One trick pony Locked

First, the good news, the sensor resolution is outstanding. Somebody interested in large prints will find this camera producing a lot of minute details, arguably better than any camera with a bayer sensor with the same pixel count.

Sigma

Though for most people, who don't print large and prefer looking at the pictures on the computer screen or a large screen TV, the difference in resolution doesn't translate in sharper pictures. Pictures from lower resolution bayer sensor cameras look pretty much as sharp and detailed on the screen.

Fujifilm

Unfortunately,apart from resolution there is nothing really good about the Sigma DP2Q. When you see it's weird design (apparently designed by Homer Simpson )

Homer Simpson design

you may think that it's not only ugly, but quite uncomfortable too. And you would be correct. Camera is quite inconvenient to hold, lacking in basic ergonomics. For some reason, they also put the manual focus button right where your thumb rests, so accidentally pushing it and getting out of focus pictures becomes pretty common.

The focus is quite slow and unreliable. Camera refuses to focus in low light, and even in good light it would sometimes choose to focus on something different than where the central focus square points.

Missed focus, the central focus area is on the red rose, but the actual focus is behind it.

Taking into account a terrible LCD screen, completely washed out on a sunny day and you don't even notice all your pictures are out of focus until you look at them on a computer screen.

Everything is very slow about this camera: the focus is slow, the writing on the card takes like 5 seconds. So anything that moves isn't suitable for photographing.

Battery life is poor. I took the camera for a 30 min walk, taking about 120 jpeg+raw pictures and the battery indicator showed it had about 1/3 left. That is about 2-3 times worse than a typical compact camera.

The colors coming from camera are quite poor as well in my estimation. The greens are often too dirty-grayish looking, loosing color and turning gray in the shadows.

'dirty' looking greens on a good sunny day when the greens were actually bright and vivid

The red color is lacking definition and can be easily blown out, so you need to significantly underexpose if you are taking pictures of red flowers, or it will be a mess.

red flowers

Finally, there is some noise already at the base ISO, though it won't be normally visible on the screen viewing. The noise becomes noticeable already at ISO 200. And the ISO 400 is borderline usable, depending on the subject. ISO 800 and higher are completely unusable in my estimation.

Bottom line, it's still a one trick pony: it's a great resolution camera and pretty sub par in every other respect.

I would have liked an upgraded dp2m but not a camera that actually has less microcontrast and resolution only so it can slightly advance in other areas where every cheap p&s has it still beaten by a mile.

The increased battery life and write speed are welcome but still utterly pathetic compared to what other cameras deliver...

More gixel would have been great and a ff version with even more pixel would have been better. I only use my dp2m at max iso 200 anyway (otherwise I use another camera), so high iso is irrelevant to me.

One thing though makes me really wonder what the guys at Sigma were thinking: wtf is up with the design? It is extremely uncomfortable to use to the point that my fingers actually hurt after a while. Not to mention that it actually does not fit in any small bag.

Some people just don't get it. I wonder what you would write about the new Pentax 645 Z. I bet you'd complain about how slow it works and how long the files take to write to the memory card. I'm guessing you would also complain about how big it is and how much it costs. I'm surprised you didn't complain that the DP2 Quattro doesn't have image stabilization and can't shoot video. There are a LOT of things the DP series cameras DON'T have:

1. Tiny size, like a compact pocket camera

2. Water proofness, like a Pentax W3

3. GPS

4. Wi-fi

5. Built-in HDR

. . . etc. etc.

You obviously are not a candidate for a camera that captures stellar image quality, unless it also shoots fast and is extremely versatile. You might like the Nikon V3. It makes nice 18 MP photos, which are almost as many megapixels as the 19.6 MP photos from the Sigma DP2 Quattro.

You comments about colors don't seem to match what I'm seeing from photographers. Check out the latest from larryj:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54011927

Yes, they fit the concept of what sigma cameras do well. But from what I've seen, the DP2Q looks more versatile than some other sigma cameras.

You have a lot of gall putting such a negative review right here on the Sigma Forum and I say more power to you!

Forget about the withering blasts of heat you're getting: this will be the post I'll link when somebody asks about whether or not the Quattro (or any Sigma) is for them.  Most of these CaNikoPentaxians have little idea what a deep difference there is between Sigma and mainstream digital photography.  It's important to go into the world of Sigma with one's eyes fully open and your review will certainly do that!

Thanks for your honesty and candid expression!

Still, I do stand with some of these other responders to your thread, that there is more to the Quattro (or any Sigma) than there seems to be at first.

forpetessake wrote:

First, the good news, the sensor resolution is outstanding. Somebody interested in large prints will find this camera producing a lot of minute details, arguably better than any camera with a bayer sensor with the same pixel count.

Sigma

Though for most people, who don't print large and prefer looking at the pictures on the computer screen or a large screen TV, the difference in resolution doesn't translate in sharper pictures. Pictures from lower resolution bayer sensor cameras look pretty much as sharp and detailed on the screen.

Fujifilm

Unfortunately,apart from resolution there is nothing really good about the Sigma DP2Q. When you see it's weird design (apparently designed by Homer Simpson )

Homer Simpson design

you may think that it's not only ugly, but quite uncomfortable too. And you would be correct. Camera is quite inconvenient to hold, lacking in basic ergonomics. For some reason, they also put the manual focus button right where your thumb rests, so accidentally pushing it and getting out of focus pictures becomes pretty common.

The focus is quite slow and unreliable. Camera refuses to focus in low light, and even in good light it would sometimes choose to focus on something different than where the central focus square points.

Missed focus, the central focus area is on the red rose, but the actual focus is behind it.

Taking into account a terrible LCD screen, completely washed out on a sunny day and you don't even notice all your pictures are out of focus until you look at them on a computer screen.

Everything is very slow about this camera: the focus is slow, the writing on the card takes like 5 seconds. So anything that moves isn't suitable for photographing.

Battery life is poor. I took the camera for a 30 min walk, taking about 120 jpeg+raw pictures and the battery indicator showed it had about 1/3 left. That is about 2-3 times worse than a typical compact camera.

The colors coming from camera are quite poor as well in my estimation. The greens are often too dirty-grayish looking, loosing color and turning gray in the shadows.

'dirty' looking greens on a good sunny day when the greens were actually bright and vivid

The red color is lacking definition and can be easily blown out, so you need to significantly underexpose if you are taking pictures of red flowers, or it will be a mess.

red flowers

Finally, there is some noise already at the base ISO, though it won't be normally visible on the screen viewing. The noise becomes noticeable already at ISO 200. And the ISO 400 is borderline usable, depending on the subject. ISO 800 and higher are completely unusable in my estimation.

Bottom line, it's still a one trick pony: it's a great resolution camera and pretty sub par in every other respect.

Your experience of the DP2 Q is completely opposite to mine. I have seen some of the best images I've ever seen form a digital camera out of the Q. I could get any camera to make poor oof images if I wanted to. Try again.

S

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrTE6LFFEx4

Lin Evans wrote:

It's too bad that the "reviewer" is cluless about processing Sigma files. He's wrong on so many levels that it really wouldn't even be worthwhile to make a checklist.

Sad, but the ineptitude among reviewers when dealing with Sigma is pervasive.

Regards,

Lin

Actually, in one sense, the review is accurate as it does reflect how the general public will probably perceive the camera. All Sigma cameras are specialize tools for specific purposes, and anyone looking at them as "all in one" type cameras will always be disappointed.

mike earussi wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrTE6LFFEx4

mike earussi wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

It's too bad that the "reviewer" is cluless about processing Sigma files. He's wrong on so many levels that it really wouldn't even be worthwhile to make a checklist.

Sad, but the ineptitude among reviewers when dealing with Sigma is pervasive.

Regards,

Lin

Actually, in one sense, the review is accurate as it does reflect how the general public will probably perceive the camera. All Sigma cameras are specialize tools for specific purposes, and anyone looking at them as "all in one" type cameras will always be disappointed.

mike earussi wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrTE6LFFEx4

I am not

HBowman wrote:

JohnLindroth wrote:

You comments about colors don't seem to match what I'm seeing from photographers. Check out the latest from larryj:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54011927

Yes, they fit the concept of what sigma cameras do well. But from what I've seen, the DP2Q looks more versatile than some other sigma cameras.

Roughly :

"Except for the higher technical performance delivered by the DP2Q camera 'body' if one may say so, the DP2M trumps the DP2Q down. Very much down. That shows in actually almost all aspects but a few non important color issues. The conclusion is the new DP2Q is unable to show much texture in the files, show details and objectively perceived sharpness.

What You Talkin' Bout?

mike earussi wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrTE6LFFEx4

Another "user" who just doesn't "get it." That guy reminds me of the people who would criticize Apple computers years ago, when I first got one, after years of thinking about it and being told by friends how good they are. When I finally got one and discovered why my friends liked them so much, I would end up telling people how good they are, but sometimes I'd run across someone (i.e. my older brother) who would say what a piece of crap it is. I guess Apple "fooled" everyone into thinking their computers and software are great, because they sure seem to be doing alright, even though their stuff is "SO overpriced."

Another good example is my dad, one of those people who just can't understand why people think Picasso's work is good. They look at it and they're like, "It looks like a stupid cartoon!"

Some people just don't get it . . . because they're clueless.

You really have to be a fully competent photographer to get the most out of this camera. Your review sounds like you're the kind of person who would buy a 4X4 vehicle and expect it to compete well with an F1 car. It just doesn't work that way.

You gave it a rating for studio photography... did you actually use it in a studio -- or did you just make that one up?

One has to learn how to get the most out of the equipment they choose to spend their money on.

Rating on your review: 0 - inept, ill informed user.

I always listen the the Lizard King. Long may he reign.

For better results with saturated red you should use the portrait mode. It gives much more subtle results for red/orange tones.

And you should never photograph saturated colors in bright sunlight. Use a diffusor or stand between the sun and the flower. This is especially important if the leaves or blossoms of a plant are somehow transparent. DP2Q is no exception to other digital cameras here.

The green grass might look much better with landscape or vivid color mode but I suspect a polarizer would be the better solution. Again this is not a problem of your camera but of the overall harsh sunlight causing reflections on the individual leaves of grass.

Concerning AF on mirrorless cameras with contrast detection you must know that it's impossible for them to focus on something else than the currently assigned focus point. This means you either changed camera direction or your distance to the red rose after focus lock. This happens and one has to be aware of it. Chimping helps. You need to press the review button and the center thumb button for a 100% review of the focus point area. Press the center button for fitting the image or the shutter release button (half down) for leaving the review mode. At least this is how it works on the DP Merrill cameras.

On resolution and speed: you can't have both.

Uwe 8-)