So disappointed with the DP1 after using it.

[BarrytheB]

This is all the justification I will provide. I consider this matter
closed, and if someone wants to attack my character, then provide me
your personal details. I have shared with you my personal flickr
account, and links to my blog, which contains everything you'd ever
want to know about me and my family. Hell, my username is my real
name. So, tell me again how I'm a troll?

How can the matter be closed when you are still displaying photographs you obtained without permission from a device you don't own?
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr

 

[LMC54]

Go for Nick it.

I'm completely devastated that I don't have your respect. Perhaps
I'll go jump off a bridge, for life is no longer worth living.

--

...but there are a lot of people who wait until the light is switched off and blame the cam it can't produce a decent pic.
Spalbird 2008

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=235

 

[NickDavis]

David, if you go into each picture on Flickr, you can select to see other sizes. I uploaded them at full resolution, and there is absolutely no post-processing done on the images.

I will upload the video tonight.

Nick-

I'm interested to hear your opinions.

The flickr link you provided only shows reduced-size images for me -
do you have direct links to the full-size images?

With regards to the quality of the JPEGs, we have seen from the other
samples that there are definite differences between the raw
conversions and the in-camera JPEG. Someone had also discovered that
the unofficial images were inidicating a new version of SPP was being
used to process them. To me, this makes sense - figure out the
processing on the PC side where it is easy, then update the in-camera
algorithms once it is taken care of, before the cameras start
shipping. This would certainly explain the results of having poor
in-camera JPEGs come out of a camera off the trade show floor.
Unlike Laurence, I don't have any "real" information, so it's all
just speculation.

Also, I would be greatly interested in seeing the video clip you shot

• the one with the banding / half-green artifacts. The fine-level

quality is certainly not indicative of the final product, but it
WOULD give some clues about the video encoding methods, etc, that
will be used for the final product. Do you have a way to host that?
The actual file from the camera would be better than a re-encoded
form (YouTube, etc).

Thanks

• David

 

[Graham69]

How can the matter be closed when you are still displaying
photographs you obtained without permission from a device you don't
own?
--

He was the photographer taking the photographs so I would guess the copyright belongs with him and he can do with them as he wishes. It also seems the device was available for public use in view of Sigma representatives.

I don't see what the problem is - he picked up the camera and took some pictures on his memory card. It's not an unreasonable thing to do.

 

[K Joseph]

Thank you for the sound advice Nick, I will be sure to spend more time reading the scriptures. But your posts are distracting me. There's something about the 'negative' chatter that doesn't seem to coincide with the teachings of the word. It seems to me that one who reads the scriptures would not devote their time and energy to speaking poorly about a companie's product, but rather yet, they would devote their energies to aiding the said company in enhancing their product so that everyone wins. But I don't seem to get that from you. Maybe I'm missing something,

help a reader out...
--
http://www.koslyjoseph.com
Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/kosly_joseph

 

[Deleted78792]

From someone interested in the camera (and who is not a Sigm forum poster), thank you, for showing us a the pictures that you shot, and your personal opinion. Going by the axiom, as you say, that there was no tape on the CF compartment and no notice not to click away, why should one seek permission to take photos from a camera that's on open display? Next objection people will have is that even oral permission is not enough, and a written clearance is required.

Maybe the sigma forum needs to chill. Its 'just' a camera, whether good or bad. Certainly not worth personal attacks based on conjecture.

-AP

 

[NickDavis]

Here Sigma might argue, if it's true, that the OP took its property and used it without permission

Right. They put the cameras out on display and then argue that I had no right to use it? That sounds plausible.

As for the tape, there was absolutely no tape on the camera at the time I used it. I did everything in plain site of the Sigma workers. The booth was not crowded.

 

[BarrytheB]

I respectfully disagree as they were obtained without permission in a sneaky manner.
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr

 

[NickDavis]

lol

 

[Graham69]

Sigma showed the camera at PMA and allowed people to use it. If they had really wanted to prevent someone from sticking a memory card in the camera they should have glued the door shut. Who - knows - maybe the OP picked up the camera that Phil had used the previous day so the slot wasn't taped? Or maybe Sigma thought that as the various sites had their scoop they would relax the rules on using memory cards. Or, maybe that particular Sigma rep wasn't aware that there was a "no memory card in the DP1" rule.... ? Who knows?!

The fact is that if there had not been any other sample images around on the net, everyone would be congratulating the OP on his ability to get some sample shots. What was his other crime - that he expressed an opinion?

Sigma cannot sue him. AFAIK he did not sign an agreement stating that he would not use a memory card in that camera. And did they have clearly visible signs up saying 'DO NOT USE MEMORY CARDS IN DP1'??

What has happened here in this topic is just complete hysteria.

Graham69

 

[Graham69]

I respectfully disagree as they were obtained without permission in a
sneaky manner.
--

You can't possibly know that unless you were there and saw him 'acting in a sneaky manner'!!

Graham69

 

[BarrytheB]

for the same reason ethical photographers obtain permission from people before taking and certainly before publishing their image. While not illegal paparazzi (ism) is certainly distasteful. Its simple a matter of respect and courtesy.
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr

 

[NickDavis]

Barry, now that argument is a stretch even for you. Certainly you can do better than that.

for the same reason ethical photographers obtain permission from
people before taking and certainly before publishing their image.
While not illegal paparazzi (ism) is certainly distasteful. Its
simple a matter of respect and courtesy.
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr

 

[BarrytheB]

contact Sigma and ask them if its ok to display these images
--
Barry Byrd
http://www.pbase.com/barryb
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr

 

[Boris]

Ah yes the old moral issue...of course it makes no difference to you to accuse someone of something that you have no proof of.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

 

[NickDavis]

Do you also recommend that I contact Canon to see if I can use the pictures I took with their cameras as well?

Please, contact Sigma. I hear that they're exceptionally responsive

 

[LMC54]

Yes, I wasn't there nor were you. But he has put himself in public domain.

Ah yes the old moral issue...of course it makes no difference to you
to accuse someone of something that you have no proof of.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

--

...but there are a lot of people who wait until the light is switched off and blame the cam it can't produce a decent pic.
Spalbird 2008

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=235

 

[sandy b]

when working with rocks. Give it up. They WATCHED him do it. LOL, you guys are a scream.

 

[Ed_S]

when working with rocks. Give it up. They WATCHED him do it. LOL, you
guys are a scream.

SandyB and Nick,

I would personally have qualms about presuming to put media in a display camera and snap pictures with it without asking or having sufficient knowledge of the camera to be confident in what I'm doing, but hey, that's me.

My bigger issue is that a handful of snapshots - and that's really all I can call them - with limited knowledge of how to best use the camera and limited time to get a feel for the equipment makes their value as empirical data very limited IMHO. As for the exchange of verbal missiles it probably far exceeds the worth of the issue, except that the OP is using limited data to support - shall we say - a fairly bold and unqualified opinion. One more time, when you throw a rock in a pond, one runs the risk of getting splashed. If one doesn't want honest and candid feedback, don't post essentially unsubstantiated opinions.

Regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

 

[TeenageShutdown]

Hi Nick,

Not being a sigma user myself, would you please explain a bit more about the handling issues you encountered? Are you referring to the menu software or the physical buttons? Specifically, I'd like to know how quickly you were able to change exposure variables, such as ISO and aperture, and if you could imagine being able to make these changes easily with just one (right) hand.

Best Regards!

I found the camera to be unintuitive (this I can blame on being a
lifelong Canon user - I'm sure a Sigma user would have less trouble),
noisy, unresponsive, slow-focusing, and the picture quality to be
sub-par, especially at ISO 800 (now I know why they didn't include
ISO 1600, which is a necessity with an F4 lens).