Cane: I wonder how many of you would actually buy a FF Pentax or just complain about what it doesn't have on camera forums? I am guessing there will be more talk than purchasing in this place.
Silly me I thought people concider you professional because you take outstanding images, not because of the brand of camera you use.
Tony Bonanno: I'm amazed that a company with a rich history in the camera and optics business is bragging about who the "designer" was. Who cares that Mark Newsom was the designer. Photographers do not buy a camera for those reasons.
Yeah there is a market for things mode by designers. It's not the normal photography market. Now that I think about I think the guy mentioned something about it in the article.
taktak91: I'm glad Pentax realizes that not all camera users are FF fanatics who think that FF is the only camera worth considering and that everybody wants one. FF may be in the future for Pentax, but I don't think now is the time.
Depends on the actual difference in image quality and what I want to be shooting for instance. If I do mostly macro work or wildlife photography I could make a real case for the APSC. Night,Action,events,Landscape and I would lean towards the larger sensor.
Shapes: Ok wait so your saying this is a compact camera with a 46 megapixel APS-C sized sensor, and a prime 28mm lens! I think Sigma just found them selves a new customer lol!
There are three numbers you need to be aware of 46mp - this is the amount of data that is collected from the sensor, 15mp this is the number of pixels that show up in the final image and 25-30mp which is about how the camera performs relative to most other cameras on the market. The difference is that this camera samples 36bits per pixel whereas most cameras sample 12-14 bits.
SteB: It looks a very good lens for anyone who tends to specialise more in tripod macro photography.
However, I admit it looks a bit large and expensive for my tastes. Currently I use the older non-OS Sigma 150mm, often with a 1.4x converter for a 210mm f4 1.4:1 lens. I've always been pleased with this lens. Nevertheless OS would be useful at times. I wanted to see the prices and sizes of the newer 150mm and 180mm.
Whilst the 180mm will probably be a macro lens to lust after, I'm not so sure I'd enjoy carrying it around. There's also probably a lot of useful equipment you could get for the price difference. So I think if I did move up to an OS version I'd get the 150mm as it's easy to turn it into a very serviceable 210mm with a 1.4x converter.
(the 180mm f3.5) not too bad to carry around... I notice it a little when it's on the camera - I don't really notice it when it is in it's pouch. Since I picked up my SD1m in March my older 180mm has practically lived on my camera.
Don Karner: Who am I going to use for my 3rd party lenses now? Sigma raising their quality and prices. They are pricing themselves out of the market for the casual macro shooter.
That price to me looks cheaper than the f3.5 180mm macro I was looking at on B & H last year.
cinefeel: Try downloading the RAWs.
As a studio/location strobe camera I think it is fully deserving of the score. Anything else and it would be much lower.
It's not designed to be an all-rounder.
I don't know about that - It's doing pretty well for me as a macro camera. but yeah like you said not an allrounder.
RStyga: I could live with the high ISO limitation but I cannot accept a $2K+ DSLR in 2012 lacking LV, exhibiting significant AF accuracy and AF speed issues, and the rest of the so-called quirks... If Sigma (or any reseller) ever drop the price below $1.3K it'll be worth considering. For now the only cost-benefit Foveon camera looks like any of the DP2 series (including the DP1/2 Merrill ones, provided their price will not exceed $600 or so, which is very doubtful). It seems that for now my DP2 will be the one to stick around.
I can't say I have had any AF issues so far with the camera. The AF seems quite good it's just not as good as the current Canon Nikon Flagship models.
KAllen: Great that Sigma gives you an alternative, most of the others are the same old thing, it's how they polish the bells and whistles that sets one apart from the other. Sigma and Leica do give you another approach. If you need, like or want what they do you are in luck.I'm old enough to remember when 800 asa was dizzy heights for low light sensitivity.When I shoot for fun, I shot 160iso and take a tripod, not a big deal. So a camera that does it's best work under 400iso is no real problem for me. Cranking up the iso is often just being lazy anyway.I'm very tempted with the SD1, two or three good primes would cover the bases.Question is do Sigma make two or three top notch primes?
I can Vouch for the 180mm and 70mm macros - If I were to get one lens for this camera it would be the former (I have had the SD1 for about 3 weeks and have been shooting with the 180mm f3.5 the 70mm 2.8 the 50mm 1.4 and the 10-20mm f3.5-5.6. So far I think I have used the 180mm for about 80% of the shots. The 10-20 is ok - apparantly the 8-16mm is better. So far the 50mm is the only lens I am disapointed with (seems to have more CA than the other lenses)
trungthu: It's only 15 M positions to receive light to record image, not 15X3=45Mp as Sigma said. But when they don't use AA filter, the detail is better (than other 15Mp camera).When other camera use two green pizels for one blog to equal to human eyes, Sigma can't do that, so the color is not good.If Sigma says SD1 with 15Mp, and add one more position to detect green, I hope, it is better. The price stagery is so bad, it's unreal!
hardly. The Foveon records Green at every position as opposed to every second position on a traditional sensor. This would be true if you scaled the image on the bayer sensor to 50%.Where the Foveon runs into trouble is that there is a reasonable amount of leakage between layers in the sensor which results in poorer color separation than should be theoretically possible. Its also part of the reason that the sensor is slow and doesn't perform so well in low light.
jsandjs: Any information on ISO range?
My understanding is that the way the new sensor works iso 100 is basically equivalent of the old iso 50 (including decreased headroom for highlights), 200 the old iso 100 and so on
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review