Probably the best camera in the world for some scenarios

Richard P UK wrote:

Much is said about these cameras. Much is said in ignorance. I read terrible reviews, I read brilliant reviews, I read mixed reviews. I looked at the studio scene tool on this website, it appears to compare favorably to more or less anything else. Curiosity just got the better of me - I came to the conclusion I had to find out for myself. I am glad I did.

The DP Quattro comes in DP0, DP1, DP2 and DP3 type. They are the same camera and each has a fixed lens, the DP0 being the widest and the DP3 being essentially a modest fixed zoom. I only mention this because it took me a while to figure that out. So the point is - buy the one that suits your main photography style.

The camera needs reasonable light and a steady hand or ideally a tripod. I have found it best to take shots in RAW and JPEG. Download the free Sigma software and work on the RAW until you are happy and then save as a JPEG, really this effort is pretty much essential as otherwise the images are not really that good. One review said the JPEGs were OK and my first efforts took this advice and I thought I had made a mistake buying the camera. Whilst writing I am wondering if shooting them in JPEG as well as RAW is worth it but arguably that gives you a clue as to which RAW images might be worthy of the effort. What I like about this effort is with each image it is like unwrapping a treasure. (I have an IPS 4k monitor) This experience is made more suspenseful by the sometimes slightly sluggish software. My images take about 5 seconds to load up on a reasonable gaming spec desktop. The first impression is very rough but as the detail loads up my mouth sort of drops open.

Another good tip is to check your camera has the latest firmware - which is simple to update. Mine came with a much older version and they have improved it. You just download it to a memory card, put that in the camera and press a few buttons and you are done.

The main downsides are:

Fixed lens, not a low light camera, limited battery life (but you get 2!), large image files (50mb), slow write time- but not ridiculously so, no good for sports/action shots, no tilt screen, no built in flash, no touch screen, no data transfer, no gps, slowish focus, not a pocket camera, ISO range limited, stick to 100 if possible but up to 400 is ok.

The main upsides are:

A good clear menu function, a cool looking camera (arguably), well built, but most importantly of all - stunning image quality - but only if you persevere. Roughly the equivalent of medium format but better than the very best full frame in my opinion - albeit obviously in a less flexible overall camera of course. Landscape photographers who do not have this camera have simply not lived, close up photography is also on a different level.

My other thought is on the shape. This is much criticized as awkward to hold. Personally I find it easy to hold and if anything the shape makes it easier to hold steady, as this is of course very critical for top image quality, so the shape does not bother me. The length helps keep your fingers away from the lens and the sensors so that is a plus. Most cameras seem to have some pros and cons in the grip department I find.

In summary, if you are looking for the very best image quality for landscapes and close ups (probably good for portraits too but not tried yet) and you don't mind putting some work in then I believe this is it. I would say it is still not cheap, but it is a fraction of the cost of cameras that cannot deliver this image quality. At the same time the price is affordable to many and there are good second hand ones out there.

If you are looking for an all round camera with the latest features that produce good JPEGs then this is definitely not the camera for you. So I understand why these cameras get 2 and 3 star reviews, fair in a way, but if you love fabulous image quality the shortcomings could arguably just make other cameras look gimmicky. Depending on your preferences you could take the view that who wants all those gimmicks when you can just have fabulous image quality? So 5 star all the way for me as image quality is my personal priority.

This unusual review does a good job at pointing out the limitations of typical commercial reviews. They have to be broad spectrum, trying to accommodate as wide a range of use cases as possible. This means the more flexible a camera, the better it tends to do. The success of the 35mm film SLR was mostly down to to its wide-ranging usefulness rather than its absolute quality. It was adequate at most things, decent at some other and superb for others. The fact that you could use it for almost anything even it if wasn't the best choice for everything made the difference.

Foveon based cameras have not been very flexible so far. Yes, you can put them to use for almost any photographic task but for many use cases they come up as second best to mainstream cameras. But for specialised uses such as landscape, they can be very good indeed, as the review points. Your views of Sigmas will surely very much depend on what you use it for. If you want a camera for static, high rez purposes like landscape of still life, Sigma's limitations compared to the competition are minimised and its strengths allowed to shine.

Unfortunately, having pointed out the problems with the general purpose review, the reviewer then falls back on the stereotype of the general purpose review and gives an overall star rating which will not be believed by people who want a general purpose camera. I spent this weekend on a trip to france where I shot lots of details of buildings from long range using a 200-400mm equivalent focal lengths. The DPs will have got 0 stars from me for this purpose.

Personally, I'd stick to "reviews" that were more specialised and allowed the camera to shine in the areas it is good.

Who needs silly star ratings or silver and gold awards, what do they tell you really?