Mar 8, 2007 at 10:39 am #1222265
Rick DreherBPL Member
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
The Sigma DP1 emerges from complete vaporware status. What is it? A serious compact digital backpacking camera for those not wishing to lug an SLR.Mar 13, 2007 at 11:44 pm #1382213
Franco DarioliBPL Member
This is another product that looks really promising and exciting but could be killed by bad comments on the forums.
Already there is criticism about
why F4 and not 2.8 ?, well I tell you why, because if you want a compact 28mm equivalent that covers that sensor without vignetting it has to be about twice as wide, that's why. How often do we shoot at 2.8 with a compact camera ?
Too expensive… Sigma have not announced the price as yet, but some feel that they have to get in first (should be about $800US,less for street price, BTW)
The lack of built in view finder
Separate hood, etc.
What about the good points ?
I for one, liked the pictures that the SD10 produced, we printed several A3 shots and they look very nice indeed. Most could not get passed the 3.4MP sensor and the mount, never mind the pictures. Not for sport enthusiasts, but great for portraits and nature shots.
The DP1 has 40% more pixels than the SD10, I would expect A3 enlargements good enough for an exhibition.
FrancoMar 14, 2007 at 4:57 am #1382224
The camera looks very promising, however I suspect (as you said) the criticism it will take will mostly center around people simply not understanding the difference in technology from what they are used to.
For example, the sensor (which is the reference in my subject line)… if people take the time to look the following website it's pretty apparent that the DP1 has 3x the pixels of a similarly spec'd bayer sensor… of course there are going to be some "no it alls" who will claim that Sigma is "twisting the numbers".
Gah, I'd like to play with that camera. I'm nothing more than an amateur photographer (really more of a techno geek) and don't want to mess with multiple lenses and such but still want to take clear sharp pictures. This could be a great option. Yeah, a dedicated viewfinder would be nice, but I can see why they sacrificed it… either it's a not-exactly-correct view or it adds complexity (aka cost and bulk) inside the camera.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.