Eugene232: I had an dp2 Merrill and hated it.Quattro I hate in advance.
So your complaint is mostly about the software, not the camera? (If you have a Mac you can use Iridient for extraction.)
AF in total darkness, um, okay, when would you use a Sigma in that situation? Slow AF? So no sports shooting.
RStyga: As much as I like Sigma, they need to drop this Quattro-design fiasco A-S-A-P before they surpass the SD1 original release-price fiasco. WHAT ON EARTH did the designers think when creating the Quattro??? IT IS ugly, IT IS grossly not ergonomic, IT IS not compact in any conceivable way!!! There is nothing positive to this design at all. Sigma wake up...
But think of all the other things one has to do with one's right thumb on a DSLR body or mirrorless body.
If your wife can master those things with her right hand/thumb this Quattro can't be a huge step.
munro harrap: There will be stillife studio and landscapes types who will love it, but it is impractical for reportage-completely.When do we get the choice of an EVF? The image quality from the DP2 is wonderful, but is the DP1Quattro's lens a vast improvement on the DP1 Merrills, because it was not at all a good lensI would need to know how many hours I can leave the battery running before it dies.I returned a Merrill 16MP compact a few months ago because the answer to that was about 40 minutes. By the time I had set up the camera and taken a few test shots, the battery was exhausted. You needed to run it off the mains!!
Why does everybody else who has used them, then say that the DP Merrills have excellent lenses?
Now you could have had a bad example, but it's very odd to see lens complaints about Sigma DP cameras.
Right the battery life in some models wants.
caravan: Odd looking size for a compact camera.
It's an APSC sensor; that's "a compact camera", now?
Actually, the Quattro can take excellent photos thru ISO400. And there are places it can easily be used at ISO800.
I'm going by raws I've downloaded from Imaging-Resource and PhotographyBlog. And then extracted. There's effectively no noise at ISO 100, so either SLR Lounge is shooting jpeg, or doesn't know how to use Sigma Pro Photo 6 for extraction.
Are you not generally familiar with the history of shooting above 800 ISO with DSLRs?
ISO400 was about the upper limited for 35mm colour film for years.
JDThomas: This is pretty much what the D610 should have been in the first place. It's got a lot of great specs and will be a great camera for a lot of people.
However, this is not a D700 replacement. I think Nikon is trying to bury the D600 stigma by using a name that people equate with one of the best cameras Nikon ever produced.
It's relatively cheap at only $2300, but I would have paid $3000 for these guts in a D810 body.
I shot with the D700, far more than "picked up".
I guess the durability problems I've read about are more external than internal, which is a good thing. And note: I admit I've only read, I've not tested used the D700 to the breaking point.
But the AF on the D700 remains not great, in comparison to the D3s.
Cheezr: If I had to guess I'd say this was originally intended to be the 610 but they had to rush out a shutter fix for the 600 and it would have been too annoying to replace the 610 so soon so they made up a new name.
I am sure we will never really know..
A silly assumption.
And in fact I've not defended the D750, because I've not handled it.
Because it doesn't have the sensor from the Df, I don't think it's a camera that would interest me much.
To clarify for you: I pointed out how it is a better camera, in some regards, than the D610.
And if it is a "slight bump" in the the 610, the price difference reflects that.
Mike FL: Sigma is real know what are they doing. As well as Lytro. So does Lensbaby, and...
Where are you getting exact magnesium percentages? I guess it's possible.
Why are you telling me what the D600 should have been? Tell Nikon.
And anyhow the fact remains that this D750 has better AF than the D610. Sony, or some party, would have to build another FF 20+MP sensor to "upgrade" the sensor from the D610. Possible, but not cheap.
samfan: They are really, really trying to create the ugliest camera in history.
What was wrong with the original DP and Merrill? Those were cool. Sigma is cool. But I want some of what these designers are smoking.
I think this new sensor uses much more power, so needs a bigger battery. (Even if not the new body shape.)
Here's IR about handling, from Sept 12, '14; it's generally positive:
What did you hate about the DP2 Merrill, and what were you using it to shoot?
Sir Nick of High Point: Sweet! Part of me wishes that they would delete the LCD screen. The whole Leica philosophy involves keeping your head up and eyes peeled, not buried in a useless tiny screen.
At about $2200 for the body with a 16MP APSC CMOS sensor, right you are.
But Epson isn't paying attention.
Could even get Leica to offer say a $3500 FF body.
VENTURE-STAR: I don't doubt this is a superb camera and I wouldn't mind owning one. However, the price tag puts the instrument way out of my reach and carrying it around and using it in public places would be a liability from the point of theft and accidental damage.
The question is - would it actually improve my photography and the answer has to be no.
As I said, I've seen Veyrons in a show room in my city, but I suspect they're being driven in certain suburbs and certain wealthy townships. I imagine they're used for special events within the city sometimes--you know to show off what you're arriving at the party in.
That's preposterous, no one shoots Sigma/Foveon at ISO3200. And no one ever claimed that you can shoot at ISO 3200 with a Sigma.
Whereas, shooting raw at ISO 100, both the Quattro and DP Merrills rival medium format bodies for image quality, in fact better colour than many.
The video commentary at Imaging Resource liked the body well enough.
NB: The SD1 is also a Merrill.
Marty4650: I just don't get it, as many others have rightfully pointed out.
Since this is a single focal point fixed lens camera, why wouldn't an optical viewfinder that slid into the hot shoe make more sense? Like the ones Leica and Voigtlander make for rangefinder cameras, or the one Olympus made for their 17mm f/2.8 lens?
Of course it would... but that would be simpler, cheaper, and much less grotesque. Which would defeat the whole "Quattro Concept." And it wouldn't get enough laughs.
The camera does have a hot shoe, so why not provide a slide on EVF like so many other manufacturers have? That would also be simpler, cheaper and much less grotesque, and it would provide an eye level EVF that would provide the added benefit of tilting upwards.
Depends how the OVF directs one's view.
There is a Chinese made EVF with its own battery that works with older Sigmas. It plugs into the USB port.
It was revived briefly in Japan and Europe, but they never moved the sensor on to CMOS and say 14MP.
What on earth are you talking about?
Is ISO 3200 the only capacity you seek in a digital camera?
Then you couldn't have had a digital camera until about 2006-7.
Also there's another 3 layer sensor shipping besides ones from Foveon/Sigma?
Then when did I ever claim that the Sigma Quattro could be used at ISO 3200?
It's well understood that Sigmas are for bright light and below ISO 400, sort of like a 2002 DSLR.
Perhaps Lytro won't be the one to bring plenotpic cameras to the masses, but the tech, whichever party is working on it, is a big deal. And the new Lytro body design is very good.
I remind you of how much a Canon/Kodak DSLR cost in 1995 and how many megapixels it had and how big the external data recorder was, and the fact that there was no jpeg, so no checking the images after shooting.
1995 isn't even 20 years ago. Things can change in 5 years or 10.
Rob Bernhard: With the "Quattro" name, they should not stop with only 3 cameras. ;-)
You can read the comment dates at the B+H link.
So the answer is yes. But like the DP Merrills, the SD1 has ISO limits and one must shoot raw of course.
(However the SD1 is not some $8000 body.)
Since I'm concerned about higher ISO performance, the SD1 is not a camera I'd buy, but I certainly see the appeal for working outdoors in daylight below ISO 400.
There is an OVF for this camera, one complaint has been that it slides out too easily--likely can be prevented with T.A.P.E.