One trick pony Locked

DMillier wrote:

MF cameras are one trick ponies if you consider versatility as essential.

But for me the pejorative of calling Sigma that is they are unique amongst camera makers in making cameras that look like and compete in the space of far superior models from other companies.

It is only the particular image quality that is the Sigma "trick", Replace the quattro sensor with a conventional Sony EXmor and you will have a better camera but one that would almost impossible to sell because it would still fall well short of the competition.

It is all about the sensor - but it shouldn't be the ball is still in Sigma's court to fix that. Put the Foveon in a body that would sell in its own right - then they would have more than a one trick pony.

The SD1 is a camera with a body that would sell in its own right. It is weather sealed, comfortable, solid, and has good controls and review screen (though it is falling a little short today, as far as the review screen is concerned, which is probably why Sigma decided to upgrade the review screen, when they made the new DP2 Quattro). Hopefully Sigma will upgrade the screen even more, when they make the SD1 Quattro (or whatever DSLR they put the new Quattro sensor into). I'm hoping to see a 3.2" screen with slighly higher resolution (about the same as what the Nikon D810 has would be nice). Does it have the live-view feature? No . . . but neither does the $20,000 Leica S2, right? I would like to see a good implementation of live-view in the SD1 Quattro though. I think that if Sigma makes an SD1 Quattro with the new True III processor, a buffer big enough to hold 20 frames of RAW+JPG, live view, a bigger and better review screen, and dual SD card slots, they'll have a winner for most people, who are comparing it to the Nikon D810 are concerned. It shoots as fast, produces image quality that is as good at ISO 100 and 200, and it will be $1,000 less money. If Sigma adds a good implementation of wi-fi, so people can control it with their cell phones and review reasonably high resolution images on a large screen, like an iPad screen, it will probably be a real winner. Ultimately though, it will still be somewhat of a niche camera, just like the Nikon D800 and other 36 MP cameras are. There will be people who say, "It doesn't do video, so it's not as good as the Nikon D610." There will be people who say, "It doesn't have built-in GPS, so it's not as good as the Nikon D5300." There will be people who say, "It doesn't have a fold-out screen, so it's not as good as a Sony A99." Would any of those people be right? Of course. They're all as right as anyone can be, considering what is important to them. For most Foveon users though, it will be the better camera, because of the image quality.

As far as the size of the DP2 Quattro is concerned . . . please point out a camera that captures such detail that isn't actually significantly bigger. The Sony A7r? That thing costs almost $3,000 with a good lens on it. In fact, compared to anything else out there, the Sigma DP2 Quattro is the best value for the image quality it produces, when you consider image quality as the most important thing. Who buys a camera, if they don't consider image quality as the most important thing? After-all, a cell phone with an 8 MP camera built into it captures decent image quality, right? The alternative? Maybe something like a Sony RX100 or a Pentax GX7 (with interchangeable lenses). But if image quality is the most important thing to you . . . you'll probably take your Sigma DP2 Quattro with you too . . . for the shots that its lens is good for. Why? Because it is the ultimate . . . unless you have thousands of dollars to spend or you just HAVE to have an EVF or a "real" optical viewfinder. The popularity of the DP series is a testament to the fact that there are lots of people who DON'T need or want those things enough to decide to NOT buy the DP series cameras.

DMillier wrote:

I find it interesting that with the insiders we have in this forum, more isn't known about Sigma's strategy.

From the outside it has always seemed bizarre - for example they are happy to sell cameras with 15 sec write times and batteries that last 50 shots. Can you imagine Nikon or Canon releasing cameras with such weak specs? I can't. If they didn't have a fast enough processor they would rather not release a camera than release something that almost everyone would laugh at.

Sigma don't seem to care about such things. They can do what they want of course but it does seem like a strange strategy that doesn't make much sense. Why do they do these things, who does it benefit to make the Sigma a laughing stock? Of course the real fans understand the good side of Sigma cameras, but it is a very hard sell outside that little group and Sigma appear to content to keep on repeating the same moves.

I wonder why? They must surely have some kind of plan... what we need is Rick or Laurence or Kendall, anyone who the ear of Sigma to spill the beans... how do we make sense of the seeming wacky products they make????

Did Nikon get laughed at, when they went from their D700, which could shoot 7 fps to their D800, which could only shoot at 4 fps? No. Why not? Because of the incredible 36 MP sensor inside it.

What you don't seem to understand is that Sigma cameras produce superior image quality. For some people that is not enough to accept the limitations that come with that. For others it's a decision about price. For yet others it's not about how fast you can shoot, but how good the photos come out of the camera or out of the software in the computer, AFTER they've been shot and processed. For many of those people (and there are not a lot of those people BTW) the Sigma cameras are the cat's meow.

You don't have to do things the way everyone else does them. That's something you should have learned by now . . . but you keep harping on the so-called "facts" that YOU think are important. Well . . . obviously not everyone has the same opinion as you do . . . or Sigma would have stopped making cameras long ago.

Shall I remind you about Apple again?

Lin Evans wrote:

DMillier wrote:

The Q might be an improvement but it needs an order of magnitude improvement more to get to the stage where people would chose it for the camera itself rather than the sensor.

And I don't believe for one second that you believe that image quality is the only criteria. If it was, you'd not be using Sigma, you'd be using technical cameras the size of a truck with 5 metre wide sheets of film. No, like everyone else, you chose a camera as a compromise of many factors including at least a minimal level of convenience!

Image quality "is" the criteria for me. A camera the size of a truck with film of any size would not give me the image quality I want because I couldn't get the camera and film to the location where I shoot. The reason I don't shoot full frame is very similar. I can't "carry" the ideal gear I might want at the altitude I work in. To use a full frame camera, even a light one like the Sony 36 megapixel model, I still would have to have an 800mm lens which weighs 13 pounds, a substantial tripod, a gimbal head which weighs over 3 pounds and even without any other accessories, I'm now looking at twenty pounds plus the weight of my survival geat and it's very likely I would miss my shot because my subjects don't pose until I get the tripod, head, lens and camera set up to take the shot. So is it really a "compromise" to not have a camera the size of a truck and a huge sheet of film? Not at all. It's only a compromise if the alternative were "possible" which they are not. It's not about "convenience" it's about reality.

I stick with my point: despite the Q's improvements, no one would but one unless it had a Foveon sensor. When Sigma can build a camera that performs well enough that it has appeal as a camera rather than a fine lens and a box housing a foveon sensor, then they will fly, not before.

But the point is, without the Foveon sensor, it's just another "also-ran" camera. The best mechanicals and electronics are of little value to me if I can't get the quality I want in a photo. I use whatever works best for the task at hand. Sometimes its a Nikon, sometimes a Pentax, sometimes a Canon, sometimes a Sony or other tool. Many times it's a Sigma. Would you have paid $1500 for your DP2M if it had an EVF and a higher resolution LCD? Would you even need a higher resolution LCD if you had an EVF. So if the camera were considerably larger to accept a sufficiently large battery to get 400 frames rather than 100 frames would it be worth the additional cost? All the complaining about the "camera" body makes me laugh. I have dozens of very expensive high-end cameras but what do I use for every opportunity were it's suitable? I use the Sigma. Does the plethora of features and "conveniences" on my other cameras make me reach for them instead of the Sigma? No. So the point about no one using a Sigma unless it had a Foveon sensor is a moot point. It "does" have a Foveon sensor...

Best regards,

Lin

But if the Bugatti Veyron didn't have a 16 cylinder engine, nobody would want it!

That's what it sounds like to me, when someone says something like, "If it didn't have a Foveon sensor in it, . . . "

One way I look at this whole issue about why people like the Sigma cameras is this:

My dad HATES little sports cars - even Ferraris and Porsches. To him, a big luxury car, like a Lexus LS 470 is the car of choice. Is it fast? NO. Does it handle? NO. Is it sleek and beautiful? He thinks so . . . but most people don't. Is he wrong?

Maybe the Sigmas are like the Lexus . . . but people just haven't figured that out yet.

Maybe Sigmas are more like the Teslas . . . different . . . and in some ways better . . . but definitely unconventional.

richard stone wrote:

maceoQ wrote:

This guy is photographing a dirty jeep and some boring flowers in front of his house.
He never used a sigma camera before, it's his first posting in the Sigma forum...he don't even answer to anybody..why everybody care about this crap?
This thread should be locked and deleted.

This is a pretty typical response to a new Sigma camera, really. And with about the usual response from the users.

It is nice to be thought of, by these various posters, so nice that they feel the desire to post and help us all in making our decisions based on their expertise. Clearly, by just using the Sigma cameras, it is obvious that we are clueless. If we had a clue, we would be using a Fuji, right?

Now comes the follow up: "Am I right???)

But really, as opposed to this nonsense we have reviews by M. Reichman at Luminous Landscape, proposing that the DP2M was not for camera pussies, or dilettantes, which is apparently what this guy is. Because, after all, the q is more versatile and easier to use than the Merrill. And they both have the same excellent lens.

Of course, anyone who even knows about Sigma cameras and thinks about buying one is already walking on the wild side, and probably needs immediate assistance, before it's too late.

Meanwhile, maybe this guy has seen how KR has done so much with so little, and is looking to keep it in the family? He's off to a good start, right?

Richard

I also own a Fuji, but it hasn't helped.

Lin Evans wrote:

DMillier wrote:

MF cameras are one trick ponies if you consider versatility as essential.

But for me the pejorative of calling Sigma that is they are unique amongst camera makers in making cameras that look like and compete in the space of far superior models from other companies.

It is only the particular image quality that is the Sigma "trick", Replace the quattro sensor with a conventional Sony EXmor and you will have a better camera but one that would almost impossible to sell because it would still fall well short of the competition.

Isn't "image quality" the "major" important thing a camera brings to the table?

Not for a sports photographer (speed and accuracy of AF) or a photojournalist (durability) or a wedding photographer (high iso performance and frame rate). As long as the camera produces image quality that is "good enough" then they are happy.

The photographer can learn composition, learn technicals, etc., but it's the sensor and the lens which is what the camera provides. A mediocre image quality though produced by a superior photographer will always be just that, a mediocre image.

In many circumstances (see above professions) being able to get even a mediocre image is better than not getting it at all.

It is all about the sensor - but it shouldn't be the ball is still in Sigma's court to fix that. Put the Foveon in a body that would sell in its own right - then they would have more than a one trick pony.

The Q is an improvement in every major category.

What is considered "major" is a matter of personal definition. So for you it's an improvement in every major category that you care about. But for many of us the Q loss of edge contrast and color differentiation is a major loss.

Faster file processing, better battery life, higher optical resolution, etc. My only suggestion for the hardware would have been to add an optional EVF though the 3rd party optical magnification viewfinders/sunshades are sufficient.

I see no reason to gloss over either the strengths or weaknesses of either camera. I view them as complementary, not in opposition to each other, each having their own best uses. And I hope Sigma also sees them this way and so decides to keep the Merrill around.

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/