRs off the market in the next few years. They are more expensive now, but the prices will inevitably go down, and then who's going to buy the outdated DSLR technology?
Douglas F Watt: Troubling that ideology trumps observation here too often. Although rants about the 'megapixel war' are most popular posts ("24MP for entry level camera is absurd" is highest rated comment), these unfortunately don't square with the scientific and technical story of DP over last 10 years - which is that sensor (and to a lesser extent software) evolution have allowed cameras to have both higher resolution and better low light performance simultaneously. Although at any given point in time, higher pixel density sensors generally have poorer low light performance than lower density ones, there is wide spectrum of performance on this (witness LL performance of latest m4/3 sensor in the new Olympus ILC). More importantly, over time, newer (higher resolution) sensors have at least equaled, if not exceeded, the low light performance of the older generation systems. Witness the surprising low light ability of the D800 sensor, which is remarkably close to LL performance of D3 sensor.
The pixel quality of all bayer sensors is not that great. It takes somewhere between 8 and 16 sensor pixels (depending on LP filter and demosaicing algorithm) to get one well-defined output pixel. The same ratio I would use when comparing lens resolution and sensor resolution. The latter should be at least 10x higher to not hamper the lens performance. Thus if a good lens can have 2000 lph, the sensor should have at least 6000 pixel/heigh to match the lens performance. I wouldn't be surprised to see a heated race to get to 50MPixel APS and m4/3 sensors in the next 5 years before cooling off.
DSLRs is a dying breed. Nikon should focus their attention on mirrorless market before it's too late.
The pixel resolution and spatial transfer (MTF) are great, no one argues, but that is way too little to compete with similarly prices cameras. Colors are bad, noise is bad, handling is bad ... Foveon sensor technology is interesting, but Sigma has never achieved anything outstanding with that and unlikely will.
forpetessake: User interface, colors (or absence of those), buttons, tabs, ergonomics is absolutely awful. It can compete with SilkyPix for the title of the ugliest modern software. Not that Adobe ever had any Photoshop with cleanly designed UI, but LR4 is especially bad in this department. On the other hand, all the basic functionality is there and quality of adjustments is good and price is almost reasonable.
@bigdaddave, I'm writing software for living, you don't tell customers, who abhors a poorly designed UI -- learn to use it properly. It's the stupidest thing to say, you will simply lose them. Rather, you find competent people to properly design user interface -- that's the easiest part of the software design. Adobe did a terrible job at that, it's shocking to see such an incompetence. The fact that they made it so slow and so fat also tells a lot about their software development competence, or should I say incompetence.
BruceNorton: LR3: 99.6 mb (mac OSX)LR4: 909.4 mbAdobe bloat?
It's getting bigger and slower. It's now in the bloatware category with poorly designed user interface. I'm afraid either Java or similarly incapable technologies have a lot to do with it.
User interface, colors (or absence of those), buttons, tabs, ergonomics is absolutely awful. It can compete with SilkyPix for the title of the ugliest modern software. Not that Adobe ever had any Photoshop with cleanly designed UI, but LR4 is especially bad in this department. On the other hand, all the basic functionality is there and quality of adjustments is good and price is almost reasonable.
So much noise @ 2500, and colors are simply terrible.
MichaelSpotts: Great dynamic range.
Are you being sarcastic?
ogl: No good, to say honest, for landscapes.
So far, no good for anything. All pictures are quite disappointing.
Skin color is not the strongest point of this camera.
Skin color is sick, sky washed out -- quite unimpressive.
I don't understand, ISO is said 100, but the noise is visible! And resolution looks and quality looks like coming from P&S camera. Just terrible.
Noise is hedious, far worse than Nikon D4, even worse than recently reviewed Fujifilm X-Pro1. Canon is losing the high ISO game.
jamesfrmphilly: ok, somebody find out how many SD1 were sold!
Both people who bought at MSRP will receive a discount and a memorial plaque.
Sigma's following HP path: no buyers - offer a deep discount, still no buyers - start a fire sale and liquidate the stock. Next announcement will be $1000 per body.
Their software is buggy. Click on left or right side of the third camera and it focuses on the second camera instead.
It's not a great idea to trade valuable pixels for variable focus. There are far better uses for them.
camerosity: ok, go ahead and hire a cheap photographer and see how you like the photos of your once-in-a-lifetime event, probably the happiest day of your life. when you get the pictures back, with poor lighting, the backs of heads, people chewing their food, and don't forget the photos you won't see, cake cutting, the toast, first dance, etc, because you wanted to save money and your cheap photographer was in the kitchen with the servers drinking straight from the champagne bottles. $3000.00 gets you 5-7 hours of High Quality Photography from a person or people with a book that is full of top quality photos they took at other weddings, and another book full of letters from their satisfied customers, many who hired them again for their second weddings. also, $3000.00 weddings get you lights and reflectors, to enhance the quality of portraits. Cheap wedding photographers show up with a flash on their "digital SLR" (usually a Canon Rebel).
em_dee_aitch, let's see the great pictures you posted... oops, DPR says you're just a troll, who knows nothing about photography: "em_dee_aitch has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet." And since your post shows you can't master logic even on a middle school level, it makes no sense answering your inane comments.