So disappointed with the DP1 after using it.

[LMC54]

Yeah, it was a great game and probably a classic. I also was cheering for the underdog. I tend to do that
Regards,
Larry

It was a mighty fine game. I had to cheer for hte underdawg

Regards,
Larry

it gets even better.

Oh the horrors This is getting better than the super bowl.

--
...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

--
C.

'My theory of composition? Simple: do not release the
shutter until everything in the viewfinder feels just right.'
~ Ernst Haas

--
http://www.koslyjoseph.com
Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/kosly_joseph

--

...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

 

[booggerg]

What moral issue? Sigma put the camera out for display for the general public. If they were really concerned about images being leaked out from the DP1 they had at the show, they could have changed the firmware to not write to the card. A piece of tape? Gimme a break. Loyalists really annoy me.

This is more of a moral issue with me rather than a camera "thingy".
Obviously the man took things under his control to take tape off the
camera to insert a CF card that he "knew" that he shouldn't. Either
the OP is not very intelligent or he has underhanded motives. I
can't give him the benefit of the doubt since moral people would ask
for permission since there was tape covering the CF door. It's so
obvious.

Regards,
Larry

--
...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

 

[booggerg]

The camera has a CF slot in it.
The camera was on display to be tried out for the general public.

Common sense tells me what NIck did wasn't far fetched.

Tell me this. If you go to a photoraphy store and try out a unit they have on display. You shoot a few frames with your own CF card inserted. Do you then ask permission from the store clerk if you can go home and print the images you just shot? What a ridiculous argument you have.

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

 

[Deleted78792]

While I agree that papparazzi-ism is distasteful, is this situation the same? If we must equate people to instruments, how about a scenario that is a closer match- a fashion model walking the ramp, or a politician on a podium. Do photographers stop to ask courteously whether they can photograph either? No, because the model's on display. So was the DP-1, in this case.

And just like we don't judge a beauty of a model based on a few casual photos, discriminating people would wait to assess DP-1's capabilities till more thorough tests happen.

regards,
AP

 

[NickDavis]

Like I said, if I had an hour with it I probably would have become more fluent with the controls. If I remember correctly (this was 3 days ago, and in Vegas, so I've lost plenty of brain cells since then the ISO was in one of the menus, but it was very easy to change. Changing between camera modes (Av, Tv, Program, Movie, etc) was easy, but I had trouble finding where to change the Aperture when I was in Av.

The time between taking the picture, reviewing it, and taking another picture, was slow. Everything felt a bit lagged, somewhat like I was using a P&S from 2001. These could all be software issues just awaiting a firmware update. But a spring ship date means that this camera should be 98% done and nearing manufacture.

It didn't feel that way to me. I write software for a living, and I know how difficult tying up those last loose ends can be. This is a complete opinion, but I don't think we'll see this ship in the spring.

Right now I'm leading a project that was promised by a certain date, but due to many unseen situations, was delayed. The business chose to push up the release nonetheless, over the objections of the development team. We're now working out the bugs while the system is live, but we have the advantage of being a web app.

More unsubstantiated opinion: After actually using the camera, I'd say the itis 90% there, but the last 10% will take at least 30-40% of total development time. Whether Sigma chooses to release early or wait until the product is done to the satisfaction of their engineers (or cancel the project all together) remains to be seen.

I hope they fix the problems and release a great camera. I'll pay $1000 the first day they are for sale, if so.

 

[TeenageShutdown]

Hi and thanks for that reply.

Do you remember if the camera you were using was set to RAW or RAW+JPG or JPG only? Were you possibly using an older, slower card? Some of my cards write faster than others.

I don't know anything about embedded camera software but I doubt it is as layered/complex as your webapp, so possibly this is just a simple streaming issue?

Any ideas?

The time between taking the picture, reviewing it, and taking another
picture, was slow. Everything felt a bit lagged, somewhat like I was
using a P&S from 2001. These could all be software issues just
awaiting a firmware update. But a spring ship date means that this
camera should be 98% done and nearing manufacture.

 

[Lobalobo]

Assuming that Sigma was injured, the case would not be dismissed summarily if the OP pulled off tape if he understood, or reasonably should have understood, that doing so was a violation of the conditions to which he implicitly agreed. And it seems likely that pulling off the tape by someone in the industry is pretty good evidence that he knew what he was doing is something he should not have been doing. (I don't know that he pulled off the tape, of course, as I said in my post above, but others suggested he must have.) The presence of a Sigma agent in the vicinity would not matter at all at least unless she consented to his actions. That said, I agree that Sigma is unlikely to bring a suit, as I explained in my post above. I mention the possibility of a suit for two reasons. First, an earlier poster asked. Second, I was hoping the OP understood that there are potential consequences for behaving badly in a business environment if this is in fact what he did (and again, I don't know).

A bit of adivce too for the "umm" poster. Using terms such as "laughed out" for emphasis is the equivalent of talking louder. It doesn't improve your argument and if fact has the opposite effect, signaling to the reader that you don't have much of an argument based on the merits.

 

[Ed_S]

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

Kosly,

We have to talk sometime. Good words my friend.
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

 

[Dominic Groß]

Come on people, we are talking about nothing more than a product
here, one of billions in the world. It might be good, it might be bad
but in no circumstances is it worth creating WWIII over....

are you sure?
At least that might explain the huge green thing sigma had on display
--
http://www.pbase.com/dgross

 

[K Joseph]

Ed_S,

I would love to chit chat about this and that sometime Faith and Fotography LOL

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

Kosly,

We have to talk sometime. Good words my friend.
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

--
http://www.koslyjoseph.com
Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/kosly_joseph

 

[Lobalobo]

It is not correct that a signed agreement is necessary for Sigma to bring a suit and Sigma's failure to glue the card slot closed is irrelevant. If the OP pulled tape off the card slot and understood that doing so violated the conditions under which he was invited to use the camera, then injured Sigma as a result, Sigma would have a plausible legal action against him. I would imagine that anyone in the industry (and thus anyone at the show) understands perfectly well that tape over a card slot is there precisely to prevent exactly what transpired, the publication of poor images and the negative commentary on these images. Now I agree that a lawsuit is unlikely, and have said so from the beginning, but this is because the publication is not likely to have causes Sigma any significant injury. (Imagine if the review of images taken this way were instead published by an official reviewer in a widely circulated magazine or service, by an editor at DPReview, e.g., or at CNET; there I would not be a bit surprised by a suit on the same facts.) In any case, the OP says he did not remove any tape. Fine. Then that's a different case, and I've said from the beginning that I didn't know the facts. I was simply responding to a posted question based on supposed facts.

 

[Ed_S]

Ed_S,

I would love to chit chat about this and that sometime Faith and
Fotography LOL

snip

Drop me an email if you have a minute.
snip

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

 

[Boris]

LOL now we are in the lawsuit stage? Absurd!
These images won't make or break the DP1.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

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

 

[NickDavis]

I'd say harder, since they're dealing with an extremely complex hardware product and the software.

I was using a Sandisk card on JPG only. I now wish I had JPEG+RAW.

 

[sandy b]

He also said the attendant helped him with the settings. No case.

 

[Kai Griffin]

Ah - you've answered my question I asked you elsewhere in this thread about the controls - thanks; this is such a busy thread it's hard to keep track of all the responses. Please ignore my previous question.

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

Sandy, this is why the cost of doing business is as high as it is. Some lawyers will make a case out of something one way or another regardless of the merit.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com

 

[jrdigitalart]

I'm not a Sigma owner but I too recall reading that the Sigma JPEG
engine is pretty bad. I don't know why this is, but perhaps it points
to a company that is better with hardware than with software. But
most Sigma people on this forum seem to know and accept that shooting
RAW is the way to go.

That said, I'll still wait for the reviews to judge even the JPEG
quality.

J1000,

That's one of the downsides of the internet and instant global
communication. Repeat something enough regardless of whether it has a
basis or not in fact and it begins to become believable. This is no
criticism of your question - just the availability and force of
pseudo-facts on the 'net.

My personal experience and that of a number of posters on this forum
is that while the jpeg engine isn't as good as shooting RAW and post
processing in all the situations in which RAW may excel, one can take
very good photos with the in-camera JPEG in a variety of situations.
IF I were primarily interested in shooting jpeg, I might not buy a
Sigma nor for that matter a camera with RAW as it's stock in trade.
OTOH I frequently shoot jpeg in my SD14 when I need to take a larger
number of photos for quick availability and ultimate print or
onscreen quality isn't as high a priority.

Kind regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires

...and for once I may have to disagree with you, Ed.

Quite to the contrary, in fact. As Alf (DaSigmaGuy) has clearly proven in a past post (and indeed amazed many of us regulars with his image evidence) , now that we have all updated to the latest firmware 1.05, Jpg is indeed very useful.

There may have been issues with that file format in the SD14's early days and reviews reflected this, but as I said, Sigma have done a stirling job in rectifying that with an update.

--
Sincere regards, Jim Roelofs

The world looks better with Foveon!
Please visit my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/jrdigitalart/

 

[SandyF]

The camera was on display to be tried out for the general public.

FWIW my DP1 handling at PMA:

units were on the counter, tethered usually, I handled about 3-4 different at various times at the public front counter of the booth, none of these were 'live'

Common sense tells me what NIck did wasn't far fetched.

Tell me this. If you go to a photoraphy store and try out a unit they
have on display. You shoot a few frames with your own CF card
inserted.

every unit I saw and handled on the counter was NOT set up for "shoot a few frames with your own CF [sic] card..."

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (newest SD14 photos)

 

[NickDavis]

Not live, as in "not powered on"?