Brilliant images, economical, compact Sigma DPxm cameras

For for my needs in art photography, the camera gives me these advantages:
1. compact, solid build quality
2. very high image quality (on par with MF film, scanned)
3. economical / low cost
4. practically silent operation, fairly quick shutter response.

But it also comes with these significant drawbacks:
1. very slow image processing (30 seconds per image! 8 image buffer).
1.b. when camera is writing image to card, you cannot review the image until after it is done. Stupid, stupid, and constantly irritating.  Given the long write times, it would make sense to give a preview along with a button to cancel writing the file.  The photographer often knows the shot is no good the instant after it is made!
2. prime lens, not removable (silver lining: no dust issues).
3. poor performance at ASA over 400, poor auto focus in low light.
4. very odd lens flare pattern, not good shooting towards bright point sources of light.
5. poor battery life. Figure 2 hours per battery if you like to compose with screen (I now have a viewfinder mounted to the hot-shoe, so this is less of an issue). There's a matching Ricoh battery so get extras.
6. Absolutely NO WAY to remote release. Oh well, camera(s) will need custom work.
7. Haven't been able to get any off-camera flash to fire / sync. with the camera. No sync. cord socket. Might have to buy a Sigma on-camera flash for triggering studio strobe kit.
8. Some issues with digital patterns in dark areas in images.
9. Sigma proprietary raw file format which requires passing through their software (which is slow and clunky) to make TIFFs that Photoshop can read.
10. Little video capability to speak of, and the time lapse function is limited. But hey...

Gosh, with so many drawbacks, why did I like this camera? It is because at such a low price, there were no other options for what I wanted above all else: best possible image quality in a compact camera. Any other kind of camera, with this image quality, will cost three to five times as much, and will be twice as large. Only the Sony Alpha 7 cameras compete on image quality AND size - but they will cost over five times as much with lenses.

All other options with this image quality come with a full frame bayer sensor. The Sigma's APS-C format Foveon sensor captures as much image, if not more, in a smaller package. In the Merrill cameras, the fixed prime lens is optimized for the sensor, which is part of the reason the image quality is so good. Beautiful color and tonality (in good light or at low ASA). Being small, this camera is more likely to be carried around and will thus be more likely to capture images that are found in passing. I don't want to have to carry around a full-frame DSLR, much less pay for one!

And despite it's drawbacks, it still shoots faster than my Sputnik! In due time I expect to get some DP-2 Merrills also ("normal" lens field of view), or if I wind the lottery, some Sonys.

Dear Rick:

I listed the camera in my profile.  THen DPreview gave me the option to "leave a review."  Before I did that, I checked to see if the site had any reviews on the camera already.  I expected that it would, given the age of the camera.  But I could not find any reviews (without digging into the discussion threads, of course).  No reviews in the "reviews" section.  The camera is just unpopular enough that I thought: nobody has written up a review yet!  So I wrote up my little review.

Now it appears my review is just a discussion post/thread?  Is it tagged "review" or what?

I didn't need to get that out of my system at all.  I have a life, I have other things to do, than to preach to the choir.  I thought I was adding some value to the site for its users.  But if the site offers me to leave a review, then throws that somewhere into a discussion bin, where people already know all about the camera... that's not my intent, nor my fault.

sorry to trouble you.  .. and thanks for pointing out a potential problem with the site here.  Have you also ever been asked by the site to leave a "review" on a camera, only to have your review simply thrown into discussion?

I've learned my lesson.

Boris

Boris Starosta wrote:

Dear Rick:

I listed the camera in my profile. THen DPreview gave me the option to "leave a review." Before I did that, I checked to see if the site had any reviews on the camera already. I expected that it would, given the age of the camera. But I could not find any reviews (without digging into the discussion threads, of course). No reviews in the "reviews" section. The camera is just unpopular enough that I thought: nobody has written up a review yet! So I wrote up my little review.

Now it appears my review is just a discussion post/thread? Is it tagged "review" or what?

I didn't need to get that out of my system at all. I have a life, I have other things to do, than to preach to the choir. I thought I was adding some value to the site for its users. But if the site offers me to leave a review, then throws that somewhere into a discussion bin, where people already know all about the camera... that's not my intent, nor my fault.

sorry to trouble you. .. and thanks for pointing out a potential problem with the site here. Have you also ever been asked by the site to leave a "review" on a camera, only to have your review simply thrown into discussion?

I've learned my lesson.

Boris

It has indeed appeared as a review, with all the scorecard tools and Buy Now links that come with an official review, and the little 'camera review' icon that identifies it as a camera review when, as is general practice, members browse the forums using the 'All Threads View'.

So, you did nothing wrong, and thanks for adding the first review of this camera to the forum.

The tricky part of reviewing these cameras compared to most cameras, is that they are relatively specialised in their aims or priorities, and this makes them poor general-purpose cameras. So, in reviewing them, it makes sense to review them against their design brief, rather than for their general purpose functionality or lack thereof. For example, it's a fixed prime lens camera, so that's not a performance issue, it's just what it is. You wouldn't mark down a Formula 1 race car for not having an off-road tool kit, or a bracket for mounting fuel jerry cans. It's like shooting monkeys in a barrel to criticise the camera, a non-general-purpose camera, for being exactly what it is, and not something else.

Regarding your point 7, try taping over the flash unit's contacts near the rear of the mount.

Finally, enjoy your nice and quite special camera.

Hi Arg, thanks for your kind reply!

I've had this DP1m for two years now, and had added a second one for stereo shooting a year ago.  When I do shoot them in stereo, I've been using the two finger sync. method, which really only works on relatively static scenes, best with long exposures.

Just a few months ago I got my first DP2m, and that is going to be my carry around shooter, whilst I tinker with the DP1m cameras to get the shutters electrically synched.  (see my other recent post in the Sigma section).

I do love these cameras for their imaging performance, and can put up with some of their deficits... seeing as how I'm moving up from a Sputnik;-)   (Still shooting the Sputnik, actually).

You are correct they are specialized.  I guess I wanted to mention that it was a prime, non-removable lens, simply because that is important information.  You're right that it isn't really a defect (in fact the non-removable prime gives the cameras some advantages - it allows the sensor and lens to be perfectly matched, it keeps out the dust, and it keeps the price lower), but the review would be incomplete without pointing it out.  Most people would say a fixed prime is a minus point, as everyone loves their zooms.

In some way, of course probably all the minus points in some way contribute to the positives of this camera.  For me one of the biggest positives is cost, then size and weight, then the awesome image quality.  I also shoot with Canon 5D mk-II that I got last winter, and you have to look really, really closely to find places where the Canon outperforms the Sigma.  And the Canon cost me five times as much and weighs three times as much and is twice the size.  But::: the Canon has a remote release!!  (that is literally the only reason I got a pair of them recently).   Well, to be fair, the Canon raw files are a lot easier to deal with....  but now we're rehashing the knowns.

cheers,

Boris

TN Args wrote:

Boris Starosta wrote:

Dear Rick:

I listed the camera in my profile. THen DPreview gave me the option to "leave a review." Before I did that, I checked to see if the site had any reviews on the camera already. I expected that it would, given the age of the camera. But I could not find any reviews (without digging into the discussion threads, of course). No reviews in the "reviews" section. The camera is just unpopular enough that I thought: nobody has written up a review yet! So I wrote up my little review.

Now it appears my review is just a discussion post/thread? Is it tagged "review" or what?

I didn't need to get that out of my system at all. I have a life, I have other things to do, than to preach to the choir. I thought I was adding some value to the site for its users. But if the site offers me to leave a review, then throws that somewhere into a discussion bin, where people already know all about the camera... that's not my intent, nor my fault.

sorry to trouble you. .. and thanks for pointing out a potential problem with the site here. Have you also ever been asked by the site to leave a "review" on a camera, only to have your review simply thrown into discussion?

I've learned my lesson.

Boris

It has indeed appeared as a review, with all the scorecard tools and Buy Now links that come with an official review, and the little 'camera review' icon that identifies it as a camera review when, as is general practice, members browse the forums using the 'All Threads View'.

So, you did nothing wrong, and thanks for adding the first review of this camera to the forum.

The tricky part of reviewing these cameras compared to most cameras, is that they are relatively specialised in their aims or priorities, and this makes them poor general-purpose cameras. So, in reviewing them, it makes sense to review them against their design brief, rather than for their general purpose functionality or lack thereof. For example, it's a fixed prime lens camera, so that's not a performance issue, it's just what it is. You wouldn't mark down a Formula 1 race car for not having an off-road tool kit, or a bracket for mounting fuel jerry cans. It's like shooting monkeys in a barrel to criticise the camera, a non-general-purpose camera, for being exactly what it is, and not something else.

This point is interesting. It makes me think about the Phase One XF and whether or not people would be down on its huge, bulky size, absurd cost, and slow operation. I mean the thing doesn't shoot at 10 fps, right? WHY NOT?!? I wonder how much buffer capacity it has and how long it takes to process THOSE raw files. Compare it with the Canon 1Dx on the terms of the typical DSLR lover, and the Canon would probably rate much higher, even though it's only 18 MP vs the XF at 100 MP. I think it's quite obvious what the XF is all about, so maybe that's why this type of thing doesn't happen. I guess the little Sigma DP cameras are sleepers or something, and people just can't handle that very well. They can't get their minds round the idea that a little camera like that can shoot photos that are in some instances as good or hold as much detail as what can come from medium format and full-frame cameras that cost thousands of dollars.

Regarding your point 7, try taping over the flash unit's contacts near the rear of the mount.

Finally, enjoy your nice and quite special camera.

-- hide signature --

Arg

rick decker wrote:

Well this has all been said many times before. But, it is good to get it out of your system!!

Most Sigma users feel this pain.  Not enough to dissuade us though...

Big Ga wrote:

Boris Starosta wrote:

1. very slow image processing (30 seconds per image!

Write times are indeed slow as the file sizes are so huge and it does need to do a bit of processing, but surely its not 30 sec per image? Not with a decent fast card anyway. I have a feeling that if you were to try a good quality newer one with a true 45-90MB/s write speed, it would speed things up considerably. Give it a go!

Yes, be sure to get a card with a high WRITE speed.  Read speeds are usually faster, and the cards are sold on the basis of read speeds, so don't be fooled.

I have a high write speed card and it speeds up the write process substantially.

THanks to the several people that suggested using a high WRITE speed card.  THat's (good) news to me, and I will definitely look into it.

cheers,

Boris

Good basics, worth reading!

Here are a few specs for current products. Note the large variations in write speed:

B&H # SAUSD16GBA: Read 80mb/sec, write 10mb/sec, price $8.37. This is SanDisk 16GB Ultra UHS-I SDHC Memory Card (Class 10), MFR # SDSDUNC-016G-GN6IN

B&H # SAESD16GBC: Read 90mb/sec, write 40mb/sec, price $11.85. This is SanDisk 16GB Extreme UHS-I U3 SDHC Memory Card (Class 10), MFR # SDSDXNE-016G-GNCIN

B&H # SAEPSDU16GB: Read 95mb/sec, write 90mb/sec, price $16.50. This is SanDisk 16GB Extreme Pro UHS-I SDHC U1 Memory Card (Class 10), MFR # SDSDXP-016G-A46

B&H # EYSDMP16GB: Read 13mb/sec, write 23mb/sec, price $69.95. This is Eyefi 16GB Mobi Pro SDHC Wi-Fi Memory Card (Class 10)

I've had very good results using a card equivalent to the one in the $12 price range: enough write speed to make a positive difference. My particular Sandisk Extreme "60MB/s" 16GB SDHC I card is no longer available but I believe the write speed is about 40mb/s. I bought 8 of these last summer and I use them in all my newer cameras. If I were buying SD cards again I would probably go for the B&H # SAEPSD16GBP, waterproof, 60mb/s write speed, $39.95 for a two-pack.

Of course these might not work in the older Sigmas such as the classic DP2.

Interesting discovery I made is that they are also really fast for storage of regular data, using the SD card slot you will find in a lot of laptops these days. And, they are flat and easily lost in your pocket or kept in your wallet, unlike a regular USB stick.