I'm quite a big fan of the Sony Alpha system (and own an Alpha 55) but this body makes no sense to me.Which professional would be jumping on a Sony Alpha FF body just reviewing the line of FF compatible glasses (either from Sony or Tamron or Sigma). There is only a very few as most of those lenses has been designed for APS-C bodies. Why should I limit myself?Are there any plans / rumors for more lenses in the A-mount domain?regards
Please explain what you can't shoot with Sony compatible FF lenses. Thanks in advance.
Gothmoth: canon had this pellicle mirror design 40-30 years ago.. if they would think it´s good enough for pros they would use it again i guess.
and the EVF.... i tried them all.. i still think they suck compared to a good optical viefinder in a nikon or canon. i really doubt the a99 will change that.
If you are not interested in this camera, what are you doing here? If you like Canon or Nikon cameras, use them and be happy.
Hani7up: Ugly as sin, but we'll wait for the full review
So, it's ugly because it doesn't look like a Nikon? I personally find Nikon bodies ugly.
Marty4650: If film was so great then we'd all be shooting it today, and Kodak would be thriving. I find it ironic that the nostalgia buffs have to come onto a site named "Digital Photography Review" in order to whine about the fact that most people prefer to use digital cameras.
This makes about as much sense as going onto a sports car website and whining about "how horses were better than cars."
Neither format is better. Each has advantages and disadvantages. (In the case of film.... considerable disadvantages). I respect those who still like using the more costly and inconvenient format, but that will not change the fact that the market for film and paper has almost disappeared.
Enough with the nostalgia crap.
The market has spoken. Get over it.
It would be a good thing if those who are not interested in film could leave alone those who are. They use digital cameras only, they think it's much better than film, they will never use film again or they have never used film. Why do they bother themselves about film?
King Penguin: From an environmental 'green' point of view we should be happy with the demise of film. Sad for Kodak for sure but it had the chance to change but unlike Fuji which faced the same issue, Kodak muffed it.
Sorry guys.......but that's the truth, they had their chance and muffed it!
It's not sad for Kodak. It's sad for those who use film. And from an environmental green point of view we could also get rid of cars and of most other things.
57even: OK I'm not from the US, but Kodak has not had the market significance outside the US that is has domestically. It's demise will cause hardly a ripple in Europe. A handful will mourn the passing of TriX but that's about it.
Perhaps that's the root of the problem. They have an impressive technology portfolio but never managed to monetise any of it. Poor management? Partly, but also a bunch of shareholders and creditors who were unwilling to accept the medium term financial hit of the major restructuring required.
Welcome to short termist ecomonomics. It killed more companies than Kodak.
Portra films are used worldwide. And are recent technology. But, yes, I acknowledge that digital enabled any idiot to take good family pictures and occasionally good pictures.
Nikonworks: My D700 and D7000 and D300 and D5000 and Samsung TL500 can do the same thing.
Just do it.
MrFlash: Just when you think that Fuji (and others) may drag Leica kicking and screaming into the 21st century, they resist temptation and take a giant leap back toward the 60's.
Very few people will be willing to photograph exclusively in B&W, so it's a good thing that Leica bodies are priced so that most people can just buy two. One for color, one for B&W. Makes perfect since to me.
jmmgarza: Now... a high-quality black ink only large-format ink jet printer.
... and a high-quality monochrome computer screen.
ljmac: These images simply aren't aesthetically pleasing, let alone accurate. The lack of colour overemphasises certain unattractive elements (e.g. bloodshot eyes), while destroying a lot of detail in complex areas of the scene, which needs colour to resolve properly. It seems that in practice converting colour to monochrome in accordance with the needs of the specific image produces far better results - or even better, not converting it to monochrome at all.
Saying that colour is superior to monochrome doesn't make any sense. It's different, that's all.
Kummik: Image quality might be awesome, but small sensor still has it's limitations. Achieveing a shallow DoF with the SD1 is much more difficult and it can't really be compared to 645D or even a FF sensor in that respect. I'm not familiar with the Foveon technology, but I haven't seen any examples how it performs with higher ISO, so not sure how it compares in terms of noise.
If you want a shallow depth of field in low light, the SD1 is not for you. It's been known for years, and written everywhere, that the Sigma cameras are not the best for available light. But in daylight or under controlled lighting, they are fantastic, the more so if you DON'T want a shallow depth of field.
forpetessake: 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.
So you handled one?
bborowski000: There you go .......the reason this camera was cloaked in so much secrecy was because it was and still is a dud. Obviously they couldn't sell enough of them so they rebadged and repriced it. I wouldn't take one for free!!
Reading the previous post and most of the following, I realize how many people use forums as a kind of psychotherapy. This is perhaps more obvious in photographic forums, due to the lack of technical and scientific knowledge of most posters.
Albino_BlacMan: The next gen FF faveon with live view and a decent write speed might actually be worth buying! Reminds of an x100. Both just needed a few loose ends tied up that the developers never seemed to get around to.
The SD1 can't be an 'epic fail' since its career is just beginning.
rich12: Given the pricing history of this camera, this model is among the worst value cameras ever reviewed at DP Review. In addition, it seems to be basically the same camera that Sigma has been marketing for 10 years. Every time there's a supposed "new" camera, it's the same as the old one...with the same problems that never get fixed.
So I can take for granted that you owned one or several of those cameras. What were your problems?
rich12: I forgot to add that color accuracy on the Sigma is still terrible. It's been that way for 10 years. I guess they can't get rid of all that excess purple.
And the camera is still slow as molasses. 15 seconds to save? What am I supposed to do, get coffee between exposures?
So you have to multiply by the capacity of the buffer.
veroman: Same old, same old. By the time you get to ISO 400, all of the detail advantages of the sensor and the lack of AA filter are pretty much lost. ISO 800 and beyond seems practically useless. Same blotches I saw with my first Foveon, the SD9. I used to think the Foveon sensor had great potential. I don't any more. After all these years, the best that has happened is the resolution has been increased. Unfortunately, the rest of the camera's features and performance have left it in the dust of the competition ... same place it's been for several years now. At this point, I have to assume that the noise level at higher ISOs is an inherent major flaw of the Foveon sensor concept and cannot be remedied. Otherwise, it would have been by now. Even my Nikon P7000 does better at ISO 800! The SD1, like its predecessors, is an ISO 100-400 camera. Given that, if you like the clarity and sharpness of the Foveon sensor, then just go find yourself a good condition SD9 for about $200.
Outdoors, ISO 100 is usually enough. In extreme cases, ISO 400.
1 picture every 15 seconds = 240 pictures an hour = 5760 pictures a day = 40320 pictures a week. Divide by 2 if you intend to sleep.
rich12: One last thing. Looking at the results and the specific ratings, I can't see how this camera scored a 71% overall. It is only rated well on image quality and build quality. As such, I would have expected an overall rating significantly lower than 71%.
Also, I wouldn't rate the image quality so highly, given the color inaccuracy.
I can't see what can be more important than image quality and build quality. So I'm surprised that the rating be so low.