Of course, but you mentioned " extremely expensive microlenses", implying that they are not the usual kind.
I am glad you like it, and I agree that it is better than the average P&S. But the thread was about improvement, and I think there is plenty of room for real improvement, and Canon is just lazy about it.
My 2 cents: Yes (some people) are expecting too much. It's not that Canon can't innovate, but they seem to prefer modest, incremental improvements to their camera lines. Perhaps they think this is a less risky approach to profits. (Less chance of a big product bomb.) Or perhaps they don't want to obsolete existing camera lines while the inventory exists.So now let's get on with the discussion about whether we are expecting too much of Canon
Like the 1x-zoom (prime) of the Sigma, a 2x-zoom lens wouldn't sell well to most consumers either. That's why they won't likely do that.
If Sigma add at least x2 zoom market demand would be much higher...
It's also a fixed, rather than a zoom, lens. That's the reason it's smaller, not Sigma magic lol.
I doubt it.
Yeah, but 2 years ago would have you said it was impossible to put an F2.0 zoom lens like the s90's in a body the size of the s90?
I haven't the foggiest idea what I would have said about this 2 years ago. Of course a zoom can be put on the Sigma DP, just don't be surprised that it makes the camera body bigger.
There was just a cloud challenge
Ok, can you please tell me which specific image you mean? And I want it to be full (original) size, and not processed.
The Sigma magic consists in the fact that they did it. No other company made a compact (pocketable) P&S with an APS-C sensor. If I can get nearly perfect quality for 300 bucks at 28mm, or "meh" quality for 450-500 bucks at 28-140mm, I will chose the perfect quality. After all, I can always get a small travel zoom to cover the other FLs (or use my DSLR if I have to).
Why?
I'm sure if you select an image and PM the forum member/photographer they'd gladly provide you with the initial, un-pp'd shot.
The idea was for all to see those samples, so they must already be available to everyone. The only non large sensor P&S that can give you an almost noiseless sky is the Fuji F30/31 cameras. All the other cameras will either give you noisy skies, or juse use NR trickery to smooth out the sky, but also remove some details.
This comment and the entire thread reminded me of a comment Casey Stengel made when he asked about the less than adequate shortstop he was starting for the Mets (I can't recall his name - he was from Latin America), and Casey explained to the effect that the SS was only so big and only so fast and could only cover so much ground - and he was doing it the best that he could at his position.
The Fuji F30/31s are great cameras but they use lots of "NR trickery" according to a very competent forum contributor and noise expert (whose name escapes me at the moment). I just pass this along and cannot verify it, but he convinced me. This subject spawned endless debates on the Fuji forums a while back.
lets not forget canon make some very high end stills and video gear that pros swear by, not just the toys discussed in this forum.
