Another quirktastic camera from Sigma....... Locked

The Davinator wrote:

mdavidp wrote:

Hi,

I was pleasantly surprised by your review.

You get it.

You understand the strengths and frailties of Sigma cameras.

Others, who have not tried them are quick to condemn.

Yes, 5 stars.

Mike P

Yes, we give perfect scores to cameras that the review points out weak areas. And then we claim some people dont "get it." LOL...that is fanboyism to the extreme. If that is something we need to get, find me a review site, here, or anywhere, that mentions weak areas and flaws, and then gives perfect scores. Check out the camera reviews here on DPReview. Find me a single review with a perfect score that has the reviewer mentioning weak areas.

I anxiously wait your links to those reviews. If you cant find one, maybe you and the OP can educate the reviewers at DPReview...so they can "get it" just like you do.

In my introductory first year university textbook from years ago by Michael Langford, the author spends a few chapters covering the strengths and weaknesses of rail cameras vs folding cameras, Large vs medium vs small format film, SLRs vs TLRs vs tunnel viewfinders and the like. What he doesn't do is say that one is better and the others should be dismissed. The 35mm SLR has weaknesses in some areas compared to other camera types and strengths in other areas. It's all about fitting the tool to the job.

My reading of the review above is that the OP is trying to take a similar point. Yes, we know Sigmas have quirks and flaws but there are things the Q can do that other, ostensibly better cameras, can't. The thinking here, like with Langford's arguments, is that the Q can do unique things, so its weaknesses don't really matter and can be ignored.

I understand Langford's approach and agree with it but I'm not sure the OP can get away with the same kind of line in this review.

Why not?

Because the Q, like other Sigmas, may have an unusual sensor but the camera format and form factor is pretty similar to most others. This review isn't like comparing a Landrover with a Porsche or an Ebony with a Minox. It's like comparing two rangefinders or two SLRs - the similarities between a Sigma and other digital cameras far outweigh the differences. The Sigmas aren't unique in offering movements or extra large formats or any other extreme feature. They are regular cameras with a standard format digital sensor that produces slightly different results from an alternative technology. The cameras themselves are - or should be - very similar to the mainstream.

What this means is as a reviewing approach, it is reasonable to compare all aspects of the cameras, not just one special feature. There are other cameras with special features such as sophisticated IBIS, AA filter simulators, adjustable position viewfinders and screens, super high resolution that for some people make those cameras uniquely capable but which still have to compete in the general purpose camera market.

Reviews of Sigma products need to be as harsh about its failings as they would if another brand had similar failings. Slow focusing, slow write times, poor viewfinders, terrible battery life etc - these are characteristics of the camera that impact on its usability and attractiveness as a purchase just as much as its interesting sensor and shouldn't be ignored. Sigma don't market it as a speciality scientific or industrial camera, it's a consumer product and should be reviewed as one. A Nikon D800 offering that provided a < 100 shot battery life would be savaged in reviews. Sigma doesn't get a free pass because the sensor is different. Sigma should be offering products that compete well on all aspects expected of a camera of its type AND offers is USP of the Foveon sensor. The Foveon sensor does not provide a pardon for weaknesses in basic camera functionality and Sigma don't get to escape criticism so easily.

If Sigma want to dodge being competitive across the gamut of all camera functionality they should marked the camera as a speciality camera and be upfront about its flaws, weaknesses and failings compared to mainstream cameras. Sell it as an industrial style camera with a special sensor suitable for niche needs. Don't compete in the mainstream. If you do compete in the mainstream, don't whinge about having its poor specifications and performance in other areas aside from the sensor being exposed to public view. These things are important to potential purchasers and not everyone is a dyed in the wool fan used to excusing everything.

My view is that the OP is trying to have his cake and eat it and it is correct that his review draws criticism for giving Sigma a free pass.