Reading mode: Light Dark

Why should I buy an SD9?

Go to last post
dimage said:
dimage said:
The image is outstanding. Unless you have used this camera, you
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
dimage said:
This is true for every digital camera image, I don't see your
point. There have been posts made a number of ways including
translations from TIFFs.
Click to expand...
You are right, but a SD9 image (in its native size) is much sharper than any native sized bayer image. Most often this sharpness is a major advantage with exception of visible aliasing when the contrast gets very high. The SD9 doesn't suffer from color moire - and this is without exception a major advantage.



Top comparison: SD9 aliasing. Bottom comparison: SD9 moire. Despite of this moire, the chroma (color) is correct. The D60 also suffer from moire in this sample crop, but it is color moire (notice how the color changes on the wall).
dimage said:
dimage said:
I have yet to see the dull greens.
Click to expand...
I think these have been noted by every review I have read
(including dpreview) and are evident in many of the pictures that
have been posted. You seem to be in a small minority having this
opinion.
Click to expand...
The "dull green" seems to appear in certain light conditions. Perhaps using filters (polarizing filter and/or an UV haze filter) will help under these conditions. Filters might also help with the "deep blue sky problem" and also when doing night shots.



Smeared out details or more structure?



What about the detail rendition in these darker areas and the water?



Does it matter with a little more noise, when you can get rid of the "color smearing", obtaining more correct and structured (= more realistic) details?
dimage said:
A person with the same "skills" is able to get a picture without
these blowouts with other cameras under the same conditions.
Click to expand...
Every camera will blow out under extreme conditions. However, the blow outs in bayer images are smeared out because of the interpolation. Hence, they are not so visible (they appear to become more "hidden" this way).
dimage said:
Any other digital camera can take night shots,
why not this one. Have you ever thought that the problem with
Click to expand...
The SD9 can take night shots, but the results are poor compared to many other digital cameras. My Canon S40 can take night shots as well. But I can't say that my S40 pictures are so much better than the SD9 night pictures. The result will depend on the camera settings and the overall light conditions. In any case, if night shots will be very important, then I would recommend another camera than the SD9.
dimage said:
dimage said:
High noise is just not there in my tiffs no matter
what you say.
Click to expand...
It is not "what I say" it has been published in every review.
Furthermore it seems from the reviews that in additions to being
very noisy at any ISO above ISO100, it also does some low pass
filtering to reduce the noise.
Click to expand...
There is no proof or evidence that any noise filtering is being done to the SD9 images. Anything said about this is based upon speculation. You'll have to ask Sigma about this to get some certain answers. As for the noise, the ISO100 images appears to be very clean in good light conditions. As I see it; ISO200 can be used in many cases with good result, and even ISO400 can be used in some cases with good result. It will depend on the overall light condition. The real question and challenge is to learn and use the camera the best way possible. It is the same situation for any camera with more than a "Auto" setting implemented (P&S cameras).
dimage said:
dimage said:
The limited ISO is only a problem if you make it one.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I am always making trade-offs between between the
light conditions, subject movement, DoF and camera shake, and ISO.
What you really seem to saying is that this camera is only good for
still lifes. I guess is still lifes and still people is all you
shoot and you are going to use a tripod everywhere, then this is
not a limitation.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you. It is mostly depending on the photographer's knowledge and ability to take pictures in various situations. Look at Rick's sample pictures:

http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker/sd9

Look at the pictures of the surfer. Looks pretty good to me, or what?
dimage said:
If the camera works for you, that is fine and I hope you are happy
with it, but I don't think that this is the right camera for the
vast majority of photographers.
Click to expand...
Well said! We are talking about equipment here that is (still to most people) quite expensive. Anyone who is considering to spend that much money on a dSLR needs to decide for themselves what camera will be most suitable for their needs and desires. I'm sure that there are (and will be) many happy SD9 owners. The main problem (as I see it) for Sigma is availability. Canon, Fuji and Nikon gear is not so difficult to find among a lot of resellers. That makes it more difficult to actually test the SD9 camera before you buy it. Luckily we have review sites and forums on the internet to help us. Lately we have seen a lot of new images, personal reviews and comments coming from several SD9 owners. There is no doubt in my mind that the SD9 will be the right camera for me. Unfortunately I cannot afford one right now, but that will change later on!

Cheers,
Geir
 
I have been to all the sites and I haven't seen anything like the feedback I see here. The negative feedback. The sig folks should read this thread. I really appreciate the honest opinions. I won't be buying this camera. Thanks
Adam-T said:
In the UK at least it represents incredible value for money, at
£1300 it's about the same price as an E20 and a LOT cheaper than a
D100 S2 or D60. it gives people who might have considered the 717,
5700 or E20 a chance at a removable lens DSLR where their other
option would have been taking a chance on E-Bay for a used D30
(which is brilliant also) .. I guess that an SD9 with the cheapo
28-70 F2.8-4 DL Aspherical would beat an E20 and you may even get
the lens on the cheap (£50?) if you wave cash around.. Of course it
would be just a starter, investing in good EX glass would be the
best move.

I believe it's not the same bargain in the states, it looks better
in the UK because Sigma don't rip us off over here...

I wouldn't change my D60 for anything bar the 1DS (I like the 15
years of used quality canon glass to choose from as well as IS) but
you gotta hand it to Sigma, they've done right by us brits with the
pricing ---- saying that though, they've not hit the high street
shops shelves yet ;-)

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Click to expand...
--
Ernie T.
 


Many of the comments are very relevant. Some have no substance behind them and are "scare" tactics. In making your decision you should put more weight on the responses of people who own this camera. And, as was said, evaluate how you intend to use the camera against its strengths and weaknesess. I wouldn't recommend you buy it either and I own one. It's not that I wouldn't recommend the camera - I would and I do. However, for those seeking "perfection", I would recommend something not in the initial releases such as a D100 or a D60. One last thing - if you get soft images out of your D60 or D100 don't say you weren't warned.

Good luck with your new purchase

Rick Decker
Ernie T. said:
Adam-T said:
In the UK at least it represents incredible value for money, at
£1300 it's about the same price as an E20 and a LOT cheaper than a
D100 S2 or D60. it gives people who might have considered the 717,
5700 or E20 a chance at a removable lens DSLR where their other
option would have been taking a chance on E-Bay for a used D30
(which is brilliant also) .. I guess that an SD9 with the cheapo
28-70 F2.8-4 DL Aspherical would beat an E20 and you may even get
the lens on the cheap (£50?) if you wave cash around.. Of course it
would be just a starter, investing in good EX glass would be the
best move.

I believe it's not the same bargain in the states, it looks better
in the UK because Sigma don't rip us off over here...

I wouldn't change my D60 for anything bar the 1DS (I like the 15
years of used quality canon glass to choose from as well as IS) but
you gotta hand it to Sigma, they've done right by us brits with the
pricing ---- saying that though, they've not hit the high street
shops shelves yet ;-)

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Click to expand...
--
Ernie T.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
 
Ken N said:
Ernie T. said:
Hello all, I own an olympus E10. I like the camera but I feel like
I have out grown it. I am looking to up grade. Ok, As you all know,
the D60 and the D100 are big sellers. It doesn't matter what site
you go to it's either buy the D60 or the D100. So, tell me why I
should really buy the SD9. Some of you had to make this same
decision and can shed some light on this. Thanks for you help.
--
Ernie T.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Ernie,

I upgraded from my E-10 a little over 2 months ago. I was interested in the SD-9, but after careful consideration, I found that the limitations of the SD-9 would not make it an upgrade for me from the E-10. I wanted higher ISO, better AF and faster wirte times.

If this sounds familar to you, then you realize that the ISO 400 will be just like our old ISO 320 on the E-10. This is not a bash on the SD-9, but after almost 2 years with the E-10, the upgrade had to fit my needs for at least a couple of years. The picture quality on the E-10 was not the issue, but rather being ABLE to get the picture. The AF on my E-10 was always a challenge, which made manual the better option in a lot of cases.

I chose the D100. I also talked with several other E-10 owners who had moved over to the D100 who were very satisified. I have to admit, moving to the Nikon was definitely an upgrade for my needs and I see it lasting for quite a while.
Good luck in whichever you choose.
--
Mike
 
Geir R said:
I don't agree with you. It is mostly depending on the
photographer's knowledge and ability to take pictures in various
situations. Look at Rick's sample pictures:

http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker/sd9

Look at the pictures of the surfer. Looks pretty good to me, or what?
Click to expand...
Not to nitpick (well...OK), but those surfer shots are not very sharp at all. The subject is either out of focus, or the 50-500 sample he has isn't very good (a definite possibility, given Sigma's QC). In fact, few if any of them are sharp at all. Only some of the macros really "pop."

The surfer is a bad example, IMHO.

Just my $.02

Brendan
--

Signatures are NOT for showing off! Please help the forums and put your equipment list in your PROFILE! That's what it's there for!
 
Geir R said:
dimage said:
Ladehaug said:
The image is outstanding. Unless you have used this camera, you
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ladehaug said:
This is true for every digital camera image, I don't see your
point. There have been posts made a number of ways including
translations from TIFFs.
Click to expand...
You are right, but a SD9 image (in its native size) is much sharper
than any native sized bayer image.
Click to expand...
I agree that "pixel for pixel" the X3/SD9 has a resolution advantage, but the problem is that the other cameras have about 1.76X more bayer pixels. This tends to wash things out. Some reviews give the nod to the SD9 others to the D60 and most of the S2. I find that the SD9 pictures sometimes have too much contrast (blues particularly have this problem) and contrast and percieved sharpness are inter-related.
Ladehaug said:
Most often this sharpness is a
major advantage with exception of visible aliasing when the
contrast gets very high.
Click to expand...
They left out an Anti Aliasing filter which results in visible aliasing (something DPREVIEW mistaking seem to think was an advantage). This shows up most strongly in thin lines (the so called "twisted rope effect") and in fabric weaves (with fake patterns in the weaves).
Ladehaug said:
The SD9 doesn't suffer from color moire -
and this is without exception a major advantage.
Click to expand...
I would agree that this is an advantage. But I don't know how major it is. I have not seen a lot of color moire problem in my DSLR pictures.
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
A person with the same "skills" is able to get a picture without
these blowouts with other cameras under the same conditions.
Click to expand...
Every camera will blow out under extreme conditions. However, the
blow outs in bayer images are smeared out because of the
interpolation. Hence, they are not so visible (they appear to
become more "hidden" this way).
Click to expand...
I think you were being very reasonable and making fair points up until here. The blowing out on the SD9 is much worse than any DSLR I have seen. Heck, specular highlights turn PURPLE. Colors just disappears. To me this is the biggest single problem with the camera. You can at least know and try and work around the ISO limitations, but you can take a bunch of shots only to find later that they are all blown out nor have to deliberately underexpose and thus suffer more noise.
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
Any other digital camera can take night shots,
why not this one. Have you ever thought that the problem with
Click to expand...
The SD9 can take night shots, but the results are poor compared to
many other digital cameras. My Canon S40 can take night shots as
well. But I can't say that my S40 pictures are so much better
than the SD9 night pictures. The result will depend on the camera
settings and the overall light conditions. In any case, if night
shots will be very important, then I would recommend another camera
than the SD9.
Click to expand...
I don't see why you can't see that the night shot problem is an extension of the problem with colors blowing out. The camera seems to have trouble dealing with large dynamic range in the same picture.
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
High noise is just not there in my tiffs no matter
what you say.
Click to expand...
It is not "what I say" it has been published in every review.
Furthermore it seems from the reviews that in additions to being
very noisy at any ISO above ISO100, it also does some low pass
filtering to reduce the noise.
Click to expand...
There is no proof or evidence that any noise filtering is being
done to the SD9 images.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you look at the following page and scroll down to the heading "Softness / color saturation at higher sensitivity" where is says, "This is quite subtle but shooting at ISO 200 or 400 softens the image very slightly and can lower the saturation of certain colors."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd9/page16.asp
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
Ladehaug said:
The limited ISO is only a problem if you make it one.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I am always making trade-offs between between the
light conditions, subject movement, DoF and camera shake, and ISO.
What you really seem to saying is that this camera is only good for
still lifes. I guess is still lifes and still people is all you
shoot and you are going to use a tripod everywhere, then this is
not a limitation.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you. It is mostly depending on the
photographer's knowledge and ability to take pictures in various
situations. Look at Rick's sample pictures:
Click to expand...
What? Then I guess all the film companies were wasting a lot of time and money on higher ISO film were nobody needed it? If you are shooting relatively still subject, then you can work around ISO. But if you are shooting moving subjects you need higher ISO or the subjects will be a blur even with fast lenses. When I shoot basketball, I am often at F1.8 and ISO800 to ISO1600. Shooting outdoor sports on a cloudy day, I am at ISO200 or ISO400 to keep the shutter speed around 1/500th (ideally I would like it faster) with a 100-400mm F4.5-F5.6 zoom. There is no working around this other than to have the players be a blur.
Ladehaug said:
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker/sd9

Look at the pictures of the surfer. Looks pretty good to me, or what?
Click to expand...
I would not consider these to be very well exposed shot, but yes in near full sun you can shoot at ISO100 at 1/500ths (the Sunny-16 rule is that in full Sun at F16 the shutter speed is 1/ISO-number). The first surfer shot was taken at F5.6 (3-stops below F16) and 1/500 (a little more than two stops above 1/100 with the ISO being 100). Thus this shot was taken in near full Sun. The second surfer shot was taken at ISO400 at 1/2000th and was very noisy. This basically says to me forget any sports except on full Sun days. A little clouds or late afternoon Sun and you are down 2 to 3 stops in light, and don't even think about indoor (basketball) or under the lights at night sports (football/soccer).
 
Hey Rick i think your comment about putting more weight on responses of people who own this camera is very wrong because as one thing i have noticed is that people that have spent the money on a paticular camera will tend to defend it to the death. This applies to all camera makes not just the sd9. My opinion is to look at the online reveiws and sample pictures and make your decision on that, user opinions tend to be more biased as they will justify why they spent money on whatever camera they decided on.

My personal opinion is to buy a Fuji S2 .

But i do hope there are future foveon improvments.
rick decker said:


Many of the comments are very relevant. Some have no substance
behind them and are "scare" tactics. In making your decision you
should put more weight on the responses of people who own this
camera. And, as was said, evaluate how you intend to use the
camera against its strengths and weaknesess. I wouldn't recommend
you buy it either and I own one. It's not that I wouldn't
recommend the camera - I would and I do. However, for those
seeking "perfection", I would recommend something not in the
initial releases such as a D100 or a D60. One last thing - if you
get soft images out of your D60 or D100 don't say you weren't
warned.

Good luck with your new purchase

Rick Decker
Ernie T. said:
Adam-T said:
In the UK at least it represents incredible value for money, at
£1300 it's about the same price as an E20 and a LOT cheaper than a
D100 S2 or D60. it gives people who might have considered the 717,
5700 or E20 a chance at a removable lens DSLR where their other
option would have been taking a chance on E-Bay for a used D30
(which is brilliant also) .. I guess that an SD9 with the cheapo
28-70 F2.8-4 DL Aspherical would beat an E20 and you may even get
the lens on the cheap (£50?) if you wave cash around.. Of course it
would be just a starter, investing in good EX glass would be the
best move.

I believe it's not the same bargain in the states, it looks better
in the UK because Sigma don't rip us off over here...

I wouldn't change my D60 for anything bar the 1DS (I like the 15
years of used quality canon glass to choose from as well as IS) but
you gotta hand it to Sigma, they've done right by us brits with the
pricing ---- saying that though, they've not hit the high street
shops shelves yet ;-)

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60, EOS7

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Click to expand...
--
Ernie T.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
Click to expand...
 
dimage said:
They left out an Anti Aliasing filter which results in visible
aliasing (something DPREVIEW mistaking seem to think was an
advantage). This shows up most strongly in thin lines (the so
called "twisted rope effect") and in fabric weaves (with fake
patterns in the weaves).
Click to expand...
This bothers me a great deal - and I really wonder why more people don't see this as a problem?!?!? I couldn't believe it when I read it here at DPR.

It might just be my history in DSP has programmed my brain to KNOW THIS IS WRONG!!!

I'll take a little blur and less resolution over aliasing.

I guess it's just my preference.

--Steve
 


Suppose you were looking at buying car or a stereo. Would you listen to the people who bought one? I do understand what you say about people and their cameras though. I guess it is like a double-edge sword. It seems that very few of the owners deny the shortcomings. I don't think the issues between people are related to what the strengths and weaknesses of this camera are but more how much weight to put on each. One area of this camera that I think has not gotten the recognition it deserves is its ability to produce outstanding landscapes. Probably because it is difficult to judge landscape on the web and not that much of it has been done yet. I personally think the S2 is a wonderful camera. If I were doing people shots or weddings I would have it in a heart beat. I would love to do some comparison shots in landscape and macro but I don't know anyone on the Big Island of Hawaii who has an S2. Do you have one? Maybe you should visit Hawaii! We could have a shoot-out. You could stay at my place (free) http://www.silveroaksranch.com .

Thanks for the post and the food for thought. BTW that guy Makesh (Mahesh?) over on the Fuji forum does great stuff doesn't he? Did you see his fireworks? I wonder if his prints look as great as his web postings.

Rick

http://www.lightreflection.com
 
I think I'd sell my d30 and get the Sigma if it were cheaper. The outdoor pictures are really nice (at least the ones taken with prime lenses) even though the dust spots are annoying (but fixable). While the d30 can't match it for resolution there are just soooo many other goodies the d30 offers that the sd9 lacks (flash, jpg, lenses are the biggies), at around $1000 the sd9 would be compelling. The $1000 digital slr may be here sooner than we think (esp when all the people who really wanted to buy the sd9 finish getting them). Heck, used d30s are already approaching the 1000 mark, the sd9 should not be far behind

Rich
 
Laurence Matson said:
Limitations and problems have more to do with perceptions and
projection than with fact. If you see these things as limitations
and problems, then that is what they are for you. That does not by
necessity mean that they are not that for me and probably not for a
far greater number of people than you seem to want.
Click to expand...
I must agree with this POV. A problem for one may not be a problem for others. The Sony F707 has an ISO limit of 400, but that did not stop Sony from making 14,000 units each month just for the US market when it was available. If low ISO may not be an issue for a lot of digital camera users, why is it all of a sudden a problem for all DSLR users?

The SD9 may not be the right camera for many users, but that does not automatically translate to it being an useless camera for all the users.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Ernie T. said:
So, tell me why I
should really buy the SD9. Some of you had to make this same
decision and can shed some light on this. Thanks for you help.
Click to expand...
Ernie,

No one else is going to know your shooting style, subject matter or skill. You need to determine from these basis and see which of the existing DSLRs best fits your photography skills.

I suggest you first write down what kind of conditions/subjects you like to shot, then from there match the camera features that best suits those conditions. It is a lot more likely you will find the best-fit camera that way.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reefkeepers.org/gallery/f707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery
 
Group Idiot said:
The SD9 is not a successful release for Sigma--period. No one knows
just how committed Sigma is the Foveon, but the mixed reviews the
SD9 is getting, and the poor sales, couple to dim the prospective
future for both Foveon and Sigma as consumer dSLR providers.
Click to expand...
You mention "poor sales". Is this a known fact or a guess on your part? Are unbiased sales figures available anywhere on the Internet?

Rennie

--
Sony F717
http://www.pbase.com/renniep
 
Well there isnt much anything in the sd9 that is directly better then the d60, except maybe saving a bit of space when you take 3mp pictures that are allmost but not quite containing the same detail as the d60. But teh price of the sd9 is a bit cheaper, but not enough, and where i liuve the sd9 costs more tehn the d60...
 
Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:
Limitations and problems have more to do with perceptions and
projection than with fact. If you see these things as limitations
and problems, then that is what they are for you. That does not by
necessity mean that they are not that for me and probably not for a
far greater number of people than you seem to want.
Click to expand...
I must agree with this POV. A problem for one may not be a problem
for others. The Sony F707 has an ISO limit of 400, but that did not
stop Sony from making 14,000 units each month just for the US
market when it was available. If low ISO may not be an issue for a
lot of digital camera users, why is it all of a sudden a problem
for all DSLR users?
Click to expand...
There certainly can be a market for a camera that does not have higher ISO, but it is a limitation that makes the camera less useful for the average photographer. A Sony F707 was a sub $1,000 point and shoot with a built in lens. The expectation generally a bit higher for a $1,700 plus lenses body. You start thinking "camera system" rather than just camera. If this was one of several digital bodies Sigma had, then it would be a different level of expectation as well. Right now, one could buy a SD9 and several lenses and be stuck if Sigma does not come out with better bodies. With a film body, you can change the film you use, with a DSLR your “film” selection is set when you buy the body.

The real issue is that there are several rather major problems that nibble away at various subjects that one can shoot with other DSLRs. This camera is recognized, even by most of its fans, as limited in it ability to shoot sports by the ISO/Noise.

If the limitations were only ISO, then I think you would have more of a point, particularly for those that don't take pictures of moving subjects in less than bright light. But the SD9 appears to have other issues that limit the range of its usefulness. The issues of blowing out highlights making it harder in many lighting situations. The way it treats blues and yellows seems to be problematic at times (blues seem to go to extremes of dark blue or no blue, orange-yellow and green-yellow colors tend to go to pure yellow). Then there is the question of dull green. And I have not seen anyone suggest that the SD9 is very good for taking night shots at any ISO.

No camera is perfect and every camera has its problems.
Jimmy Chen said:
The SD9 may not be the right camera for many users, but that does
not automatically translate to it being an useless camera for all
the users.
Click to expand...
Neither I nor anyone else has said the camera is "useless” but that it is much more restricted in the range of useful situations, and thus many more photographers would be better off with one of the other options available today. I frequent this forum because I am interested in the technology and hope that some day it will get better. But I can’t honestly recommend the camera to the typical photographer, nor would I recommend somebody waiting on buying a digital camera today simply because it does not have X3 for their lens mount (as a number of people have written).

Digital cameras (any brand) are not perfect today, but they can take some great pictures. For somebody that take a lot of pictures, they can make a lot of sense today. As with all high tech products, they will get both better and cheaper in the future, but you can wait forever and never use anything. At the same time, you can look amongst the DSLRs and see that some are more limited than others with the SD9 seeming to have far and away the most limitations.

I think it is good common sense when considering buying a product to look at what you can buy today, what it can do today, what it costs today, and thus whether it makes sense to you today, and not worry about what might be or could be in a few years. You may want to factor in reasonable expectations, particularly with a DSLR, where you are also making a level of commitment to the future of the lens system that one should consider. Nobody here knows what will happen with X3 and/or Sigma’s future in Digital Cameras. Will Sigma keep with X3, will somebody else use X3, will X3 overcome its limitations fast enough to over take Bayer sensors, and if so when? Will Foveon loose interest in DSLRs and focus on Video Cameras?
 
Adam-T said:
I guess that an SD9 with the cheapo
28-70 F2.8-4 DL Aspherical would beat an E20
Click to expand...
No, no, no. Not the cheap 28-70 under any circumstances. All of the worst SD9 examples to date (e.g. the infamous IMG00096 and others from that Japanese site) were taken with this lens. The other lens to avoid seems to be the 20-40. Most of the bad CA issues in SD9 shots seem to involve these lenses.

Not to mention that the 28-70 is a full stop slower and ony 2x compared to the E10's 4x.

--
Erik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top