I'm not convinced that Sigma actually wants to sell cameras . .

xpatUSA wrote:

. . well after a couple of beers, I'm beginning to wonder!

OK, they take nice pictures but, after playing with my newly acquired DP1s and DP2s, I find it quite cynical that the DP1s comes with a DP1 manual and a scruffy fold-up sheet in a hundred different languages with the English bit spread across several folds to tell us the differences between the DP1s and it's predecessor.

But then, examining a raw histogram, I was amazed to see that the maximum raw level attainable with these two cameras is around 2,300 !!

I mean, the SD9 raw values can be up in the 10,000s the SD10 even higher, then the SD14 more like 9,000 and the SD1M more like a sane 4070 - which almost bears a resemblance to the ADCs output. God knows what the Quattro puts out, something different, I'm sure.

With scaling variations like this, and the X3F format changing with each new model, it is small wonder that so few converter providers have anything to do Sigma's products.

I actually bought these two cameras thinking they would be no different to the SD14 (same sensor, right?). Ha, how naïve can one get?!!

A storm in a tea-cup, you might say - but every time I open an X3F in RawDigger, I now have to set the over/under exposure levels to suit the stupid camera used. Ridiculous!

I'm surprised you're making a judgement based on totally out-dated hardware.

I know this forum is filled with people in an echo chamber, trying to convince themselves that Sigma's best cameras and sensors came first and now the 'magic' is gone, but everyone else, including people at Sigma, know that's not true.

I think it's a shame that people who profess to be Sigma 'fans' have dismissed the Quattro's out of hand despite them being the best camera's Sigma has ever made.

I'd also point out that photographers and normal people aren't hung up on numbers. Most pros (and I mean magazine shooters, not wedding photographers) switched to digital a decade or more ago. As soon as Canon brought full-frame bodies to the market which worked well.

Those old cameras shot movie posters, fashion spreads and more, despite using sensors which don't make the grade today.

No one is being held back by the tech or the noise performance. The only people who care are on forums like this.

The rest of the world is shooting with their phone, or judging their camera based on cost, controls, coolness and compactness.

Sigma's don't sell in large numbers because they're expensive and slow. Everyone who sees my Q's thinks it's an ILC and looks at me aghast when they work out it's not.

Sigma have a fantastic technology. They're smart to sell it to the people who get it, rather than pitch for the mainstream and fail because the speed isn't there.