DPQ unofficial, rogue and pragmatical review

DPQ unofficial, rogue and pragmatical review

When you are used to SIGMA gear you know what they are able to do on one single device by updates. Looks like this time is over, the glorious time of the SD15, DP1s, DP2s, cameras who started crippled and finished marvellous only by firmware updates, even on ISO performance.

Now you buy a product, you have one or two updates, at best, and then internet force you to admit that your gear is out, is bad, is crap, in a more or less gentleman way over some weeks.

So, unless previous generations of DP, now you use it, you throw it. Do not tell me that the Merrill was a dead end because it is wrong. It could have been enhanced by firmware big time and even, they should have build a new DP with a conventional design around the Merrill, with better battery, better processor, better every thing.

But they decided to go another way, very different way. My little finger tell me that the guys who make alternative raw developers will have some problems with the "Q". Now you have "layers" and interpolation ... more work. I just wait someone skilled on those problems tell you more about it

About the Q in global :

The design is strange, it is large while being little, with a sort of "fat Iphone" glossy finish, after all I do not like it; the DPm was just good on form factor, more mate, more stealth, more pro. Yes it go faster to record, the AF is on par at 97% with Merrill DP so no big improvement, even in manual. To be clear it is exactly the same as the Merrill and improvement is only processor based. Now in the street, ppl see you with a strange Iphone in hands. It is not even weather sealed... Blimey !!! I forgot that almost all DP users use it indoor !!!! Fail ! Most DP users use it outdoor for landscape, street and so on. A lot like hiking with it, shooting ocean or wild dusty landscapes so Weather Sealing was "mandatory" on those devices so IMO, this is a large error to omit it. For 30 or 50 $ more per units, it should have been possible. Common sense and observation of the SIGMA users over the net...

SIGMA hard core users when they understood that the new DP was not weather sealed.

Also, DPs was kind of customisable, especially by Richard Franiec. DPs used to be pretty simple and there were opportunity, for talented entrepreneurs like Richard, to make various kind of grips and plugs or whatever. A little market layer over a family of devices. This time will be hard for Richard because the Quattro is so strange that you need a master degree in paranormal design to be able to plug something on it. I repeat, the Q is a strange camera with a lot of glossy surfaces. When you plug the lens hood (... eeeeeekkkk !!!!!), who is bigger than the camera itself, and when, in a pulsation of madness, you dare to plug the the optional VF... you are not discrete any-more.

A DP Quattro user now in the street.

The lenses are the same as the Merrill. Only the DP1Q will have a new formula to fix corners.They announce the DP3Q with the same lens as the Merrill ... ok. The DP3m lens is just stargazing but SCREAM for a 9 blades iris. So they take the same, reshape it with glossy and more bulky shell and plug it, literally. Why SIGMA ?? Do you do it on purpose ? Why no real communication on "why we can't make the DP3 lens 9 blades based :". The bokeh is very nice on the DP3m but can be better with 9 blades. It is maybe the only DP who really deserve 9 blades, as a short tele... Real communication make the consumer feel secure in the brand. So SIGMA why do you not communicate really ?

SIGMA, your user base love you and beg for real communication, please !!

The sensor is new. So yes you have a little bit more rez but not noticeable on prints over A0. Every time I ask on forums who is really printing in A3+, A2 or even A0, my question is lost without answer. I guess by instinct that they are not legion. The gain is not important, only for pixel peepers, really. Different sensor, different rendering. Merrill's DP have a character that you notice on web pics and even more on print. Q is good while having some strange behaviours (enough posts around the world about it) but is far more standard, really. DP Merrills = resolution + rendering. DPQ = resolution + standardness. So, Resolution and rendering was on a boat (Merrills). Rendering felt in the water : Who stay on the boat ?? (Quattro). This induce some major galactic fights even inside the community.

SIGMA users are kinda sensitive and often fight.

That's the story of the Q. On the net and forums, you wont differentiate foveon or conventional 24Mp APS-C bayer anymore now. On the web they will be the same, really. Different only for you, who PP at 100% at home. So yes, the micro contrasts induced by the conventional Foveon structure was extremely important. About the color gradations it is a little bit better (I guess... didn't noticed real differences on my unit). So 14 bits is ok but a brand who claim to the face of the world that they have a "true color sensor" should jump 16 bits. MF users know what I'm speaking about. Even more, they should jump 24x36. If you really trust in your sensor superiority SIGMA, as you claim on conferences, take the bait ! Go ahead ! It is costly yes but a lot of ppl, especially pros, will really buy a FF foveon, whatever the price, whatever the limitation in ISO.

SIGMA dreamed evolution.

The general features of the Q ? Any P&S toy camera you can find on this very planet is superior at any functional levels to the Q. Rude... but true. Just try an another APS-C camera, like the ricoh GR or the fuji XT-1 (and many others) and you will start using bromazepam. Other brands are light-years ahead than SIGMA on functionality, userfriendness and all. We are in Q2 2014 and damn ... I thought that a new SIGMA camera by today standards was enriched with some useful features... but no. This is the same in disguise. No EVF at first: I was not EVF guy till I had a look in the XT1. Now I'm an EVF guy and if you test it you will know why. No real AF: Even with the little beam, AF still "last century" compared to others (like the fuji XPro was at the start). No ISO performance, at all: ISO performance of the Q is identical as the Merrill : Max iso in color : 800 / Max ISO in B&W : 1600/3200. To be precise, 800 ISO on a Q is less good than 6400 ISO on a fuji XT-1, just to situate the background. We want a bit more modernity and this is legitimate for 900 $ no ?

We must live with our time, SIGMA.

So, at the end, pixel quality does not all in a picture. There is a sort of deviation in this story and it started with Merrill, I think. PPl now care less about the whole picture and care more about pixels... PPl from over the world, from France, from Japan and USA and other places are all about "interpolation" or "pixel peeping" and IMHO, this is bad. Look like they had brain surgery to deviate that much from the essence of photography aka capturing a moment in the time. Making this moment sharper wont help having better emotional photos as well as having a sharper knife will not make your meat taste better...

Your God is now PIXEL !! repeat !! PIXXXEEELLLL

I've got numerous of mails to ask me and to share methods about studio use of DP cameras. It work !! It is a capable camera... more than the SD for exemple (because of live view.. haaa !! the live view and the SD ...) if you take a lot of time and dedication on lightnings and to make it work. But ... with the Q I expected at least an AF-C mode ... A camera who can snap at 1/2000 sec under studio lights deserve an AF able to shoot other things than static things. So unless you shoot at F16 (the limit on those lenses) you will struggle. If your model move just a bit toward or forward from the plan, it is over and out. Maybe the next SD will sort a lot of those problems if they dare to plug a real and efficient AF module.

2014 - How to shoot with a SIGMA camera in a studio.

At the end does the Quattro is ok or no to buy ? For me yes ... because SIGMA deserve it and need money for development. I see it as a donation for the future, not an improvement of my gear. So if you new in the brand and interested I would recommend you to buy both a Merrill and a Quattro because they are different bests, like Velvia film and Portra film ... If you are a Merrill user, have the money and want to try : Go ahead. Otherwise it is not a revolution, nothing comparable to the jumps between DP2x and DP2m... just spend those 900$ on a SIGMA art lens to plug on you DSLR. More wise.

Live long and prosper.

P.S : I close my eyes on the SPP6 case... because I tired.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kigiphoto/8930740375/in/set-72157633889751883

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EOctfH_NA0

Enjoy!

I appreciate your time and creativity put into your post.
However I think you need to give Sigma credit for what they have achieved. A unique camera with IQ that is hard to beat. They have some of the most accurate color out of box something they have never had. Good firmware out the gate is something big also. However it is obvious the delay of launch was the still. OT finished SPP 6. I am indifferent about the dp series since I prefer the SLR for my working style.
Pete
--
A bad day of train chasing is better than a good day at work.
http://peterzpicts.smugmug.com/

To Hulyss and to anyone to whom it may concern:

I do not understand your apparent preoccupation with this rant. I just borrowed an SD1 from a friend, and returned it today after trying it for 3 weeks. Have I mastered this camera in those 3 weeks? No, not at all. Have all my shots been winners, from a technical perspective? No, certainly not the ones shot under difficult light circumstances.

I cannot take any rants against DPQ at this early stage of a camera just being out too seriously, because we need more time, and more user feedback, more observations, as well as my own experiences, before I can truly form any educated opinion about this new camera.

I hate pixel peepers, because it has nothing to do with reality and with the printed output. They are technology junkies, not photographers. Only with the advent of digital I have seen this kind of ranting going on all websites about all brands of digital cameras, like a wild spreading contagious disease. It's awful. We truly live, most regretfully, in an age of complainers, to whom the glass is always half empty all the time, instead of half full. They do not know how to be grateful. They complain instead of offering real constructive feedback. They act full of hubris and have to just let everyone know how full they are of negativity, and how important THEIR opinions just are. They don't understand the beauty of gratitude. They don't truly appreciate the technical challenges Sigma is facing not only perfecting the Foveon imager, but also facing the competition.

The shape of the Q is on purpose: 1) to be unique and to standout (a brilliant move, I think); 2) to provide ample solidity for handheld shooting. A serious camera shouldn't be toy size.

These were two points expressly made by Sigma, and I agree.

My humble advice: let us gather all the experiences and observations from everyone, compare notes, and then decide the true objective pluses and minuses of this new camera (as much as THAT is possible! Haha).

We all know one thing already in advance: NO camera is perfect. Let's keep that in mind before we rip things apart. It serves no real purpose to act like a hungry pack of wolves, ready to shred any new object into little pieces.

When people complain about a little noise at 200% magnification on their monitor, is that being realistic? I print never smaller than 13x19, and often larger. I go to 200% to make sure there is no dust. Those pixel peeper doomsday sayers, do they ever print super large, where it might matter? And then there is viewing distance, which most people seem to forget. One is NOT to put their nose on large prints, but view them properly: from a certain distance. A small amount of imperfection doesn't bother anyone who takes in the entire photograph as one united entity.

Foveon is not great in low light; this we already know. Whatever they can improve here, great. That's a bonus.  It's an inherent characteristic of the sensor. That's a given; get over it.

To me photography has to remain an art. At least, as a fine arts photographer, I personally think so. The output from my DP2M is many times better than what e.g. my Contax G with very sharp lenses and very fine grain film Velvia 50ASA film ever gave me. And yet, scanned at 4800 I still get wonderful 13x19 prints and from the rest of my old collection of slides I'm still scanning.

We have come a long way, and I am extremely grateful for that. The cost savings over film are enormous! A roll of 35mm slide film is about 10 dollars, plus processing and shipping/handling or gasoline to a local lab. That's $20 US; or about 50 cents per image. Let's say the camera costs you $500. A thousand dollars (cost of the Q) would give you just 1000 shots. Many shots won't be good. Since the Q is more like at least a 645 medium film format in IQ, the costs math would be worse.

So, we have come a long way indeed. Technically things are looking good, artistically, it's a different story, alas. Too much depressing stuff in so-called fine arts photography, if you ask me. That's what I think. It saddens me that often the ugly and weird is being rewarded and the beautiful is ignored as too commonplace. My brother is a sculptor and he thinks the same as I do.

===========

https://www.flickr.com/photos/88681310@N05/8092251359/

Shot with homemade 617 camera and 110mm Rodenstock lens

adegroot wrote:

To Hulyss and to anyone to whom it may concern:

I do not understand your apparent preoccupation with this rant. I just borrowed an SD1 from a friend, and returned it today after trying it for 3 weeks. Have I mastered this camera in those 3 weeks? No, not at all. Have all my shots been winners, from a technical perspective? No, certainly not the ones shot under difficult light circumstances.

I cannot take any rants against DPQ at this early stage of a camera just being out too seriously, because we need more time, and more user feedback, more observations, as well as my own experiences, before I can truly form any educated opinion about this new camera.

I hate pixel peepers, because it has nothing to do with reality and with the printed output. They are technology junkies, not photographers. Only with the advent of digital I have seen this kind of ranting going on all websites about all brands of digital cameras, like a wild spreading contagious disease. It's awful. We truly live, most regretfully, in an age of complainers, to whom the glass is always half empty all the time, instead of half full. They do not know how to be grateful. They complain instead of offering real constructive feedback. They act full of hubris and have to just let everyone know how full they are of negativity, and how important THEIR opinions just are. They don't understand the beauty of gratitude. They don't truly appreciate the technical challenges Sigma is facing not only perfecting the Foveon imager, but also facing the competition.

The shape of the Q is on purpose: 1) to be unique and to standout (a brilliant move, I think); 2) to provide ample solidity for handheld shooting. A serious camera shouldn't be toy size.

These were two points expressly made by Sigma, and I agree.

My humble advice: let us gather all the experiences and observations from everyone, compare notes, and then decide the true objective pluses and minuses of this new camera (as much as THAT is possible! Haha).

We all know one thing already in advance: NO camera is perfect. Let's keep that in mind before we rip things apart. It serves no real purpose to act like a hungry pack of wolves, ready to shred any new object into little pieces.

When people complain about a little noise at 200% magnification on their monitor, is that being realistic? I print never smaller than 13x19, and often larger. I go to 200% to make sure there is no dust. Those pixel peeper doomsday sayers, do they ever print super large, where it might matter? And then there is viewing distance, which most people seem to forget. One is NOT to put their nose on large prints, but view them properly: from a certain distance. A small amount of imperfection doesn't bother anyone who takes in the entire photograph as one united entity.

Foveon is not great in low light; this we already know. Whatever they can improve here, great. That's a bonus. It's an inherent characteristic of the sensor. That's a given; get over it.

To me photography has to remain an art. At least, as a fine arts photographer, I personally think so. The output from my DP2M is many times better than what e.g. my Contax G with very sharp lenses and very fine grain film Velvia 50ASA film ever gave me. And yet, scanned at 4800 I still get wonderful 13x19 prints and from the rest of my old collection of slides I'm still scanning.

We have come a long way, and I am extremely grateful for that. The cost savings over film are enormous! A roll of 35mm slide film is about 10 dollars, plus processing and shipping/handling or gasoline to a local lab. That's $20 US; or about 50 cents per image. Let's say the camera costs you $500. A thousand dollars (cost of the Q) would give you just 1000 shots. Many shots won't be good. Since the Q is more like at least a 645 medium film format in IQ, the costs math would be worse.

So, we have come a long way indeed. Technically things are looking good, artistically, it's a different story, alas. Too much depressing stuff in so-called fine arts photography, if you ask me. That's what I think. It saddens me that often the ugly and weird is being rewarded and the beautiful is ignored as too commonplace. My brother is a sculptor and he thinks the same as I do.

===========

https://www.flickr.com/photos/88681310@N05/8092251359/

Shot with homemade 617 camera and 110mm Rodenstock lens

I like that you are asking for people to give Sigma some slack . . . but do you really want to do that? Sure, the DP2 Quattro is a step up from the DP2 Merrill . . . because it's faster and has a longer battery life . . . but really it's not much different, and Sigma has had years to make a significant improvement. I think the DP2 Quattro is a nice improvement and a significant one, but not as much of an improvement as I would like to see. This is where I agree with crazy H. The new Sigma is an interesting and different camera, but it is not worth buying, if you already have a DP2 Merrill. I'm willing to bet that Sigma knows this already. It's a nice upgrade though, if your DP2 Merrill is getting old, and you want something a bit faster, and you're sick of switching batteries all the time. Or if you have a DP1 Merrill and a DP3 Merrill, and you want a DP2 model, and you'd like to try something new and maybe a little faster. I would maybe get a DP2 Merrill at this point in time, because they're so much cheaper, but it seems to me that a year from now people won't look back on the Merrills and think Sigma made a big mistake . . . if they really do discontinue the Merrill models. Maybe they won't though. Imagine if they continue to sell the Merrills for $699 and bring the price of the Quattros down to $899. That would be cool. Very cool. And it COULD happen.

What you said about people not analyzing and arguing about image quality and stuff like that back in the days of film . . . just totally wrong. YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

In the days of film people were just as crazy about testing films to see what the grain patterns were like, how they reacted to different processing, etc. They did the same with paper, lenses, filters, etc. etc. In fact, it might have been worse back then. I have a LOT of old photography magazines I could show you that are full of articles about various lenses and films. They analyzed the hell out of stuff in the 1980s (and the 1990s). Most of the time it was about 35mm film and cameras and lenses, but they had articles about medium format too. I had subscriptions to Popular Photography, Photographic, Modern Photography, and PHOTO for a few years. I was a photographer in the days of the emergence of auto-focus, and people complained that auto-focus wasn't necessary or would never work as well as a professional could focus manually. Boy were they wrong. The point is . . . you have forgotten about all the debates that raged when a new film would come on the market, such as Kodak Gold 100 or the "new" 1000 ASA films.

Here's just one example. I went and pulled an old Modern Photography magazine out of a stack of old magazines I have in a closet: VOLUME 49 NUMBER 8 - August 1985

In there, on page 40 & 41 (and continued on page 118) there's an section headed "Keppler's SLR Notebook" that has the title "Can An Inexpensive Zoom Equal A Touted Micro Lens?" In the article Herbert Keppler compares a Nikon Series E 75-150mm f3.5 zoom against a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8, and it includes close-up crops, shot at various apertures, etc. In the end he states, "Using the Nikon and Nikkor lenses as examples, I hope we've given you insight into the old micro-macro battle, the truth of zoom vs. single focal length quality and what can make one top optical quality lens less expensive than another." That's just one article in the first magazine I picked out and looked through.

Today we have forums where anyone who wants to can weigh in. Of course we'll have more pixel-peeping happening. But relatively speaking we DID have such debates decades ago, in the peak of the film era.

Just asking because I'm thinking about buying a pano camera. Thanks in advanced.

Your "review" is not a review, as we generally understand the term, and it is needlessly contentious. In my view it is too early to write bitter comments regarding the camera, or to criticize Sigma management.

For me the Foveon "look" is the look of the SD9/10 through SD15, not just the Merrill, and the older cameras gave smooth color transitions and sharp, crisp pixels. That's what the q does. I know you complained about what the M did to skin tones and colors. I am reasonably sure the q will not do that, and it should provide a much better look in such images.

I never bought a DP2M. I like the small size of the DPM, but I am not so old or weak that I cannot carry the DP2q, and I think increased functionality is a good trade for the size required. And it is an improved camera in terms of being better in use and more versatile. As with the older models, I am pleased that the q does not interpolate spatial data. We all know it has to calculate colors. I fully intend to buy a DP2q.

As I see this, the DPM series is meant for consumer and occasional professional use, and the q sensor would work well in a DSLR. Sigma already has the 18-35 and 50MM lenses, among others, to work on that version of the camera. What is missing in the Sigma line-up is a FF Pro version with a double size q or M type sensor.

Meanwhile, I know the Fuji is excellent for fast jpgs. I am not entirely ruled by the time is money problem in my limited photography, although time is always part of the equation in life. So if your argument and situation is that the Fuji is better for your work, or most of it, who could or would argue with that?

Richard

I meant to say: DPq series, although the same would apply to the DPM series.

Scottelly wrote:

adegroot wrote:

To Hulyss and to anyone to whom it may concern:

I do not understand your apparent preoccupation with this rant. I just borrowed an SD1 from a friend, and returned it today after trying it for 3 weeks. Have I mastered this camera in those 3 weeks? No, not at all. Have all my shots been winners, from a technical perspective? No, certainly not the ones shot under difficult light circumstances.

I cannot take any rants against DPQ at this early stage of a camera just being out too seriously, because we need more time, and more user feedback, more observations, as well as my own experiences, before I can truly form any educated opinion about this new camera.

I hate pixel peepers, because it has nothing to do with reality and with the printed output. They are technology junkies, not photographers. Only with the advent of digital I have seen this kind of ranting going on all websites about all brands of digital cameras, like a wild spreading contagious disease. It's awful. We truly live, most regretfully, in an age of complainers, to whom the glass is always half empty all the time, instead of half full. They do not know how to be grateful. They complain instead of offering real constructive feedback. They act full of hubris and have to just let everyone know how full they are of negativity, and how important THEIR opinions just are. They don't understand the beauty of gratitude. They don't truly appreciate the technical challenges Sigma is facing not only perfecting the Foveon imager, but also facing the competition.

The shape of the Q is on purpose: 1) to be unique and to standout (a brilliant move, I think); 2) to provide ample solidity for handheld shooting. A serious camera shouldn't be toy size.

These were two points expressly made by Sigma, and I agree.

My humble advice: let us gather all the experiences and observations from everyone, compare notes, and then decide the true objective pluses and minuses of this new camera (as much as THAT is possible! Haha).

We all know one thing already in advance: NO camera is perfect. Let's keep that in mind before we rip things apart. It serves no real purpose to act like a hungry pack of wolves, ready to shred any new object into little pieces.

When people complain about a little noise at 200% magnification on their monitor, is that being realistic? I print never smaller than 13x19, and often larger. I go to 200% to make sure there is no dust. Those pixel peeper doomsday sayers, do they ever print super large, where it might matter? And then there is viewing distance, which most people seem to forget. One is NOT to put their nose on large prints, but view them properly: from a certain distance. A small amount of imperfection doesn't bother anyone who takes in the entire photograph as one united entity.

Foveon is not great in low light; this we already know. Whatever they can improve here, great. That's a bonus. It's an inherent characteristic of the sensor. That's a given; get over it.

To me photography has to remain an art. At least, as a fine arts photographer, I personally think so. The output from my DP2M is many times better than what e.g. my Contax G with very sharp lenses and very fine grain film Velvia 50ASA film ever gave me. And yet, scanned at 4800 I still get wonderful 13x19 prints and from the rest of my old collection of slides I'm still scanning.

We have come a long way, and I am extremely grateful for that. The cost savings over film are enormous! A roll of 35mm slide film is about 10 dollars, plus processing and shipping/handling or gasoline to a local lab. That's $20 US; or about 50 cents per image. Let's say the camera costs you $500. A thousand dollars (cost of the Q) would give you just 1000 shots. Many shots won't be good. Since the Q is more like at least a 645 medium film format in IQ, the costs math would be worse.

So, we have come a long way indeed. Technically things are looking good, artistically, it's a different story, alas. Too much depressing stuff in so-called fine arts photography, if you ask me. That's what I think. It saddens me that often the ugly and weird is being rewarded and the beautiful is ignored as too commonplace. My brother is a sculptor and he thinks the same as I do.

===========

https://www.flickr.com/photos/88681310@N05/8092251359/

Shot with homemade 617 camera and 110mm Rodenstock lens

I like that you are asking for people to give Sigma some slack . . . but do you really want to do that? Sure, the DP2 Quattro is a step up from the DP2 Merrill . . . because it's faster and has a longer battery life . . . but really it's not much different, and Sigma has had years to make a significant improvement. I think the DP2 Quattro is a nice improvement and a significant one, but not as much of an improvement as I would like to see. This is where I agree with crazy H. The new Sigma is an interesting and different camera, but it is not worth buying, if you already have a DP2 Merrill. I'm willing to bet that Sigma knows this already. It's a nice upgrade though, if your DP2 Merrill is getting old, and you want something a bit faster, and you're sick of switching batteries all the time. Or if you have a DP1 Merrill and a DP3 Merrill, and you want a DP2 model, and you'd like to try something new and maybe a little faster. I would maybe get a DP2 Merrill at this point in time, because they're so much cheaper, but it seems to me that a year from now people won't look back on the Merrills and think Sigma made a big mistake . . . if they really do discontinue the Merrill models. Maybe they won't though. Imagine if they continue to sell the Merrills for $699 and bring the price of the Quattros down to $899. That would be cool. Very cool. And it COULD happen.

What you said about people not analyzing and arguing about image quality and stuff like that back in the days of film . . . just totally wrong. YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

In the days of film people were just as crazy about testing films to see what the grain patterns were like, how they reacted to different processing, etc. They did the same with paper, lenses, filters, etc. etc. In fact, it might have been worse back then. I have a LOT of old photography magazines I could show you that are full of articles about various lenses and films. They analyzed the hell out of stuff in the 1980s (and the 1990s). Most of the time it was about 35mm film and cameras and lenses, but they had articles about medium format too. I had subscriptions to Popular Photography, Photographic, Modern Photography, and PHOTO for a few years. I was a photographer in the days of the emergence of auto-focus, and people complained that auto-focus wasn't necessary or would never work as well as a professional could focus manually. Boy were they wrong. The point is . . . you have forgotten about all the debates that raged when a new film would come on the market, such as Kodak Gold 100 or the "new" 1000 ASA films.

Here's just one example. I went and pulled an old Modern Photography magazine out of a stack of old magazines I have in a closet: VOLUME 49 NUMBER 8 - August 1985

In there, on page 40 & 41 (and continued on page 118) there's an section headed "Keppler's SLR Notebook" that has the title "Can An Inexpensive Zoom Equal A Touted Micro Lens?" In the article Herbert Keppler compares a Nikon Series E 75-150mm f3.5 zoom against a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8, and it includes close-up crops, shot at various apertures, etc. In the end he states, "Using the Nikon and Nikkor lenses as examples, I hope we've given you insight into the old micro-macro battle, the truth of zoom vs. single focal length quality and what can make one top optical quality lens less expensive than another." That's just one article in the first magazine I picked out and looked through.

Today we have forums where anyone who wants to can weigh in. Of course we'll have more pixel-peeping happening. But relatively speaking we DID have such debates decades ago, in the peak of the film era.

There is a difference between magazines battling things out and amateurs masquerading as pros on blogs and forums.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/88681310@N05/8092251359/
Shot with homemade 617 camera and 110mm Rodenstock lens

mypic wrote:

Just asking because I'm thinking about buying a pano camera. Thanks in advanced.

I use an Epson V700 with BetterScan film holders and two pieces of Anti-Newton Glass.

This film holder will easily hold two 6x17 film strips.

For 35mm slides up to 6x9 film I still use my trusty Minolta Dimage Multi Pro.

Thanks:)

HBowman wrote:

About the Q in global :

The design is strange, it is large while being little, with a sort of "fat Iphone" glossy finish, after all I do not like it; the DPm was just good on form factor, more mate, more stealth, more pro. Yes it go faster to record, the AF is on par at 97% with Merrill DP so no big improvement, even in manual. To be clear it is exactly the same as the Merrill and improvement is only processor based. Now in the street, ppl see you with a strange Iphone in hands. It is not even weather sealed... Blimey !!! I forgot that almost all DP users use it indoor !!!! Fail ! Most DP users use it outdoor for landscape, street and so on. A lot like hiking with it, shooting ocean or wild dusty landscapes so Weather Sealing was "mandatory" on those devices so IMO, this is a large error to omit it. For 30 or 50 $ more per units, it should have been possible. Common sense and observation of the SIGMA users over the net...

Well, there ya go... as soon as I see the word "Fail !", I know I'm dealing with an infant. Real, serious critics use bigger and more meaningful words.

"ppl" -- Seriously!?

And then you waffle on about "a strange Iphone"... Who the blazes cares?

I know you are not as happy with your camera as you would have liked. And I know the dp2 Quattro is not perfect, but this un-proof-read, diatribe, waffle just sounds like sour grapes.

Your may think you're a serious critic but you really aren't. Assassinating the camera maker is not a critique.

Just sell the camera or return it, and get on with your life.

I thought this is a review.