DMillier wrote:
Let's take a balanced view here. All sigmas I've used have been more or less the worst cameras around in their classes as all round cameras. It isn't anything to do with inept users either, the cameras are deficient in many ways and that hardly changes from model to model. Reviewers who test the cameras with the same mindset they apply to other cameras are usually scathing. And rightly so, the blame for this is not the reviewers but sigma engineers.
The people who most enthusiastic about sigmas make excuses for the shortcomings. And I that is the point, if you like the foveon output, you have to excuse the rest of the camera because they stack up poorly against almost anything else. Huge improvements in camera performance would be welcome I'm sure even by some of the most diehard hair shirt ers here but we know that isn't going to happen so we have to grit our teeth and make the best of it. It is a one trick pony but if you value what it does above al else you just have to put up with it.
With this sort of thinking, one would say that the Nikon D7000 was a "one trick pony" too, compared to the Sony A55, because at that time they both shot 16 MP photos, but the Sony did it faster, with built-in GPS, a fold-out screen, which allowed for more versatility in not only reviewing images, but for live-view shooting too. The Sony did video better. The Sony was lighter. The Sony was this, that, and the other.
But the die-hard Nikon fans just did not get it. Then the Sony A77 came on the scene, with weather seals and even faster performance . . . and a 24 megapixel sensor. You know what people said? They seemed to be saying that you don't need so much resolution, and it's a waste. Can you believe the gall of some people? They were wrong, of course, since when Nikon introduced their D7100, with a 24 megapixel sensor, and the image quality was superior to what the Sony A77 produced, everyone seemed to be congratulatory and raved about how great the Nikon D7100 was. Why?
Nikon introduced a "one trick pony" for even more money than the Sony A77, which was by that time about a year on the market, and they were lauded for it. Amazing. It didn't have a fold-out screen. It had/has a pathetic little 7 frame buffer for shooting fast . . . which it really doesn't do at all. The Sony can shoot at 12 fps! It doesn't have built-in GPS, like the new Nikon D5300 has. I really can't fathom how people could be congratulatory of Nikon for introducing such a camera at such a high price.
Now Sigma makes a new camera, which is an upgrade from their previous model, which captures photos with image quality as good as cameras that are not only bigger, but cost 3 times the price, and it gets called a "one trick pony" by someone who has almost no experience with it, and you're claiming his comment is valid, because you can't figure out how to use an iPad . . . one of the simplest computerized devices on the planet. So the guy must be right, because if an idiot can't figure out how to use something in five minutes, then the device must be a piece of garbage and definitely a "one trick pony" . . . which the iPad definitely is not. Neither is the iPhone, just in case you thought it was.
The Sigma DP2 Quattro is slightly more of a "one trick pony" than all of the DP series cameras that came before it. That, for one, is true. But the reality of those cameras is that people don't use them for shooting video . . . so why would Sigma give them the ability to shoot video? Does Hasselblad make medium format cameras that shoot video? Does the Leica S2, their flagship camera, shoot video?
Interestingly though, he does not even mention that there is no video capability. That doesn't seem to be his point. I'm not quite sure what his point is. I think it is that the camera is not versatile, but it is more versatile for shooting photos than the previous DP cameras, and I haven't been reading that those cameras are considered to be "one trick pony" cameras. Most people have the sense to realize that there is a small market for fixed-lens cameras that have a prime lens on them. When they test such a camera, they don't expect a zoom lens. They also don't expect the camera to do back-flips. They expect good image quality though, and the DP2 Quattro delivers. As far as speed . . . what can you compare it to? A camera that costs 3 times its price? I guess such a camera would be faster. A camera that produces significantly inferior image quality for the same price? I guess such a camera would have to be faster.
In the final analysis, the DP2 Quattro CAN be used at night. It CAN be used to shoot product photos. It CAN be used in the studio to shoot models, whether you're shooting fashion or fine art nudes. It CAN be used to shoot landscapes. And it CAN be used for shooting a whole lot of other things too, such as portraits, evidence photos, interiors, street scenes, etc. etc. Yes it CAN . . . and in the right hands, it will shine. The DP2 Quattro is a winner, whether this guy cans it or not. This is why I say, "He just doesn't get it." He doesn't. He seems to have NO comprehension of what the DP series cameras are about and what they really are. Like you with the iPad, I guess.
