Say hello to a professional-level studio and portrait camera. Maybe the best bang for the buck in these applications. The body was clearly designed to use with the battery grip, put it on and most of the quirkiness goes away. the Foveon IQ at base ISO in good light is peerless, that's well-known. Large Sigma glass is extremely good too.
Cameracist: Give it fullframe sensor with Bayer matrix, a mirror, optical viewfinder, Pentax K-mount, Full HD video and GPS and I am interested:-D :-D
People have no clue about how good the Foveon sensor image is. Google some... It does not always work for all conditions, but when it does the results are spectacular.
RedFox88: It's unfortunate to see such a technically flawed photo win. Out of focus, pattern noise from extreme shadow lifting. Good story but not good to call photo of the year unless everyone with an iPhone is a potential press photographer of the year.
Red- Show me your technically excellent photo of a cat that has the same emotional impact. DPR is such a moronic place sometimes, or most of the time...
Does it have an underexposure issue? Seems that way from the comparison of the edited and unedited photos. Nice gallery by the way.
sierranvin: Hey hey hey - only 9x overpriced vs. the competition!
An underwater housing is way cheaper. This thing is too large and too ugly to be a walk-around APS-C camera, and people two the ho can justify spending 3K on a waterproof should rather spend that money on a DSLR, a housing, and a decent strobe. And in addition they would have a normal camera to take with them to a fancy restaurant dinner afterwards. I really don't see a market for this thing beyond rich snorkelers.
It's a disaster on a crowded ski slope. I give ski resorts a year before they ban this thing. But it's awesome for junior extreme sports competitions where there is no one else on the run.
Should be am major revenue source for water rafting companies, shoot the video, sell customers a CD for $30, make a lot of money.
Seriously??? Yawwwnn... This camera makes zero sense in the market that has Ricoh GR or Fuji's own X100. Stop wasting time and get us the Pro-2.
Too big and bulky to be a real smartphone. Its better to cary a regular smartphone and a high-end compact when you need to shoot quality. Face it, modern smartphone cameras are good enough for 90% of routine pictures. the 10% are not worth the tradeoffs of carrying a thick monster of a phone.
Fantastic. thanks for posting.
Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.
#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...
Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.
What the GoPro should have been like?
Rob Bernhard: With the "Quattro" name, they should not stop with only 3 cameras. ;-)
Does anyone care about Sigma DSLs anymore?
There IS/WAS a DSLR. It had a ridiculous MSRP and didn't sell well at all.
alexzn: For a fine sample of soviet war pictures see:http://baltermants.com/#/
BTW, Khaldei's photo was later retouched to remove one of two watches the soldier wore on his hands (evidence of looting which was widespread amend the victorious Red Army soldiers.
I just have to laugh about some of the NKVD posts... Every Russian family probably has some items that were war "trophies". The higher you were int eh army, the more you were able to loot. Top generals sent stuff home by railroad cars, soldiers took stuff back in suitcases. It was war and long and bloody war, so no wonder it had many ugly sides. I'd say it was by far not the ugliest side of that war...
alexzn: this is one of the iconic images of the WWII. It may not be so popular in the West but it is rather well known in Russia. Depite all the poor taste sniping on DPR this is a real piece of history. Khaldei, Baltermantz and other Soviet war photographers left behind a treasure trove of powerful images documenting a titanic event of the 20th century. Have some respect (maybe a hopeless cause at DPR forums these days).
Have you ever met anyone on an internet forum who willingly asked to be lectured? I have not. So, fine, my comments were not directed at you, but if you look at this thread, there are plenty of examples of sniping, trolling, the ever-present references to Leicas being too expensive, you name it. I think I have a full right to comment on that as well. Now lets go back to the subject of war photography, much more interesting.
For a fine sample of soviet war pictures see:http://baltermants.com/#/
this is one of the iconic images of the WWII. It may not be so popular in the West but it is rather well known in Russia. Depite all the poor taste sniping on DPR this is a real piece of history. Khaldei, Baltermantz and other Soviet war photographers left behind a treasure trove of powerful images documenting a titanic event of the 20th century. Have some respect (maybe a hopeless cause at DPR forums these days).
Great, thanks for posting
This is a non issue. People who go through the trouble of removing the watermarks will never buy the pictures anyway. We can debate why they seem to be entitled to get images produced with thousands of dollars worth of gear for free but that's beside the point. These people are just not the market for pro photography pictures. Trying to prosecute this is futile and stupid, it reminds me of record companies trying to prosecute people for copying CDs. Jobs invented the iTunes Store and made it a lot easier to buy music for an acceptable price than to steal it. Just face it- digital photography and cell phones made pictures very cheap. So it you expect people pay $$$ for your photos, think again, maybe special cases like weddings, but event photography is dead, unless people find ways to drop the price or find an alternative revenue source.
itchhh: I'm not sure the word "stunning" fits for these images in 2014. Maybe 10 years ago, but not today. With the rapid improvements in technology and more people with camera's, stunning shots are harder to come by than they once were. Kuddos to each of the photographers and their shots, its still an honor to be chosen.
Show me your work that is better, them you can harp on how those pictures are not stunning. Now go back to over-processing your garden flower shots taken by your expensive camera.