HTC 10 Review
Sony RX10 III Review
Canon EOS M10 Review
Microsoft Lumia 950 Review
Nikon Coolpix A100 Review
Nikon Coolpix A10 Review
Fujifilm FinePix XP90 Review
Huawei P9 Review
Canon EOS 80D Review
Nikon D500 Review
Canon PowerShot SX610 HS
Nikon Coolpix S7000
Canon EOS 1300D
Canon PowerShot SX720 HS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ70
Canon EOS 1200D
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX80
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ100
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90V
Lightroom 2.4 handles the DP2 RAW files just fine, and has been available for almost 2 months now.
7:43 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Page 1 states selecting focus points is through the menu of a long number of items. Not so. There is a button that reveals all 9 points and the up-down-left-right buttons let the user select it with a total of 1+ (1or2or3) button pushes, followed by another push to exit. So most of the time it is a quick 3 button operation, taking a second or so.
9:16 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A few corrections/notes:
1) Although burst 3FPS only lasts for a bit and then you have the 10-15 sec delay you mentioned, you can take RAW images indefinitely about every two to three seconds when not in burst.
2) There is in fact a large focusing speed difference in good light between the two focusing modes you mentioned (the close focus vs. the 1.5 meter mode). I leave mine always set on the distant mode.
3) For pants use, I carry mine in jeans pockets all the time. It’s a little bulky, but fits just fine… it does still out a little in slacks but do you want a good camera or not?? :-)
4) The image enlarges to a 10MP image with the same level of detail as any 10MP camera - and more in some areas depending on the scene. It doesn’t limit enlargement at all compared to other “larger” cameras. I’ve done 30x40” prints that are fine, and Sigma has done the same for trade shows.
9:40 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sorry Kendall, but those huge Sigma prints for trade shows had a LOT of post processing done to them, something which is not needed from ‘larger’ cameras, nor do other cameras have any sort of size limit you imply. Also, 4.7 megapixel image does not have anywhere near the same level of detail as a real 10 megapixel camera, clearly evident in the photos and noted in various reviews.
10:36 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sam - I know the people that did the prints. They had some post-processing applied, but mostly it was simply specialized upsampling.
My own 30x40 prints involve nothing more than Photoshop bicubic smoother, followed by a VEYR light applciation of smart sharpening. That is hardly “a lot of post processing”. Up to 13x19 prints, I don’t do any upsampling at all for (since printer drivers upsample for you anyway). If you have something like QImage it can also do a great job straight from the RAW processing step.
You are also nieve if you don’t think all the other large prints at PMA don’t have some processing done - and many do not look as good, even from pro cameras.
“Also, 4.7 megapixel image does not have anywhere near the same level of detail as a real 10 megapixel camera”
Ah, you are misled by the numbers as so many are… read and learn in this comparison of the SD-14 (same pixel count as the DP-2/DP-1) with the Canon 5D:
And this on printing with the SD-14 vs. the Kodak 14n (14MP camera):
One simple point of fact - there are 14 million photosites (light sensors) in the DP-2, just as there are 10 million photosites in traditional bayer cameras. You just need to understand the difference in how they are laid out to understand the DP-2 captures a constant level of detail, vs. the varied level of detail from a bayer image (and that’s not even talking about the loss of detail from AA filters, which the Foveon chip cameras do not need or use).
11:08 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Edit: There are 10 million photosites in traditional *10 MP* bayer cameras. Sorry for the omission, not all bayer cameras have the same pixel count…
As long as I have to make a correction, let me add one other point - because of the way bayer cameras separate out red/green/blue components, your images come out of processing already somewhat upsampled. That is why the DP-1 output with four million pixels has the same level of detail as output from other cameras with 10 million pixels - because as the articles I linked to point out, they spread the same level of detail out in more pixels with other cameras.
11:20 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
I know you know the people who did the prints, and the ‘simply specialized upsampling’ is not a simple process. In fact, it’s fairly elaborate, and the main person who does the printing (LM) has only hinted that it’s very involved, never giving away the secret sauce.
Mike Chaney’s comparison is a load of rubbish and full of mistakes but since he says the magic words, Foveon fans love it. It’s also the only such article, every other article says exactly the opposite. How is it that he’s right and everyone else is wrong? Hint, he’s not right.
As for pixels, yes, there are 14 million photosites, but not 14 million pixels, a very key difference. I’m well aware of how they’re laid out, which is why it’s really a 4.7 megapixel camera, not a 14 megapixel camera.
And two can play the link game:
“While it outresolves the downscaled Nikon D60 image and almost matches the resolution of the ten megapixel Ricoh, it cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR such as the Nikon D60.
Why is it whenever Sigma cameras are mentioned, you show up pimping them? What’s your relationship with Sigma anyway? I’ve seen you working at the Sigma booth before.
11:39 pm - Wednesday, August 12, 2009
I am glad you admit it at least comes very close to matching the average 10MP camera in detail, when before you were saying it was 4MP. Excellent progress! Next aspect - you did realize the review you link to didn’t compare RAW files, just JPG - right? Are you saying JPG usually offers more resolution that RAW? If not, we are right back to what I originally claimed - around a 10MP level of resolution, in some cases more. For the reader at home, that means Sam just agreed with me, while thinking his very admission was a devastating attack on my argument!
You say Mike’s article is a load of rubbish, but which part is that? The part where he measures color resolution? The kind of color you actually find in the real world? While you may get your artistic thrills finding the next angle to shoot a black and white resolution target, I’m afraid I find more interest in the mundane world of vibrant color all around me.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to expound on this a bit more in fact, for Mike’s article leads to the main reason I like the Foveon based cameras so much - constant level of color detail. If those reading have ever wondered why digital prints or images can sometimes look so “digital” it is for this very reason - instead of detail (basically sharpness) holding constantly with the focal range, because of the same issues the color resolution targets raise, bayer cameras suddenly loose detail in some colors before others. Reds and blues that just drop definition and tonality. Grass and hair that goes to mush randomly instead of holding detail naturally.
If you (and here I’m speaking to the reader, not so much to Sam since his mind is already made up) don’t notice that, great, keep using the camera you have and be happy. Many are, and that’s a fine thing - in the end everyone should enjoy photography. But if you are missing something take a look at the DP-x series of cameras or even the SD-14 - you may well find what you have found lacking. Just look of Flickr or on PBase for the full size samples, and judge for yourselves… proponents of the Foveon cameras simply say “look at the images” but people like Sam accuse us of misleading people somehow, even though we simply point out the way the cameras work and how the images look. Not so sure what is misleading about that.
Now on to defending poor Mike who you (back to Sam) have slandered so. If Mike’s article were “so full of rubbish” then it seems like you could do better by way of counter example, than an article that makes the same point I did…
But wait, the very link you posted goes on to reinforce Mike’s point too - the *very next page* beyond the one you linked to:
Shows color resolution charts for various cameras compared to the DP-1 - the very sort Mike produced! It goes on to say:
“The DP1 produces a very good resolution (for its pixel count) on our standard black and white resolution test chart but it only becomes apparent on the color test chart how well the camera resolves color detail. The DP1 produces detailed and clean images for all color combinations while the Nikons’ Bayer sensor gets visibly confused by some of the color combinations which results in artifacts and blurring.”
Hmm, just what Mike was saying! The review also goes no to note that bayer cameras can make up for “some loss of detail” due to the larger number of raw pixels captured - but the samples speak for themselves really (I encourage everyone to read both the page Sam linked to and the page I linked, to see how wrong simple use of only B&W resolution charts really are for digital photography!! And that means ALL camera comparisons, not just those involving Foveon…). Those artifacts the kind of thing that can suddenly crop up in the middle of an image, and unlike CA is much harder to fix. They offer a far more realistic assessment of how your camera might treat contrasting color in the real world.
Now as to printing, yes L is very picky. Why should he not be? Many of the camera vendors at PMA could stand to be a lot pickier. But that doesn’t mean that again, average readers cannot get pretty much the same results. Some of his process is to make up for less than perfect lenses used for some shots - but in case you forgot, this is a review of the DP-2 which has a fantastic and very sharp lens, which doesn’t need that kind of help.
I also note that I gave away my thrilling “secret sauce” I use to produce 30x40 prints also, why does that not count? Anyone can use the same technique. I recommend sample 8x10 crops first to make sure you are happy with the printed result, before you go full size.
Note these prints are not just for myself, but some are made to be sold to the general public (and a number have been purchased). So I guess I’m doing something right.
My relationship with Sigma is simply that I enjoy helping them out because I have been a fan of the technology before I even had a digital camera (I used to shoot film DSLRs). I’m rather surprised you didn’t note that I also have a number of the sample images up in their DP-2 gallery too… but I am not a Sigma employee and I am not paid. They acquire images from a number of other enthusiasts from around the world, It’s not like I’m the only one who helps them out by providing images for free. Nikon has done something similar at times too, there was that whole thing where they gave a town Nikon cameras for a week and used images from that - nothing wrong there either. Plenty of people enter photo contests too, just for the thrill of seeing images put to good use…
As to why I show up on many places Sigma is mentioned - well, I do have extensive experience with them, so why should I not comment on them? I can help correct mistakes the reviewers make (such as the 4MP resolution comment you helped me to correct) and also help users of the camera with comments like “use the distance focus mode, it really is faster”. Is it not a worthwhile service to help other users of the camera? I think it’s pretty funny that you attack me for being well -versed on the actual use of the camera, as if the article would be improved by experienced users remaining silent. I’d say the advice I give have a lot of weight, as I have shot tens of thousands of images with these cameras now - generally that’s when the internet works best, when those with experience can connect with those needing advice.
I think a proponent for any technology follows sites that comment on them with great interest, whether it be cars or cameras or computers. It’s only natural to follow and comment on things that interest you. What seems less natural to me, are people such as yourself that also show up at any Foveon article where anything positive is mentioned, and then proceed to trash it. The world is full of hate enough without bringing it into photography.
8:41 am - Thursday, August 13, 2009
I’ve corrected the software support and focus mode selection parts of the review. Plus I’ve added 100% crops of the RAW ISO samples for comparison with the JPEGs.
10:43 am - Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Sigma DP2 is a nice camera, but the firmware could be better. At the actual price of 699 Euro in Europe the camera is way too expensive. Recently technikdirekt.de has lowered the price to 400 Euro. Still too expensive…
11:49 am - Thursday, August 13, 2009
Love the sigma DP2 and agree with a few of the comments aboev but i have had some amazing shots of Banksy graffiti with this camera. No problems with any files as yet. Big thumbs up from me.
1:02 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
sounds like mr.gelner is an employee.far from neutral
5:28 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
Janus - I get that sometimes, I take it as a complement. Since you cannot argue with my points you try to take down the questioner. It reinforces what I’ve previously said since you cannot find fault with my facts… it’s pretty silly to say “he works for Sigma” when if it was true, it would mean I’m even more of an expert on the subject…
However people are free to google me - unlike you and “Sam”, I have nothing to hide about who I am and what I do and always post under my real name. As noted I do not work for Sigma - they have headquarters in Japan and New York, while I am here in Denver. I post sometimes to DPReview in the SIgma forum offering helpful advice. I am simply a member of the very loose-knit international Sigma users group (kind of like a car club or meetup group, though we see each other in person much less frequently).
Think about this whole thing for a second people - people (or a person) like SamJanus come to every Foveon article to cast doubts and argue against people simply presenting facts about the camera (usually without offering any actual counterarguments). Yet did you see anything they posted that factually differed from what I had to say? In fact this person seems to know an awful lot about Sigma people, I mean knowing who does their prints at a tradeshow? What is that? This isn’t some random bystander but someone who has paid attention to SIgma matters for a long time. It’s like someone who comes to a bar every day that serves beer they hate, just so they can berate the customers for drinking beer they don’t like. Isn’t that rather creepy?
I wanted to add that even though I offered four additions to the review, I still thought the review was very well done. Thanks Mark!
6:22 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
synonymus for paid web affiliate, no?
c´mon-who do you think you´re foolin!
6:30 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
Also, “Janus” - did I ever say I was neutral? No I did not. I said I was an advocate of the Foveon technology because I really liked the results it gave.
But there is a misleading implication in your words - that you are neutral. Obviously you are not either as noted in my last post about you having followed Sigma for a long time - only unlike myself, you pretend that you are.
Because I am not neutral, that’s why I repeatedly tell people to look at the images, at the facts, and make up their own minds. I’m just telling them what I like about the camera, what I have found to be possible by way of print size, and giving out useful information in handling that can help new users. That’s what enthusiasts do, the way a car club will have members that help each other out with suggestions or engine work. I’m not sure why being helpful offends you so.
6:31 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
And since Janus has nothing to offer going forward except personal attacks, I leave him with the last word - I leave it up to the reader to decide if you should trust someone posting using his real name over some creepy dude posting under multiple aliases across multiple photography websites…
6:34 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
The foveon sensor of the DPs (i have a DP1) is wonderfull in certain situations (low iso) and gives crisp details even at 100%. So who cares if the 10MP-Bayer-Output is better or not, the prints are stellar and the review of the photos on my full hd TV is great.
When doing high iso or action i can use a Canon 50D of a friend and when doing long night exposures i’m using my Pentax K10D which is the best for this purpose.
And when you see me on a light walk or on two day city-trip you see me with my DP1 in Raw-Mode and manual focus to infinity (thats pretty fast focusing btw) :=)
Kudos for Kendall for taking his time to write his reasonable responds even if they are a little bit long. Sam and Janus are just trolling or bashing in my biased opinion. But don’t misunderstand me. The DPs are not perfect cameras in my opinion, even far from it in certain situations - you can watch the Foveon DPs not being very color accurate at high iso or being noisy or having a less then stellar jpg-engine when compared to canon or nikon but you also must praise it where it’s getting great results - thats when you are out on a sunny day doing iso 50-100, shooting raws and getting great results out of those little buggers. When i show them printed to my friends no one cares for the technology behind it - so bygones.
7:07 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
I see that Kendall is up to his usual tricks of twisting what others say to make his point. If you must misrepresent what is said then it only shows just how weak your argument really is.
I never said it “comes very close to matching the average 10 MP camera in detail” nor did I say it was a 4 mp camera. The review I linked to said it can’t compete with a 10 mp Nikon D60, not that it comes close, and it did compare raws. Maybe you should reread it. Hint, pages 16 & 17. Here’s another quote:
“While the DP1 delivers a large amount of detail at its native resolution of 4.6 MP the upscaled RAW output cannot keep up with the 450D. The Canon is sharper and shows more detail.”
As for color res charts, humans don’t see color that well. Read a book on physiology. That’s why res charts and doctor’s eye charts are always b/w, they measure the detail the eye can see. Pick any image and blur the chroma in Photoshop and see for yourself.
Bayer sensors do not have a variable resolution in normal use. Let’s not forget how easily red gets blown on Foveon, sometimes shifting toward orange and then there’s the well known green casts, although some say their cameras are little magenta. Many threads at dpreview talk about how each Sigma camera has its own color cast, even of the same model. Then there’s noise in the blue channel, especially in incandescent light. Forgot to mention those parts, didn’t you?
Mike’s article is rubbish because he didn’t take into account the differences in sensor sizes and his images had different focus points and depth of field and any time there was blur, he said it was due to Bayer, not the fact he focused at a different spot. Larger sensors have shallower depth of field, so naturally more will be blurry and just looking at his images shows that the 5D does better for details, yet he dismisses it as artifacts or noise. Plenty of threads on dpreview that point out the numerous problems.
As for slander, wrong again. No slander here. First of all, slander is spoken, you might be thinking of libel. Second, it has to be false that harms the person, not about an article he’s written. Now as to what you’ve written about me, that could easily be considered libel. You also called Janus a “creepy dude” when all he said was that he thought you could be an employee or paid web affiliate. Pot meet kettle.
As for the prints at the shows, based on what I saw at the Sigma booth, I wouldn’t be bragging about other vendors needing to be pickier. And if this simple upsizing you mention is actually LM fixing up problems, then it’s not really simple and gives people the idea that the camera can do things it really can’t. And there’s nothing creepy about knowing what goes on behind the scenes. I can tell you stories about other companies too. If anything is creepy it’s what I’ve seen going on.
Nothing wrong with sharing your experience with the cameras, just as it is for others to share their experience with the cameras they use. I’ve used both systems. I notice you didn’t mention that you beta test the cameras for Sigma. Why not have full disclosure?
The DP1 and DP2 do as well as they do not because of Foveon, but because the sensor is large. Now that micro 4/3 is out, they’re not the only compacts with large sensors and face some very serious competition. Nikon and Canon are expected to have their versions soon and that will really shake up the industry.
7:16 pm - Thursday, August 13, 2009
I admire Sigma to be the first compact camera with a large sensor, I love the results. I also loved the results of the Sigma 50 MM F1.4 on my Canon 5D. Sigma has a lot of guts to take the first step and that can not be said of Nikon or Canon. I have seen results of the Olumpus Pen EP-1 and that is simply no comparison with the DP series. Maybe the poor lenses that are available so far, I do not know. but it poor quality. The Canon 5D with a nice prime gives me a trill and so does the DP series. I own a lot of Canon lenses, so it is not realistic to make a switch to the Sigma Dslr’s. But since I own the Dp1, and now the DP2 as well, it has been the first time it had cross my mind. I simply love that sensor. I do not know if it is the fact that it is a Foveon, what I do know that is on par with a full frame sensor in my Canon 5d, maybe even better.
2:02 am - Sunday, August 30, 2009
This has to be the BEST compact camera when it comes to image quality and sharpness. I’ve looked at so many of the other compacts and even DSLRs…micro four thirds….but the Sigma DP2 blows them all away!
It is a pity that Sigma cannot produce a decent compact camera with all the techie trappings that the Lumix crowd goes for. Even the Ricoh GRD 3 and some more expensive DSLRs lose to the Sigma. The sharpness and true color rendition is in a league of its own.
Now why can’t the other camera makers come up with compacts that match the Sigma DP series?
7:06 pm - Saturday, September 12, 2009
I really like the images I’ve seen on the net taken with both the DP1 and DP2. They seem to have a quality similar to film.
Sigma could sell shedloads of these cameras if they knocked £100 quid off the price, and replaced the feeble pop up flash with a proper built in viewfinder. Not everyone wants to use a camera at arms length like a load of chavs filming a happy slapping.
The optional viewfinder isn’t an option for me. £100 and not even dioptre adjustment? I can buy a Nikon 50mm f1.8 for the same money.
That’s why I and other people I know won’t be buying a DP, or any other high end compact.
Put a viewfinder in and I’ll happily pay even the current price for a DP.
12:06 am - Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Yes, a nice built in viewfinder with some information about your where your focussing and time, aparture. Like the super compacts in the analog time, a Contac T2, T3 or something like that. Forget the optional viewfinder, you still need to look at your focuspoint, I have it on the DP1, cost a lot, and I do not like it. There is no compact with a real viewfinder yet, but it sure will come. Let’s hope it’s a Sigma :)
12:48 am - Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Agreed. I’m honestly impressed with the image quality, but the lack of features means I will put off until Sigma puts more development into this camera.
I think Sigma has set a very high bar for the rest of the compact manufacturers to follow, and if they played their cards right, they really can sell shedloads of this camera :)
12:40 pm - Friday, September 25, 2009
What I get from this is that this camera has an interesting technology that could be developed into something that delivers realistic photos from a small camera, and there’s some sort of controversy about it.
It would help if the industry pros here would spend less ink trashing each other and more explaining what this thing is and what further work the mfr should do with the product. Me, I’m just frustrated that mfrs constantly cycle new models in the segment I’m interested in - a camera small enough that I have it with me when I’m doing something other than photography, with gimmicks like too many pixels jammed into a camera too small to use them - rather than refining a few models so that they *actually work better than the model which preceded them*. Instead, the new improved model often takes a step back in the quality of photos it can take and how well it does its job - e.g Fuji F30<F100, or some Canon SD models have softer lenses on newer, “higher” models. I’m also having a tough time replacing my Fuji Z2; that had a sliding cover which enclosed the front and a break-resistant glass LCD so *you can stuff it in a pocket and take it anywhere*, plus it both elegantly styled and inconspicuous. Their new Z models have a cover that tends to trap dirt rather than exclude it, just for the sake of change, plus they compromise photo quality ever further than the old ones.
It would be a great service if you pros would pressure the mfrs to make a compact camera designed to _work_ rather than make ad copy - something like a Canon SD with a good wide angle lens (us consumers want to shoot indoors and groups of people), the best sensor that fits in a little camera, *no more excess MP*, we’re not printing wall size posters from a pocket cam, 5-7 MP is fine, can work in dim light w no flash, a solid, no plastic body, a dirt resistant mechanism so we can take it wherever rather than worry about it and manual controls if we get bored and decide to play pro photographer ;-)—then we’d have better cameras all around and more people interested in photography.
6:45 pm - Wednesday, November 25, 2009
I find Mr. Gelners comments and debate quite refreshing. Why is it that people become sooooo very devoted to a particular brand? Virtually all camera manufacturers make some products that are good and some that are not so good. When I recently switched from Canon to Nikon, my Canon associates had hysterical fits. I switched because I got tired of Canon’s poor quality control and even worse customer service. Are Canon cameras bad? Not at all. However. I am very happy that I switched, as I now prefer the Nikon products I have purchased by a significant margin. Most of the people that told me I was making a big mistake had never even used Nikon products. This weird brand loyalty mentality just muddies the waters when it comes to making rational well thought out buying decisions. I am interested in the Sigma DP-2 for HDR work and it sounds like it is well suited for that purpose. Hats off to Mr. Gelner.
4:09 pm - Thursday, December 31, 2009
sigma dp2 review
Sigma DP2 is a 14 mp camera. It has a very simple design. The body is quite thick. The features are not very satisfying. Battery life is not very long, shutter button is quite stiff. Performance-wise, its average. It is good for black and white photography. For more details refer http://www.etechreviews.net/sigma-dp2-camera-for-art-enthusiasts/
11:48 am - Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Does anybody know a 41 mm optical viewfinder for sale, a secondhand VF-21 or a comparable viewfinder from a another brand? The price of the Sigma VF-21 is not cheap, to use an understatement.
10:26 am - Friday, May 14, 2010
The DP1 and DP2 are often comparede with “entry level” DSRLs
I have used these cameras extensively, and they easily matches my Sony A700 with Sony optics. Compared to my Lumix G1 with 14- 45 zoom, the picture quality are much more impressive.
A big sensor combined with a top quality fixed focus lens is the obivious reason for this. These cameras are not toys
9:56 am - Monday, May 17, 2010
What an interesting back and forth “fight” between Sam and Kendall.
Here are my two cents:
I have literally looked at hundreds of full resolution pictures from digital cameras, and I cannot find any other camera than the Sigmas with the Foveon sensor that can deliver true, real to life images.
Image quality is what counts in the end, and despite some quirks that the Sigma DPx cameras appear to have in terms of usability, I am going purchase a DP2 or DP2s.
I need one for the “quick photo now”—otherwise I will stick with my Rollei medium format film camera which produces 50 MP images without strange digital artifacts :)
5:20 am - Monday, August 30, 2010
Some people seem to be wound fairly tight. Not a subject to get hostile about :-) I have tested this out and it will be my Christmas gift to myself this year. There is NOT another compact on the market that produces images this good. I could care less if it is as good as a bulky DSLR or not… I own one of those already and I don’t always want to drag it around and swap lenses…. sometime I just want to walk around and enjoy photography and this is the perfect camera for that!
4:46 am - Thursday, November 25, 2010
Recently I had a short vacation in the middle of France, where I went for a couple of days of walking. I used my Sigma DP1 during those walks as I like the 28 mm for nature pictures. There was really no moment I missed the speed,or a zoom for that matter. I came home with wonderful pictures. In daylight the Sigma shines, I had not one photo that missed focus. I toke 190 photos, all on one battery. For social events in the evening, during a meal in a restaurant for example, you better off with a Canon S90 or something like that. Nice for quick snapshots, do not use it above 80 iso and the quality is let’s say acceptable. For snapshots that is. Sigma dp2 review writes that the camera is good for black and white photography and it is. But I normally use no more iso then 200 iso and then the colors are very very nice. BTN1100 writes that there is no other compact then the Sigma DP series, well maybe the Leica X1, somewhat bigger, a little more expensive :), but really capable of taking nice pictures. I still love the Sigma DP1, my story is how the Sigma DP* is in real live, in the reviews I often have the feeling the writers does not really use the camera.
10:58 am - Thursday, November 25, 2010
I am waiting for a Sigma DP1s to be delivered. I only bought it because the photos I have seen taken with a Sigma are just so nice to look at - startlingly so. Each Sigma DP: DP1, DP1s, DP2 & DP2s has it’s own flavour.
Q. How many times do you read people have bought more than one Sigma whilst still keeping their previous one. Tells you something doesn’t it?
7:47 am - Tuesday, November 30, 2010
2.5 inch LCD,
Sigma DP2 Review,
Camera Reviews ·
Camera Buying Guide
Camera Buying Guide
Lens Reviews ·
Photography News ·
Best Digital Cameras
Best Digital Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Best Compact Cameras
Photo Gallery ·
© Copyright 2003-2016 Photo 360 Limited