Sigma, wake up

dimar · Jul 13, 2012

I like recent foveon sensor and watching samples in photoshop can easily become addiction. It is the best sensor on the market with unmatched quality unless you are high ISO wannabe making crappy night shots just for the sake of it

So here is the problem, Sigma DP2 Merrill. Fixed dim prime. 2.8 is too much, two stops from my Sigma 30/1.4 (ISO 400 -> 1600), DOF suffers a lot as well

Why don't make some rangefinder like camera with several primes, like Leica or recent Fuji X Pro? This kind of cameras draw a lot of attention recently cause SLR users want some more compact and lightweight camera but don't want to go to mirrorless camp cause they stuffed with casual gimmicks instead of basic controls, don't have reasonable lenses lineup (Sony NEX) or have small sensors and overpriced top tier lenses (4/3)

I would buy such say 1500$ camera with 30/1.4-1.8 kit lens day one, not so sure about DP2 Merrill

JohnLindroth · Jul 13, 2012

Hopes for a DP camera with changeable lenses has been a desire here for a long time, since the first DP camera was announced. We can only wait and see if Sigma takes that path...

dimar said:
I like recent foveon sensor and watching samples in photoshop can easily become addiction. It is the best sensor on the market with unmatched quality unless you are high ISO wannabe making crappy night shots just for the sake of it

So here is the problem, Sigma DP2 Merrill. Fixed dim prime. 2.8 is too much, two stops from my Sigma 30/1.4 (ISO 400 -> 1600), DOF suffers a lot as well

Why don't make some rangefinder like camera with several primes, like Leica or recent Fuji X Pro? This kind of cameras draw a lot of attention recently cause SLR users want some more compact and lightweight camera but don't want to go to mirrorless camp cause they stuffed with casual gimmicks instead of basic controls, don't have reasonable lenses lineup (Sony NEX) or have small sensors and overpriced top tier lenses (4/3)

I would buy such say 1500$ camera with 30/1.4-1.8 kit lens day one, not so sure about DP2 Merrill

--
http://www.johnlindroth.com/
[email protected]

My future starts when I wake up every morning ...
Every day I find something creative to do with my life.
--Miles Davis

Aku Ankka · Jul 13, 2012

dimar said:
I like recent foveon sensor and watching samples in photoshop can easily become addiction. It is the best sensor on the market with unmatched quality unless you are high ISO wannabe making crappy night shots just for the sake of it

The sensor has very good resolution, but all the other properties of it are it's weknesses, maybe apart from video.

dimar said:
Why don't make some rangefinder like camera with several primes, like Leica or recent Fuji X Pro?

Sigma is in the bussiness for money, though sometimes I feel the camera side is more of a hobby

If they were to exapand to yet anohter low-volume camera niche, they'd face several problems:

Design a whole new camera from the scratch -> costs time and money
Low volume -> high cost (much lower volume than Fuji, lower than Leica too I am afraid)
No lenses -> design and manufacture them and it's out of the budgeted manhours, manufacturing capacity and R&D money from other equipment
There is significant competition already

dimar said:
This kind of cameras draw a lot of attention recently cause SLR users want some more compact and lightweight camera but don't want to go to mirrorless camp

Rangefinders are mirrorless cameras. And traditional rangefinder cameras have issues as well:

More expensive to manufacture than EVF camera
Only allows for quite limited focal lengths without special purpouse add-on viewfinders
Parallax issue, so no macro (unless used with liveview).

dimar said:
cause they stuffed with casual gimmicks instead of basic controls,

But they have the basic controls too

dimar said:
don't have reasonable lenses lineup (Sony NEX)

The system you wish would have zero lenses.

dimar said:
or have small sensors and overpriced top tier lenses (4/3)

I agree the m4/3 sensor is a bit small. However it is still competetive size when it comes to image quality, especially against Foveon. For me the small size would be unacceptable as I like to use vintage lenses.

dimar said:
I would buy such say 1500$ camera with 30/1.4-1.8 kit lens day one, not so sure about DP2 Merrill

Well, the price would be more like 3000 to 5000 with the kit lens and it would sell in hundreds, not in thousands.

I do agree however that such a product would be a nice addition to us, potential customers. I just don't see it coming until a few years from now when SLR concept goes to it's final lap, and with EVF or LCD only.

--
Quack!

xthfloor · Jul 13, 2012

Well, f/2.8 is the right spot. Faster lenses always result in worse image quality (that's why there are no good fast macro primes). The key isn't a f/1.4 lens - it won't make the sensor perform better in low-light. The key is a lens offering the highest possible resolving power with the lowest possible CA to show the strong point of the sensor. f/1.4 lens would result in resolution comparable to common bayer DSLR with low-light performance of a cheap bayer compact.

SandyF · Jul 13, 2012

xthfloor said:
Well, f/2.8 is the right spot. Faster lenses always result in worse image quality (that's why there are no good fast macro primes). The key isn't a f/1.4 lens - it won't make the sensor perform better in low-light. The key is a lens offering the highest possible resolving power with the lowest possible CA to show the strong point of the sensor. f/1.4 lens would result in resolution comparable to common bayer DSLR with low-light performance of a cheap bayer compact.

agree! I have a f/1.4 lens and find that f/2.8 is often 'better' and my choice.... the focus area is just so small on f/1.4 especially on close-ups.

That said, f/2 is sometimes useful, I can get to f/2 on a Canon 135mm lens I have and I used that one 'wide-open' @ f.2 recently for some stage shots.

f/2.8 should be fine for my purposes for the DP2M .... the DP1 with just f/4 is the one that's too 'slow' IMHO.
Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

dimar · Jul 13, 2012

Aku Ankka said:
The sensor has very good resolution, but all the other properties of it are it's weknesses, maybe apart from video.

What others? Resolution is all that matters.

The only ones who care about high ISO are sport photographers and amateur "testers"

dimar · Jul 13, 2012

xthfloor said:
Well, f/2.8 is the right spot. Faster lenses always result in worse image quality (that's why there are no good fast macro primes). The key isn't a f/1.4 lens - it won't make the sensor perform better in low-light. The key is a lens offering the highest possible resolving power with the lowest possible CA to show the strong point of the sensor. f/1.4 lens would result in resolution comparable to common bayer DSLR with low-light performance of a cheap bayer compact.

I made this snapshot at f 1.4 and shutter speed was 1/13 s. ISO 400, basically it is night

With f 2.8 you are screwed after sun goes down. It is not the end of the world cause 99% of really good photos are made at ISO 100 and perfect light, but still having possibility to wonder around the town after sunset is matter, just for fun. That's why I bought sigma 30/1.4, very decent lens for the right price

Raist3d · Jul 13, 2012

dimar said:
I like recent foveon sensor and watching samples in photoshop can easily become addiction. It is the best sensor on the market with unmatched quality unless you are high ISO wannabe making crappy night shots just for the sake of it

Whew! I am glad I am not just a high ISO wannabe taking crapy shots just for the sake of it, but kinda funny to see you say that and ask for fast primes in the same post with a title of "sigma wake up" or such ;-)

dimar said:
So here is the problem, Sigma DP2 Merrill. Fixed dim prime. 2.8 is too much, two stops from my Sigma 30/1.4 (ISO 400 -> 1600), DOF suffers a lot as well

Why don't make some rangefinder like camera with several primes, like Leica or recent Fuji X Pro? This kind of cameras draw a lot of attention recently cause SLR users want some more compact and lightweight camera but don't want to go to mirrorless camp cause they stuffed with casual gimmicks instead of basic controls, don't have reasonable lenses lineup (Sony NEX) or have small sensors and overpriced top tier lenses (4/3)

I would buy such say 1500$ camera with 30/1.4-1.8 kit lens day one, not so sure about DP2 Merrill

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

Raist3d · Jul 13, 2012

Again pretty funny to read this considering what you said. Looks like you and I actually have similar needs and wants here ;-)
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

dimar · Jul 13, 2012

Raist3d said:
Again pretty funny to read this considering what you said. Looks like you and I actually have similar needs and wants

Options I said. If you want good night photo you mount tripod and fire HDR sequence.

And don't forget DOF, with 30 mm at f2.8 you mostly won't have any

Raist3d · Jul 13, 2012

dimar said:
Raist3d said:

Again pretty funny to read this considering what you said. Looks like you and I actually have similar needs and wants

Click to expand...

Options I said. If you want good night photo you mount tripod and fire HDR sequence.

And don't forget DOF, with 30 mm at f2.8 you mostly won't have any

Doesn't change what I said one bit. You think people
On the street are going to hold still while
Firing your HDR sequence on a tripod? You think I am shooting high ISO
Just because I can? ;-)

Options, indeed

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

dimar · Jul 13, 2012

Raist3d said:
Firing your HDR sequence on a tripod? You think I am shooting high ISO
Just because I can? ;-)

Of course. Never seen any good high ISO shots.

If you shoot portrait, you make light. If you shoot architecture/landscapes, you shooting from tripod in twilight (preferably HDR)

High ISO shots are for fun only, when you are too lazy to carry tripod or making some snapshots. I prefer fast primes cause high ISO ruins DR completely where you need it the most in poor lighting conditions

Raist3d · Jul 13, 2012

dimar said:
Raist3d said:

Firing your HDR sequence on a tripod? You think I am shooting high ISO
Just because I can? ;-)

Click to expand...

Of course. Never seen any good high ISO shots.

Then looks like you and I will never agree. I suggest you take a look at good photographs done in this space and not pixel peep while focusing on the photograph itself

dimar said:
If you shoot portrait, you make light. If you shoot architecture/landscapes, you shooting from tripod in twilight (preferably HDR)

High ISO shots are for fun only, when you are too lazy to carry tripod or making some snapshots.

That's not just a condescending statement but ignorant and ridiculous. it's not about being lazy. There are many other valid reasons and subjects do move on the streets

I prefer fast primes cause high ISO ruins DR completely where you need it the most in poor lighting conditions

I prefer a
Working combination of what can get

The shot. I agree with you on the fast primes but there are indeed cameras with good high ISO performance too. obviously this does not seem to be an area of strength for the foveon sensor new or old

That doesn't mean people are just being lazy even I there are many that I will agree with that are

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

dimar · Jul 13, 2012

Raist3d said:
Then looks like you and I will never agree. I suggest you take a look at good photographs done in this space and not pixel peep while focusing on the photograph itself

Define good. I call good pro photos in photo books. Even best of amateurs rarely can touch this, and definitively not with their high ISO shots.

There are some technically pretty crappy famous photos like early Cartier Bresson, but still made in broad daylight

Raist3d · Jul 13, 2012

There a contemporary pros doing good work at high ISO. After all prices of cameras like a Nikon d3s is well eying mere amateur dabbler market except
For The rich ones

The pros you mention dealt with what tech had available back then. There is a reason why film did not stay at Iso 64 it 100 but pushed forward to 800/1600/3200

Shots that before required a subject to sit still for minutes back in time now could be done in a fraction of a second. That there was not as much work at high ISO or at nigh points more to an issue with dealing with the tech at hand that the fact that such phoography domain is invalid or does not exist. There is no reason why street photography has to be all in daylight or with flash from an artistic intent

If what you said is true the photographic fim history would have stayed at ISO 100 for pro films

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo

maple · Jul 13, 2012

Downsizing is the way to go. SLR is a camera breed evolved around FF and not optimized for APS-C sensors, while the biggest strength of Sigma's latest sensor is that it has the highest info density among APS-C sensors. Why compete in the bulkier DSLR market where it has no advantage UP against FF, when it can, in good light, deliver comparable quality image in a much smaller package?

Sigma should, in my opinion, either develop a new breed of smaller DSLR, or go for the smaller mirror-less alternative. Range-finder like style and primes only approach makes even more sense, considering that no lens other than the very best is able to match the un-rivalled resolving power of the new Foveon sensor. But miniaturizing DSLR has many other benefits, too.

--
Maple

Tom Schum · Jul 13, 2012

I remember what I was thinking when I bought my DP2 (my first Foveon): This is how I get a Foveon to try out without spending a whole lot of money on a DSLR.

I was blown away by the image quality, and then proceeded to buy more Sigma cameras.

I think the F2.8 lens is a good compromise on the DP2 and I agree that F4 in the DP1 makes it marginal. I took my DP2 traveling once and it did well, but the fixed lens is something of a limitation.

However, I also think that F2.8 in the DP2M is a good compromise if it delivers the kind of sharpness and clarity that can match the sensor. This combination will be a very much better travel camera than the DP2 because the images can be more liberally cropped.

I grew tired of the fixed lens on my DP2 after a short while, and that's why I went ahead and bought a SD15, and then a SD1. Unfortunately, now I have no excuse to buy a DP2M!

Seems to me the DP2M is not the niche camera for you. Too limited for your tastes, and I understand this. You would probably find a Fuji X100 or a Leica X2 uninteresting for the same reason.

I have a new travel camera now: a Fuji X10. It has a nice fast zoom lens and does really well in low light. The tradeoff is that it delivers acceptably good results up to HD size (1920x1080) but no larger.

I took my SD15 traveling once and was impressed with the results. It is much more trouble to carry a DSLR with lenses and much easier to pack and carry a compact. There are tradeoffs at every turn.

--
Tom Schum

zxaar · Jul 13, 2012

xthfloor said:
Well, f/2.8 is the right spot. Faster lenses always result in worse image quality (that's why there are no good fast macro primes). The key isn't a f/1.4 lens - it won't make the sensor perform better in low-light. The key is a lens offering the highest possible resolving power with the lowest possible CA to show the strong point of the sensor. f/1.4 lens would result in resolution comparable to common bayer DSLR with low-light performance of a cheap bayer compact.

What right spot? f2.8 is inferior to f5.6 or f8 in all those terms by your logic all the lenses shall be f5.6 .

For me the right spot is f1.2 because i can always stop down when i need to and can also enjoy photos at f1.2 f1.4 or at f1.8 , all that a f2.8 lens can not do.

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

dimar · Jul 14, 2012

zxaar said:
For me the right spot is f1.2 because i can always stop down when i need to and can also enjoy photos at f1.2 f1.4 or at f1.8

It should have reasonable balance between aperture and price/weight. Sigma already has 30/1.4 for 400$+. I don't think it would be hard to redesign it for shorter sensor to lens depth.

1.2 is too heavy, not to mention almost one kilo Leica 50/0.95 with price tag like a car

Pavel Sokolov · Jul 14, 2012

--

http://www.openraw.org

Sigma, wake up

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Raist3d

Guest

Raist3d

Guest

Leading Member

Raist3d

Guest

Leading Member

Raist3d

Guest

Leading Member

Raist3d

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts