D Cox

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Jan 17, 2011


Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)

I thought this was a very fair review. It should give anyone an idea of whether they would find the camera useful.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 17:23 UTC as 135th comment
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

41mm: I love this low iso beast!
Thanks for the review to dpreview! The Silent Running of a DNG APS-H camera which creators think differently.
No high iso, no fast af, but best image quality at 100 and Monochrom like a Leica.
Thats all what i need.
Time will tell and we will see.

The sdQH is particularly good for studio still life work, as well as landscape.

I bought it primarily for digitizing 35mm B&W negatives, and it has been working very well indeed for that task. The DNG file option was essential for this job, to handle thousands of files in large batches.

Yes, Sony's A7r2 is a more generally useful camera, but it does cost more than twice as much.

In colour, the results are in my opinion very pleasing. Occasionally, yellow flowers need a touch of hue adjustment with ACR's HSV sliders, but this is hardly a big problem.

Shooting in X3F and processing first in SPP does give you more adjustment options, but the DNGs are pretty good.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 17:11 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

JackM: All the DNG/ACR shots look decidedly "un-Foveon" and soft to me. Try again with Sigma Photo Pro and X3F files?

Most users dial the sharpening down in SPP too.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Herrmann: OK - so this now poses the question, "With all of the advances made in camera technology over the past decade (save perhaps with the Foveon sensor), how in the hell is it that Sigma is still producing ancient looking (and feeling) cameras that are way behind the power curve with regards to AF speed, high ISO cleanliness, DR, and so much more?" I mean, c'mon mannnnnn.....

Sure the Foveon colors are really nice (rich), but with all of the other issues that seem ongoing with Sigma camera releases, this means that very few will embrace their line of cameras. Now lenses are an entirely different matter.

I think you need to see and handle this camera in the flesh to judge its look and feel.
It is admittedly heavy, but very comfortable to hold and use. And the styling is well thought out, with very good detailing.

I see it as a replacement for a 6x9 film camera such as the Mamiya Press; and its design and ergonomics are very much better than that.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 17:00 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

T3: Sigma should really make a short-flange E-mount version! If they did that, it would probably outsell this SA-mount version. And it would go great with the Sigma FF lenses that they've said they are planning on making for Sony E-mount:


Sigma primarily want to sell lenses, not cameras. So it is of no advantage to them to offer other mounts or sell sensors.

They make little or no profit on the camera bodies. The profit comes when the user has bought a couple of Sigma lenses.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 16:56 UTC
On article Sigma SD Quattro H Review (691 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mfritter: I used to shoot Merrills. I discovered that one could get very nice higher ISO (6500) monochromes using SPP to eliminate the red and green channels. The blue channel was basically noise free. Anything on the Foveon's ability to do this?

Yes, it works much the same as from the Merrill sensors. You could certainly use the camera for B&W available-light work, like the classic French shots in bars and cafes.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 16:52 UTC

I typed in the names of a couple of well known photographers, but nothing came up.

Nor did there seem to be any long list to browse through (three or four names were offered).

So, not yet ready, I think.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 14:48 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Terry M: Wow! I was a newsstand buyer of Pop Photo for YEARS. After discovering back issues in my local library there was no question in my mind they were the preeminent source on photography and photographic equipment. Everything I bought was run by their reviews first. Of course that was a while back. Now I do most of my photography-related reading online, whether it's standalone photo websites or web-based corollaries to photography magazines. On that count, PopPhoto.com is a pretty awful site. Shutterbug's done a lot better job with their site, and of course, the British magazines are still out there. So long, PopPhoto.

The British Journal of Photography has done a very good job of re-inventing itself for the digital age. It is quite expensive, production standards are very high, and there is a strong web presence.

But it is about images and ideas rather than equipment. Equipment reviews are just a few pages at the back of the magazine.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

Betico: Modern Photography was the first to go, purchased by Popular Photography. I still remember their annual top cameras issue.

I think Modern was the better magazine. I learned a lot from those guys.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 09:25 UTC
In reply to:

bossnas: This is the best photographic news I've heard in a long time. What a great start to the year and 2017 has only just started. I've always loved looking at slides on a lightbox and never get tired of it. Meanwhile thousands of RAW files sit on hard-drives never being looked at. Use what you enjoy. I for one will be using this new Ektachrome film. Thanks, Kodak.

If you digitize your film, you can do plenty of post-production.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 11:02 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: I think that I still have to see multilayer sensors a standard to believe digital has really surpassed analog. At low ISO, pictures taken with Sigma's Foveon sensor are unbeatable. Nothing compares to the depth produced by a multilayer sensor.

The Sigma cameras are more like film than most digital cameras. But as with film, your ISO options are limited.

Two of the best models are the DP3M (discontinued -- try eBay) and the DP0Q.
Both have excellent lenses.

Monochrome images from Sigma cameras are particularly good and can be very film-like.

Expect a steep learning curve with the raw processing.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 10:57 UTC
In reply to:

VisualFX: Ektachrome. The old film my dad had all turned pink/red. Only the Kodachrome still has its original colors. I say bring back KODACHROME!

Ektachrome before about 1964 tends to change colour, but you can correct this in a digitized image. After that time, there was formaldehyde in the final rinse to prevent fungi, and the colours in films I have from the late 60s appear unchanged.

Kodachrome keeps extremely well in the dark but fades badly if left in the light.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 10:09 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: Re: Stopped down AF.

Does this vary by body/lens combination. For example, on an A7R ii does it open up some lenses for AF but not others, like this one?

In your review of the A7R ii you noted this as a criticism only for AF-C

I would open up by two stops, not to fully wide open.
If you are shooting at f/11, the image at f/1.8 is so different from the final photo that the viewfinder becomes quite misleading.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2016 at 10:01 UTC
In reply to:

maridia: Two more interesting cameras from Sigma with great potential gimped AGAIN even before release due to Sigma's incomprehensible reliance on their SPP software and mostly incompatible proprietary raw file format. Ugh.

The best solution would be to export 16-bit TIF as well as JPG.

Not quite as recoverable as raw in case of overexposure, but still better than JPG.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

veritalens: Damned you SIGMA!!! I want to like this camera so much, but the selfish narrow-minded thought on the mount is killing this for me! WHY!?!?!?!?!??!

I won't buy one with a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, SA or any other SLR mount.

Any camera I buy has to be usable with all of these, and with other lenses (fully manual) that I have.

Still, they made the big steps forward of replacing the mirror with an EVF, putting some PDAF pixels on the sensor, and adding peaking. They are very near to offering a useful interchangeable-lens camera.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

Mike FL: Can DPR ask Sigma why the sensor is very poor in higher ISO?

"a one trick pony."

Yes, but the trick is producing superb still images in good light. That is quite useful.

They don't do video.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Very interesting cameras, but why oh why did they use a DSLR flange distance? Had they used a shorter flange, AND produced Sigma, Canon, Nikon and Sony mount adapters, they would have sold a lot more cameras. Doubly so, if the mount adapters were AF capable.

Who wants to buy Sigma mount lenses, other than current Sigma owners?

"The majority I would say don't want to use adaptors"

The Adapted Lens forum here is pretty popular.

For me, the whole point of a mirrorless camera is being able to use a wide variety of lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 16:05 UTC
In reply to:

Everlast66: Looks like for the design of the back panel they hired a washing machine designer ;p

Why is the finder in such an awkward position, and why make the grip shorter, when the main advantage of large bodies is a large grip.
They also made this gigantic body and didn't even put a flippable screen?

What you call a "macro ring" is the SA to E mount adapter that Sigma announced yesterday.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 16:02 UTC
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (621 comments in total)
In reply to:

PORTRAIT: But,wait a sec., so the A3000 Sony is an "E" Mount system cam,same Nex series lenses right? Now what about "A" Mount ?? Can this cam carry the "A" mount?? or not? Or will Sony make another cam specific for "A" mount"..? I'm puzzled..

The camera shown above is marked Alpha 3000, not A3000.

One is a Greek letter, the other is a Latin letter.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 13:59 UTC
On article Sony A3000 First Impressions Review (621 comments in total)
In reply to:


Until now, Alpha stood for interchangeable lenses on the Alpha mount.

This is an Alpha branded camera with a NEX mount. Daft.

There is no upgrade path between this cam and the existing Alpha cams; if you buy this cam and decide to upgrade later to a bigger Alpha cam, you will then have to re-buy all your lenses.

If the idea was to produce a better handling camera for NEX, then they could easily have done that without changing the name to Alpha.

I don't even get the Alpha connection. What is it; just because it looks like an SLR?


But that aside, it seems like a very good entry level camera at a stupidly good price; Christmas shopping in camera stores is gonna be interesting.

The mount is the A mount, not the Alpha mount. A for Autofocus, I believe.

All NEX cameras are Alpha cameras - they come from Sony's Alpha division.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 13:55 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »