tkbslc: If Sigma wants to grow their camera business, they need to put some effort into designing at least one model that has a bit more all-around utility. I am amazed at the detail at ISO 100-200 from these cameras. However, the lack of ability to shoot in lower light, stray more than an hour from a charger, shoot video, or focus on anything moving, means Sigma cameras are not really an option for more than 1% of photographers.
I'm also suprised that with their poor high ISO, they continually affix slower lenses to their DP line. Give us an f1.4 lens and maybe I'm OK being stuck under ISO 1600. And with battery issues, an OVF tuned to the attached lens would be a good solution.
leica and zeiss never manage to make the quality product at the price like sigma could, for now at least. it is understood that many can't stand the trouble of foveon, but it deliver something no match by others in the market, it is proven by facts! the way they try to improve foveon's performance in the new dp shows they think out of the box and is inspiring, to me. so leave this gentleman and his team alone. even sigma failed at the very end, they already done an extremely well job when all things consider. they certainly deserve much respects for what they have achieved.
FBoneOne: After shooting canon for over 20 years this is quite underwhelming. They make good cameras but they stopped making exciting ones a while ago. I can remember signing up for canon when the first IS lens came out - changed my life. Or the Eos 3, although the eye control did not work so well, it offered so much of the 1v at a fraction of the price with amazing AF for the time and outstandingly accurate light measure - much better than my Eos 1N. Or the 540ex flash, the first really reliable wireless multi flash system. I just miss a time when canon made me feel that they were advancing photography with huge leaps.
The last time i felt that way was looking at pictures from the Nikon D800e... Or the Leica M Monochrom.
Might be nostalgia hitting, but I wish canon would wow me again.
no doubt grants like Canon is hard to swing when they have more mature products on the market which any new product may create conflicts on the existing one. canon may never wake up like Kodak or Nokia to swing its bat. but hard to swing, don't swing don't mean can't swing. and canon is one of those with so much technology reserve when it swing, it swing hard and fast. we should in fact hope, canon going for a swing :)
apple to apple; sensor size to sensor size, zoom lens to zoom lens, body size to body size, price to price. a single lens of 24-120/f2.0-3.9 on 1.5inch sensor at this size, as long as the G1XmkII delivers the standard Canon G series performance, i will be glad someone could suggest me an equivalent combination from m43 or other systems. I agree it is not most excited but definitely a very practical one.
btw, i shot m43, pentax, sony, sigma, canon, and a few compacts. i am no fanboy but i really appreciated a compact zoom with all the spec like G1XmkII or better.
"getting a pro to shot the samples!!" are all over the real world samples gallery here in dpreview. personally, i think dpreview is doing a good job in fact, by mistake or not. cause over 90% of us out there will shot exactly like this. a pro will make all sample galleries here look amazing even if it is by a $100 p&s, but is it true for the rest of us? the camera don't make a better photographer.
is dpreview real world samples gallery any good...personally, yes!! cause it is real for many, including myself :P
any camera could be good if it is in the right hand
vapentaxuser: I like the weather-sealing, and we already know the 20MP sensor in this camera is an excellent performer based on its performance in the RX100 II. But the question mark for me is the lens...is the performance consistently good throughout its entire focal range? Past Vario Sonnar T* Sony/Zeiss have all been good performers (based on my experience with the 16-80 A mount lens and the one on the RX100 II)...I would spend $1300 on this camera if I had confirmation that the lens is all its cracked up to be.
That said, I applaud Sony for putting out a camera like this despite the price being a little steep. It probably comes the closest to "having it all" in a fixed lens camera.
24-200/f2.8 for m4/3rd or APS-C equivalent on one single lens?!
Stollen1234: whats the point of all these negative and meaningless comments?yes leica is expansiveyes you can get more features for your money with other brands..
no one if forcing you to buy a Leica..no one is forcing you to buy a Porsche or a Jaguar..
Simply if you think its too expansive just buy another camera..
I assure you that Leica will still have a lot of fans arround the world despite all these negative comments.
how about you all go out and take few more shots with your cameras and having some fun
i am no leica fans and not here to defense it because i own one. i shot other cams also. just want to share a different angle on this "pan vs leica rebranded pan" topic. if one happens looking for a pan cam and the rebranded leica version in this case, should be on the consideration list as it does not cost more (provided you need the LR and value the 2 yrs warranty). why not try for your own experiences if no extra cost involved.
some would consider this as stupid act, but no matter how many reviews and comparison one have go through, it don't change the fact that you never try one and other's experiences will never have the best values as your own, correct?!
lots of DC have 1cm macro focus per spec but they certainly not the same, not documented. all files produce by same cam should be open by the same software, if it is not, then it could not be solved by changing a couple of setting on a cam and "for me" is significant.
i agree "my whatever" do not prove anything so does the other way around. no test can eliminate sample variations and variables, we can only minimize. side by side comparison are all over the web but none is being agreed at 100%, simply because the monitor variation will never be eliminated.
here we share "my experiences" for other's interest/ reference. me only sharing the overall cam package is not overpriced (cam+LR+2yrs warranty), the output files are not the same, the software/ firmware difference should be consider in digital world. if these are not what you agreed, i respect that.
also, whether the raw converter could release the file to its max. potential is a factor to consider. a recent test of fuji x trans and sigma dp files using iridient developer 2.2 shows very different results as compare to the LR or its default converter. again, not saying which is better or worst but it is difference. i believe a jpeg and a raw shooter may have very different experience. no doubt this leica is a rebranded pan, but neglecting software/ firmware difference which plays a key role in digital world and simply claiming two things are the same base on hardware spec only is not technically correct.
"small firmware adjustment, faulty LX (i wouldn't agree i tested a faulty unit but i should make it clear the macro focus capability is different)" one can have millions other reason trying to proof the D-luxs and LXs are exact same cam but even a little firmware adjustment, it is no longer the same cam, that's the point. firmware adjustment makes big difference in digital world. i have friend who believed his LX3 is no different than the D-lux4 until he took enough shots and finally agreed it is not the same when compare to my other friend's D-lux 4 files. the difference is more obvious in prints where the IQ is true quality of the file but not the monitor. after all, i am just saying it is not the same cam and it is not overpriced. whether it is better or fit your needs is another story.
despite many people believe the leica version is exactly the same as pan, NO! it is not. the leica version does have a leica processor. the pan software can't open the leica raw file. if you shot jpeg, i agreed the difference may not hard to notice but you would see if they are side by side. and if you shot raw, there is difference. not saying which is better but there is difference. i tried both dlux 5 and lx5, it is not just the files, the af focus is not the same too. i try a macro shot and the pan can't focus at the exact same testing point. the dlux5 comes with LR3 and 2 yrs warranty. the lx5 actually cost more if i extended to 2 yrs warranty+ LR3. so if you are looking for LF1 and have no LR, you should consider the leica version. it is not about the red dot, not about cosmetic, not about better file, but it is not 100% the same cam and it is not overpriced.
drummercam: The canons-nikons have had their own flops and their own manufacturing defects. There were light leaks on one of the canon dslr's, and the nikon V2 looks like marc newson could have given it some badly needed design help (same with entire PS G15 line and the NEX's, as far as I'm concerned). Disagree that K-01 is in any way ungainly in the hand. It lends itself to a solid grip and thus better view-screen shooting than anything I've handled. Big enough for a good, long-lasting battery in common with my K-7 and K-5. And rubbish to all the noise about the rubber SD card flap. It's fine. Intuitive menus, great feel to the buttons and dials and the pop-up. Maybe you need to own one to know it, but the K-01 is a solid camera capable of great images, and I didn't need to buy a single lens for it.
oh, just realize where are all these non constructive, bias, personal nonsense come from. only because many having their pretty camera are not getting better or actually having worse photo than an ugly camera (pretty and ugly in their own opinion). while you can't respect other's opinion and what makes you think we should care about yours!! call me shallow!!
it is disappointed to see many who are happy K01 is done has never ever use one and i wonder what is the value for those comments. i will be glad to see someone come up here and share all the nonsense being a K01 owner, that's constructive! well, anyone?
all camera got pros and cons. many pretty looking camera give BS pictures. K01 may be ugly but it gives beautiful pictures!!
yes, i am a fanboy, camera fanboy, i shot many systems as habit and learning so you can save your Pentax fanboy comment just in case. write something more constructive, please.
wish your pretty or "mirrorless must be this and that" camera gives you pretty pictures as a successful camera should be.
personal opinion only.
ARTASHES: Before everybody starts to complain about sensor size just check this sensor performance on the other compacts (Canon HS50, SX240)If it had 1/1.7 sensor it would have been bigger with same speed lenses (XZ-2 is that camera actually) or it would have the same size with slower lenses and you would lose all your IQ gain in low light !!!
@Raist3d - thanks for the lead as i just manage to check on yours and others work on that forum. learn a great deal about Q and small size sensor. will stay close with the forum for all the great works, thanks!
beside the lack of viewfinder and phase detect, it is a great camera for snap. excellent image quality especially at low light, good control, easy handling, the brick actually give a tripod like function believe it or not. i got one (on discount price) and other FF cams, i just want to make a fair statement for K01. u can laugh at how it looks but it's pictures make many other cameras look like a joke.
personal opinion only.
happy K01 owner.
@Raist3di registered to say your pictures are very nice especially the high ISO ones and wonder if all those are by the pentax Q. i have done some research on the Q and didn't find much. i may search the wrong place, anyway, nice pictures!