Thank you for the heads up and or putting up the Sigmas I. The studio scene. Appreciated.

The Sigma really shows the LowISO Foveon Advantage:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sigma_dp2q&attr13_1=leica_q116&attr13_2=fujifilm_x100t&attr13_3=canon_eos5dmkii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.8155520203627107&y=-0.6120431009782773

If someday Sigma can design a FF-Foveon Sensor which would deliver ISO 100 Merrill IQ at least up to ISO800, 1600 it would be really a Gamechanger.

yes i've seen it too, only the quattro is into the studio scene atm.
much thanks for that support here late after work end from you, samuel.
the only thing which comes into my mind: the DP1 Merrill is a totally different
focal length (28mm) compared to the DP2 Quattro (40mm afaik, i do have the DP2 Merrill - so same focal length DP1 Merrill vs Quattro or DP2 Merrill vs Quattro would be very nice, as we'd know the DP1 Merrill lens doesn't perform quite as good as the DP2 Merrill lens, for instance.

Check again, Marc, if you don't mind.

thanks much Sam, just when you wrote it'll be there into a minute, i loaded the Studio Scene Comparsion Shot and it was already there - my thoughts about it above. :-) the Amount of details into the green is awesome. I must admit that i use the DP2M way rarely, because it is for what it is - a camera i it's own niche for very special shots only, no EVF, and it does suck energy like nothing...last time i used it it was hardly around ~50 shots from one battery only, and it the Merrill at last excels only really at ISO100, not 200 or anything above...that's the reason whileas Sigma simply developed the Quattro...but i wished the Sigma Guys keept the "Brick"-like Merrill DP series Design..

And compared to the X100T it shows how much care had to go in to the lens as well, and why Sigma with the help of Foveon tech has been on a roll with producing some incredible glass recently. I hope that 14mm from the Dp0 eventually ends up as a DN prime for APS-C E-mount....

@Hendrik

just read about the Foveon tech here, about their latest Quattro Design tech:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/08/sigma-qa-part-ii-does-foveons-quattro-sensor-really-outresolve-conventional

HTH
marc

edit: the Foveon Sensor inside the DP Merrill & SD1 Merrill Cameras is different, each RGB Layer (Red-Green-Blue) does have the same amount of MP, therefore the Merrill Sensor does sport a bit more resolution, also the HighISO quality is very much worse than the Quattro Foveon. But for ISO100, it's still the King from all Foveon Sensors.

You are misunderstanding the tech - as many do.

First - Merrill sensors don't capture more. As the light passes through the silicon it is blurred and spread. By the time it reaches the bottom layer the light from the top sensels is hitting 3 or more. Thus the Quattro design is both simpler and cleaner while recording the same stuff.

Second - the top layer isn't 'blue'. All the light is at the top layer and much passes through too. The math is complicated and sorting it out is why Sigma Foveson's are so slow. The Quattro is also recording red and green on that top layer. That helps determine the correct information at the lower levels.

JackM... You mirror my thoughts exactly. I primarily shoot Fuji, both the X100T and interchangeable lens system. However just last week I picked up a "as new" Sigma DP2 Merrill. I am absolutely blown away by it's quality, so much so that I'm sat waiting for the postman to deliver a Sigma DP3 Merrill. They will be be used solely in good lighting and at very low ISO for still objects. So obviously they have limitations but I have other cameras to suit other shoots.

The optional EVF is $220.
Fuji: $1,300 (plus x-trans RAW demosaic headaches)
Canon: $1,050
You were saying?

@Abu
Even after adding the external EVF, you'd be giving up the optical viewfinder option of the Fuji with the Canon. That plus handling & control difference and the slightly more awkward protruding EVF on the Canon might be worth the $250 difference. Plus there might be other difference in perhaps lens IQ.

Blah, blah, blah. You sure cut the Fuji alot of slack while holding the line taut with the Canon.

Lens IQ? Obviously you have not shot with the Canon EF-M 22/2 lens.

Actually, if you shop around, you can get the M3 with the 22 pancake for a little over $600.

Yeap.

I am trying to find explanations for what is happening in real life (the Fuji X100T being reasonably popular despite its price) whereas you are trying to explain me why reality cannot be true. I don't know where that leaves us. I guess I am an apologist for reality and you are a standard bearer for the real truth. I guess the fact that the M3 street price has gotten even lower shows that it is an even better camera.

(Full disclosure: I don't own a Fuji, have never owned or Fuji nor a Canon M. I did own a GR-D (when it still had a 1/1.7" sensor) and now own an RX100 and an OM-D.)

The fact that the M3 has a much lower price may be due to the crushing economies of scale that Canon can bring to bear, and Fuji cannot.

The lower price of the Canon is certainly partly due to the lower costs Canon has (though that the price is significantly below the MSRP is due to soft demand). But the higher price of the Fuji is also partly due to the fact that people still buy it at that price which means they must see something in it that they don't see in the Canon. And the hybrid viewfinder is the most obvious difference.

Round ups, comparisons .... I would hate to be making my serious choices from the summaries that I have seen so far. More like playing to the existing market market prejudices using feedback from the forums.

You cannot go wrong by telling folks what the majority are already thinking.

Even already at F/1.4, the DOF is razor-thin, very hard to focus, at least via manual focusing. And F1.0 wouldn't be tack-sharp. I'd be fine with a 13mm/1.8 lens, best would be stabilized, VR tech. That thing way small, and not more then say 150-170 bucks, for my Nikon V1. ;) So i'd have my beloved 35mm focal length in FF-terms.

^ I shoot f/1.4 at 35mm on FF and sometimes there is not enough DOF for subjects when trying to take environmental portraits.

f/1.8 on a 1" sensor is equiv. to f/5 on FF. You won't be getting any shallow DOF at 35mm.

That's why I want f/1.0, which is gonna be equivalent of f/2.7 on FF. This should be good enough.

GR was a brilliant street cam and so is the II. No need for EVF.

The GR is a "type" - a camera in a niche. It is a refinement of a series of cameras since the original GRD ten years ago. Not many cameras have remained true to type over such a long period of development. As such its ergonomics are brilliant - its firmware is incomparable - and it has unfortunately become typecast as a street camera when it is just as good a general purpose camera as the next one.

You can buy a GR and reasonably expect it to be still entertaining in ten years as much as my ten year old GRD still performs well in its original niche. The GR is indeed for much the same purpose but the imaging has simply moved to keep pace with the times.

Not many can keep and still occassionally use their 10-year old camera and be suitably amazed at how entertaining the images can still be and the fact that the lastest and oldest versions use the same battery format.

Tom Caldwell:

Wikipedia says the GRD was noisy at ISO 64, this is for a 2005 release.

Is this true?

minzaw:

Then use your Samsung phone.

The LX100's lens zooms.

@minzaw, these are "fixed prime lenses" like your Note 4 ;)

MarcMedios, these are fixed prime lens cameras with full controls. And point and shoot cameras usually use zoom lens

Nikon already launched a 24mm f1.8 which would fit your needs perfectly......what are you on about!

Not true. 1st of all, it's a fast FX prime, not a DX lens. 2nd, it's not a 23mm AF-S DX F1.8, just exactly like the 35/1.8 DX AF-S, go figure! :)

what's the problem with being an FX lens? It's actually bette, 1st, you get sharper corners, 2nd, it's future proof (if you upgrade to FF), 3rd, doesn't depreciate as much as a DX lens. And realistically, what is the difference between 34.5mm and 36mm? that's 1.5mm!!

The issue is, i already have Canon & Sony FF already, don't need another FF system, period. 2nd, it's way expensive - and huge, because it covers FX. Think about a small D60 DSLR, i wouldn't mount a FX 24mm lens onto it, and also because of size neither my Sigma 30/1.4 ART, but onto the D90 or D7000 here, HTH understanding finally, also the D3x00 and D5x00 Range is always very small. I use to use my D7000 and others when i go to a photowalk, but for dally snaps into the Pocket the D60 is better, because it's way smaller in size, especially with a small, fast prime. And 1.5mm focal length matters finally, period.

Same for nikon 1. No 35mm equivalent
Though they have patented one

@marc petzold, Sony A6000 with Zeiss 24mm f1.8 fits your description, small camera with crop f1.8 lens

Just get a Fujifilm X-T10/XT1 and Fujifilm 23/1.4. Problem solved.

Aramgrg, luckily not everyone thinks the same as you, otherwise these great cameras would never appear in the market.

Yeah sure! Try your Note 5 against one of these (except for the Sigmas) under bad lighting conditions...

Or try your Note 5 with any SigmaQs under daytime light. See the result at full 100%. Then you might understand what did you lose.

Well that goes to ANY apsc/fullframe cameras dare to compete!

You guys all try to carry cameras all the day with you, everywhere. Then return back and see what I am gaining. Note 5 has full manual raw capture, very good sensor and f1.9 lens. If I go to shooting I take my D610 with me, otherwise-the Note. My m4/3 system almost never gets out any more.

aramgry:

The Note 5 has sensor not at all close to the sensor in the Ricoh GR--picked since it's the most pocketable on this list and much smaller than a D610.

Right, the Note 5 shoots raw. That's an improvement.

Anyhow the Panasonic CM-1 is better than that Note 5 for photos.

True, Ricoh is around 3-3.5 stop better sensor, 1 stop of which is compensated by Note's lens, the other two-by the optical stabilization and the size :-)

So, as far as I understand from both of you, The Ricoh GR II is "the smallest fixed lens APS-C camera currently on the market..." ;-)

In this age, a state of the art optical design makes different trade-offs than previous designs. You now trade distortion and lateral CA (which are both better treated in firmware) for better contrast, longitudinal CA and (corner) sharpness than possible before.

Tom Caldwell: You set up a very nice straw man there and knocked him down well and truly flat on his back.

falconeyes: I'm sure you have vastly more experience of this than I do; but if this represents best practise in modern optical design, how come I'm seeing it in mid-price Panasonic lenses but not in the latest Summicrons?