One trick pony Locked

mike earussi wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

DMillier wrote:

MF cameras are one trick ponies if you consider versatility as essential.

But for me the pejorative of calling Sigma that is they are unique amongst camera makers in making cameras that look like and compete in the space of far superior models from other companies.

It is only the particular image quality that is the Sigma "trick", Replace the quattro sensor with a conventional Sony EXmor and you will have a better camera but one that would almost impossible to sell because it would still fall well short of the competition.

Isn't "image quality" the "major" important thing a camera brings to the table?

Not for a sports photographer (speed and accuracy of AF) or a photojournalist (durability) or a wedding photographer (high iso performance and frame rate). As long as the camera produces image quality that is "good enough" then they are happy.

So Mike, then why is "accuracy of AF" important for the sports photographer if not to assure "quality" of the image? I spent a number of years doing sports photography (primarily rodeos) and image quality was always very important to me. I've also done hundreds of weddings over the 50 years I made my living with a camera and high ISO was "never" an important issue. Good wedding photographers don't depend on "candids" in a poorly lit cathedral where flash is not allowed during the ceremony. They stage after the wedding to get those special frames using flash if necessary. I've yet to have a bride, groom or their families get excited over low quality work. So in essence, I can't agree with your assumptions that "image quality" isn't a "major" important thing a camera brings to the table.

The photographer can learn composition, learn technicals, etc., but it's the sensor and the lens which is what the camera provides. A mediocre image quality though produced by a superior photographer will always be just that, a mediocre image.

In many circumstances (see above professions) being able to get even a mediocre image is better than not getting it at all.

But who would "not" get an image at all? I've never depended on a single camera for a wedding or a sports shoot and I've never failed to get the shot I wanted. One uses the best tool for the job at hand. I wouldn't shoot a rodeo with a DP2 Merrill or probably even with an SD1, but I certainly would and have shot weddings very successfully with Sigma's.

It is all about the sensor - but it shouldn't be the ball is still in Sigma's court to fix that. Put the Foveon in a body that would sell in its own right - then they would have more than a one trick pony.

The Q is an improvement in every major category.

What is considered "major" is a matter of personal definition. So for you it's an improvement in every major category that you care about. But for many of us the Q loss of edge contrast and color differentiation is a major loss.

I don't believe the jury is in on those issues. I have a DP2 Merrill and lots of other Sigma dSLR's and I'm not convinced that there is any loss of color differentiation. Micro-contrast can be enhanced quite successfully in the Q captures and in print, I see very little difference. Yes, you can pixel peep at 600% and see differences, but so far in my experience I'm not seeing it in print. I'm withholding judgment on these issues until SPP is fully sorted and that may be a while yet. I'm not convinced that there is all the differences people are assuming after looking at a few snaps.

Faster file processing, better battery life, higher optical resolution, etc. My only suggestion for the hardware would have been to add an optional EVF though the 3rd party optical magnification viewfinders/sunshades are sufficient.

I see no reason to gloss over either the strengths or weaknesses of either camera. I view them as complementary, not in opposition to each other, each having their own best uses. And I hope Sigma also sees them this way and so decides to keep the Merrill around.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the Merrill cameras - they are exceptional for what they do best. I just see the Q as an evolutionary step in the right direction and I think premature judgement is affecting too many at this juncture.

Best regards,

Lin

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/