More on Sigma's DP1, the "world's first full-spec compact"
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Mar 9th 2007 8:46AM
posted Mar 9th 2007 8:46AM
[Via dpreview]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
does anybody know why - as this camera has a fixed focal-length - i see wide/telephoto controls on the
rear user-panel of the PR photos?
I think one thing must be kept in mind here when evaluating the usability of the f/4 lens under low light conditions. Since this camera doesn't have a flip-mirror (it can't - it does video), it can be hand held at much higher shutter speeds than we're used to with D-SLRs. This is exactly why people like rangefinders in the first place. I was shooting some street stuff at night the other day and was using ISO 1600, f/2.0 and 1/80 to 1/40 shutter speeds. This gave me bright pictures - much brighter than it was in reality (I was trying to emphasize how the streets come alive during First Fridays), so I'd assume street scenes at night are definately possible with this camera except the lighting would match night lighting better. I think it boils down to how soon the camera can take pictures after you start it and how responsive it is compared to a D-SLR. If it matches up well, it'll be a great addition to a D-SLR shooter's non-kit bag, otherwise it might be what we recommend to serious PAS users.
I am amazed to read all the critiques of the so called specialists regarding the "incapabilities" of the Sigma DP1.
They downgrade the DP1 even before ever having used it, I feel mainly because it is not a Canon or Nikon product!
After studying the reviews of many DP1 users, I have purchased a DP1 and I can tell you, compared with e.g. the image quality of my Canon G9, the DP1 is creating really excellent images with hardly any noise even not in ISO 800.
Please go the Sigma talk forum on Dpreview and learn more about the amazing DP1.
Finally a PS camera, that perhaps does not have all the nuts and bolts of e.g. the Canon G9, but can do what this and other compact cameras can't do: produce absolutely excellent images.
This is, what the 'specialists' seem to have forgotten what we should expect from a camera!
I need a digg this! button! Awesome :)
i completely dig the design, and the sensor, but a f/4 lens for a full spec compact camera? unless there's crazy noise reduction that allows you to shoot at 400+ ISO without grain, this appears to be the bottleneck
I came to make almost exactly the same comment - F4 Max Aperture? No thanks, even my Fuji F10 can do 2.8 and it handles ISO 800 and 1600 brilliantly.
This camera looks hot though, almost like a Canon powershot G5 from 'back in the day'.
Please no Digg... Digg really diminishes the value of any information it is attached to. (have a read on wired about how they bought some Diggs from a website). There is no such thing as crowd wisdom. Especially in a system where the results are NOT democratic (as evidenced by Wired's stunt)
Anyway. 14MP is a gimmick with f/4 lens.
Give me a 6MP SLR with f/2.8 lens any day over this.
I don't care if it costs $600, just give me something smaller than my SLR with max 1.6x Crop and f/2.8 lens.
oh, and please make it go down to 22mm equiv too.
Thanks
Olivier:
"Anyway. 14MP is a gimmick with f/4 lens."
These two specs are entirely unrelated. a maximum f/stop of f/4 is not in any way an indicator of quality.
"Give me a 6MP SLR with f/2.8 lens any day over this."
If you knew anything about Foveon sensors, you'd realize that this camera is 4.67MP in conventional terms.
"I don't care if it costs $600, just give me something smaller than my SLR with max 1.6x Crop and f/2.8 lens."
Well, it's a 1.7x crop, much smaller than a dSLR and the f/2.8 lens comment is meaningless.
"oh, and please make it go down to 22mm equiv too."
So you want a zoom lens with a minimum of 13mm f/2.8 on the wide end and you want it cheap and small? Shows how much you know. This camera doesn't have a zoom lens.
"My argument is that this is an unbalanced proposition. F/4 is just subpar for what is supposedly a ground breaking piece of equipment."
No, it's not. f/4 is not an indicator of quality but it does cut down on size, weight and expense. Limiting lens speed contributes to this being a "ground breaking piece of equipment" if that is, in fact, the case.
"People using this camera will most definitely want to get involved in some kind of Bokeh, which with f/4 is near worthless. Especially without proper tele."
It's a wide angle prime lens. It's useless for portraits and would continue to be so at f/2.8. Photographers who wish to shoot in this style know they will be using an SLR with a lens that, alone, may be larger, heavier, and more costly than this entire camera.
"I have to disagree with you about sensor size as well. Larger sensors have shorter depth of fields. So having a largish sensor here, with crappy aperture is definitely a waste."
You "know" just enough to get into trouble, don't you Olivier? Sensor size itself has no "depth of field" characteristic. As sensor size changes, the relationship between f/stop and depth of field varies. That's to be expected since the sensor area exposed changes and the f/stop is a measure of light quantity. There is no simple generalization that can be made regarding sensor size and depth of field, though at a given f/stop a larger sensor will have less. Of course, larger sensors can be used with higher f/stops for equivalent quality, and when used in that manner they produce more depth of field. All this is moot since this camera has a wide angle lens. Rarely does a photographer want to shoot wide angle with minimal depth of field.
"And yes I read about their sensor where they have sensors layered upon each other. Unlike traditional CMOS or CCD where they are next to each other and pictures are interpolated."
Given that you did that, why did you post the idiotic comment about only wanting 6MP?
"I wonder however how the deepest layer copes with the lack of light? Thye must have some clever algorithms to work it out."
Why don't you read up on its performance then? After all, Foveon has existed for years. The "deepest layer" only concerns itself with certain colors and those wavelengths pass through the shallower layers. No need to wonder. Reading is a wonderful thing.
and finally...
"There is no such thing as crowd wisdom. Especially in a system where the results are NOT democratic (as evidenced by Wired's stunt)"
Perhaps, but you seem in no position to comment on wisdom yourself.
The Sensor is APS-C sized. This means that it is as big as in most consumer DSLRs. That being said, those Cams usually have usable ISOs up to 1600. The point being usable.
I agree. F/4 is way too slow for a camera with these specs. It does have a fully manual mode which is nice, shoots RAW, and the rest of the specs look pretty good. I'm digging the rangefinder-esque design as well, especially if you add the optical viewfinder. But really, I'd rather have an f/2-ish lens, especially if you like shallow depth of field.
How shallow do you think your depth of field is going to be with a 28mm lens? HELLO!!!???
Olivier: I don't think the megapixel count and f-stop have any relation to each other or is in any way gimmicky. On a sunny day, f/4 is great and I bet it takes amazing pictures. Lower light situations may suffer, unless it's got a great sensor and noise reduction. But sensor size and lens speed don't correlate together.
I read somewhere that fovean sensor works differently than other sensors. Read here for an explanation: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmasd10/
Morgan,
My argument is that this is an unbalanced proposition. F/4 is just subpar for what is supposedly a ground breaking piece of equipment.
People using this camera will most definitely want to get involved in some kind of Bokeh, which with f/4 is near worthless. Especially without proper tele.
I have to disagree with you about sensor size as well. Larger sensors have shorter depth of fields.
So having a largish sensor here, with crappy aperture is definitely a waste.
And yes I read about their sensor where they have sensors layered upon each other. Unlike traditional CMOS or CCD where they are next to each other and pictures are interpolated.
I wonder however how the deepest layer copes with the lack of light? Thye must have some clever algorithms to work it out.
Olivier,
I agree about crop factor and DoF. But I was talking more about pixel count than crop factor, which doesn't really affect DoF, I think. A 1.6 sensor like on the canon 30D has less DoF than full frame sensors of the Mark I,II's and 5D. It's a complicated math thing on why (and I don't fully understand why), just that it is what it is. SO a 14 megapixel 1.6 sensor will still have less DoF than an 8 megapixel FF sensor.
And I definitely agree that an F/4 lens is subpar for a camera with the rest of specs.
But I'd like to get my hands on one of these and see what the output is like. They're supposed to be amazing.
If it were 24 mm or 105 mm, it would be a no-brainer. I'd buy two of them. But 28 mm? Not a great focal length.
I hate to agree with the haters, but it's true, f/4 is tad slow. I'd worship this bad-boy if it had an f/1.4, and I'd love it if it had an f/2, I'd even tolerate it at f/2.8.
But f/4 @ 400 ASA? That's not cool. You'd have to light everything you shoot indoors or use a nasty flash.
Sigma, please fix your siht to accodmodate real-life shooting situations before you release it!
You guys realize it's not really 14MP in the same sense as other cameras right? The spatial pixel resolution is 2652X1768 or about 4.6MP. It's because of the three colors stacked in layers that they say it's 14MP. Read the details! Anyway, because it's an APS-C sized sensor, which is large compared to most compacts, and there are only 4.6MP, the pixels are freakin' huge! This means there should be much less noise, and much more sensitivity. Not a bad thing, even if the lens is f/4. It should be able to produce better pictures than most any compact camera out there, even at low light.
Previous foveon sensors have also had this "advantage" of much less pixels than other, Bayer-based, sensors in other contemporaneous cameras. But it has never proven to be a real advantage for low-light. The fact is that Foveon sensor-based cameras have always proven to be really bad in low-light, even compared to non-Canon cameras.
The specs say MAX aperture F4... whats the MIN?
I'd love to see F1.4 or lower...
"People using this camera will most definitely want to get involved in some kind of Bokeh, which with f/4 is near worthless."
No, people using this camera aren't going to care about meaningless buzzwords like "bokeh", which nobody even said outside of Japan until three or four years ago.
You also don't seem know what "bokeh" means even in its buzzword incarnation. It doesn't mean "a blurred background". It means the quality of that blurred background. There is a difference.
An f/4 lens can have great bokeh and an f/1.8 can have crap bokeh, even though the 1.8 can certainly have *more* background blur.
Regardless, "bokeh" is a stupid term, because it's completely subjective and most proper photographers don't concern themselves with subjective concerns when it comes to their lenses. What matters is what can be measured. "Bokeh" cannot be measured; depth of field can be, but that's a simple equation that applies equally to all lenses.
I do agree that it's a slow lens for a prime, but we'll just have to see how well it performs otherwise. Most photographers are *not* going around shooting at f/1.8 all the time, which will probably surprise you, and most lenses perform their best at between f/5.6 and f/8, where most photographers *do* shoot most of their photos. So if it still does well at f/5.6, it will probably be a great camera for a compact.
If the price is right, I might buy one to supplement my SLR. I've always wanted a Foveon but just can't justify having what amounts to a 4.6 megapixel camera as my main camera. (Yes I know all of the Foveon's benefits, which is why I want one; but there's still no real substitute for more pixels as long as the sensor can support them.)
"The specs say MAX aperture F4... whats the MIN?
I'd love to see F1.4 or lower..."
You've got it backwards. Max is f/4, min would probably be around f/22.
It really is 1 over 4 which is "faster than 1/22 (or f22)
I don't know what you're smoking, but most photographers who shoot with fast lenses, and appreciate them for what they are, do have an interest in bokeh. And almost everybody who appreciates fast lenses does shoot below f/4.
Just because you achieve best quality at f/5.6 or f/8 doesn't mean you can't have an option to shoot faster apertures. You can always go to f/8, but you cannot always go faster. But that is beside the point. The point is that there is no rule that says a lens is gonna be better at f/5.6 or f/8. A very good lens in fact will be sharpest wide open and already diffraction-limited at that point, so closing down will only get blurrier. And lenses like that do exist, only they are not cheap. The Canon superteles are good examples of getting very close to that point.
I think this will be a fantastic camera. My apprehension with other compact digitals has been the ridiculously small sensor, especially compared to my Canon 1d mark IIn. With a 28mm field of view and larger pixels, it will make an outstounding backpacking/mountaineering camera. Also, bokeh is a term used for background blur with longer lenses and certainly doesn't apply to a 16mm wide angle in which the depth of field will be immense. If you want bokeh, then shoot Canon's 85mm f/1.2 lens, but don't expect it from "super-wides." Also, megapixels have little to contribute when attempting to create shallow depth of field. Rather, it's the size of the sensor in relation to focal lenth/aperture. That's why I shoot cameras with a 1.3 crop factor and not the silly 1.5(Nikon's)or even smaller 1.6 cropped sensors from Canon's 30d and rebels. Smaller sensors force one to back of farther to get the same field of view with, thus increasing depth of field.
Sorry, I said "...f/stop is a measure of light quantity." I meant to say f/stop is a measure of light quantity per unit area. f/stop is not the same as physical aperture and it is physical aperture that controls depth of field.
When you vary sensor size and keep perspective the same (by varying focal length to match), the physical aperture varies when the f/stop is held constant. That's what causes the misconception that larger sensors have less depth of field. It's helpful to know how a camera really works.
Craig,
Sensor size really changes DOF. Meaning, using the same setup, focal length, and f-stop, a bigger sensor will make a difference in DoF. And that difference will be that a bigger sensor will give MORE DOF (not less). But, your picture will be differently framed with both cameras. When it's said that bigger sensors give less DOF it means that we frame the subject to the same size in the picture, meaning either we move closer, or we increase focal length, for the big sensor.
DOF does change with sensor size because of the Circle of confusion diameter limit. It is different in different size sensors.
Andy,
It's stupid to compare DOF when you aren't keeping the perspective the same. Unless you are shooting the same image there is nothing to discuss. The easiest way to accomplish this is to vary the focal length with sensor size and keep the shooting distance and perspective the same.
Let's say you have 2 sensors with one half the linear size of the other. In order to keep the same perspective, the larger sensor requires a focal length twice as long. If you shoot using the same f/stop, the physical aperture of the larger sensor camera will be far larger (by two f/stops) and the subsequent DOF will be less. Stop down two stops and the DOF will be the same. The exposure time will be 4 times as long but that's to be expected since there's 4 times as much area to expose. Remember that f/stop is focal length/physical aperture. It is physical aperture that determines DOF.
Sensor size has no effect on DOF except at high magnifications. The confusion people have is caused by thinking that the f/stop is aperture (which it is not). Why you believe that larger sensors offer greater DOF I have no idea since the common misconception is that smaller ones do. Most people observe that PnS cameras have large DOFs and assume that smaller sensors offer a DOF advantage.
@Craig and @Jeff,
Guys, sorry about shuffling your feathers.
Didn't realize you took this that much to heart.
I have to admit I read the summary a little too quickly to realize that this had a primer lens.
Jeff, I don't know how long ago the "Bokeh" term was nailed, but I do not out of focus bakgrounds predate my birth and people already loved it back then. I also know that there is more to a nice bokeh shot than maximum blur. Nice little round "dots" in the background, based on the geometry of the diaphragm also count. Chromatic aberrations on bacgrounds are also a concern.
But let's be honest here for a second. neother one of you would sincereley consider buying a primer 28mm with f/4. Not if you wanted to do something nice with your camera.
yes I do realize that many cameras have sharpest results around 5.6/8, but they also offer to step down quite a lot more than this lens.
As for the sensor size, a well known (and controversial) photographer would like to disagree with you on the relation between sensor size and depth of field.
See here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
you can also find a claculator for your depth of field BASED on sensor size..
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
Anyway, different people have different uses, but there's no point in making a camera this small (vs a SLR) AND not including a flash AND making the max aperture f/4.
Just doesn't make any sense. I know it has a hotshoe, but if I need to carry a flash bigger than the camera itself than I'll be damned!
"yes I do realize that many cameras have sharpest results around 5.6/8, but they also offer to step down quite a lot more than this lens"
This lens will step down beyond f5.6
"There's no point in making a camera this small (vs a SLR) AND not including a flash"
This camera has a pop up flash
Ok, Oliver....firstly, the camera does come with a flash... a small popup one. The fact that a hotshoe is included is all the better if you ask me. Pop up flashes are pretty much worthless after 12 feet.
Secondly, this is not meant to replace anyone's dSLR, Sigma isn't saying it will. Personally I hope this camera is as good as I am hoping because it looks like it could make a great camera for doing some street work. The one thing I am most concerned with is its shutter lag after the shutter button is pressed. If that is fast, I think sigma has a winner. I love my SLR, but man it is a pain to carry around all the time. I have been wanting a compact for a while and was hoping the G7 would fulfill that role, but the lack of RAW nicked that idea.
And lastly, some compromises have to be made on a compact camera such as this. I think that the size of the sensor and the closeness to the lens is one reason why the lens can go to "only" f/4.
I can see the benefit to having such a high powered compact, but if you're going to attach an external flash and viewfinder, why not just use an SLR and get better, uncompressed image quality?
Oh my god is this thing sexy. But I doubt it will be very cheap, and a fixed lens... hm. A bit limited, though definately cool.
But if you want a "compact" high quality digital camera there are the digital rangefinder models Epson R-D1 and the Leica M8. Both are... well, expensive to ridiculously expensive, but at least you can change the (expensive) lens. And both are very sexy aswell.
"A very good lens in fact will be sharpest wide open and already diffraction-limited at that point, so closing down will only get blurrier. And lenses like that do exist, only they are not cheap. The Canon superteles are good examples of getting very close to that point."
Haha, nice one if only it were true in practice. Fine lenses that are made to be used wide open will be sharp when used that way, but lenses do not degrade when stopped down at large apertures. Diffraction effects aren't appreciable at f/4 or f/5.6. Care to provide links to lenses that are sharper at f/2.8 than f/4, Andy?
Again, photographers aren't looking for limited DOF shots with wide angle perspectives. The lack of f/2.8 or better at 28mm equivalent is strictly a low light issue for this camera and the larger apertures would make the camera more expensive, heavier, and bulkier.
yes, craig, most photogs would not want a tight DOF with a wide angle. however... if you want a grain-less photo, you're going to need to shoot at ISO 400 at the most, and even at ISO 400, there are many situations where you can't handhold a shot at f/4.
that's why canon makes this bad boy which costs upwards of $1300: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8454&A=details&Q=&sku=239648&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
and there are situations where you'll want some nice DOF with a wide lens, like the likely scenario with a compact camera: photographing friends at some event (dancing, football game, outdoors at a picnic, etc.).
Yes, I understand the combination of f/4 and low ISO means that available light shots are limited. Nevertheless, the combination of small size, reasonable cost, and f/2.8 doesn't exist. How much does that Canon lens weigh in addition to its cost which is twice as much as the entire Sigma camera? All that Sigma can do is improve the high ISO performance yet that's where the Foveon isn't so good.
Paul, if you really had lust for a fast, wide angle zoom you wouldn't be looking at the Canon 16-35. Even Canon's 17-40 f/4 is better. Having owned Canon's and Nikon's versions, I can say with confidence that Nikon's 17-35 f/2.8 is a much better lens. Of course, with cropped sensors you wouldn't be looking at that zoom range at all.
oh i wouldn't expect f/2.8 across an entire zoom range in a compact camera. that's unreasonable. but what's not unreasonable is having f/2.8 at the widest and f/4 or f/5.6 at tele, i've seen it done before in compacts.
and i would rather use the sigma 10-20mm on a APS-C sized SLR rather than the canon 16-35. however, the 10-20mm is f/4 i believe, and my point was that there *are* times when you want a fast wide angle, not that the lens i linked to is the end-all of fast wides.
The low light performance of the sensor is not unknown anymore. Since the same sensor is built into the Sigma SD14, its lowlight performance can be
used as a guidline for what the DP1 will be capable of. Here are pointers to
images taken with the SD14 at ISO 800 and ISO 1600 (if you do not see
the original, you can switch to original in the line below the image):
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum/image/75400908
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum/image/75400906
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum/image/75400905
Greetings,
eta
i like the overall specs. i've always wanted to try a camera with the FOVEON sensor, and this the DP1 may be the one for me. however, i wished that Sigma designed in the DP1 a tilt-up LCD screen so that users who'd like to use the camera at waist level can do so. i think this would've been a fun and useful feature.
The difference between a dSLR and this Sigma dp1 is like driving a truck vs a Jaguar.
The truck can haul a lot of stuff, lenses lenses lenses....ouch my shoulder's hurting!
The Jaguar is quick and nimble...a pocket rocket, well...outdoors anyway at f/4.
If Cartier-Bresson was to choose between the two if he was alive today, which do you think he'd choose?
Why not get both? Life is good...so far.
Here is an interesting more scientific look at what this "4.6" megapixel sensor is really capable of compared to a couple of higher megapixel dSLRs.
www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d
I, too, would like an f/2.8 max aperture, but the quality of the lens is more important to me than anything and that's why I applaud Sigma for going with a prime rather than a zoom. Rather than add a crappy zoom, I'd much rather see them come out with multiple DP1 versions with different focal length primes.
People just don't get Sigma or Foveon -- if you want a nice, little multi-purpose cam that does everything but kicks out ho-hum photos, Canon and Nikon and Pentax and Kodak have you covered and then some. If you want something special that might not be as multi-purpose but that, when used in the right situation, gives stunning results, then keep lusting for the DP1 as I do. Sigma seems to be doing everything right to maximize image quality since that's what the Foveon has over all Bayer sensors. If some of its multi-purpose functionality has to suffer, so be it.
Foveon = medium format (situationwise). No, the resolution obviously is not going to rival Mamiya's 22 MP or Hasselblad's 39 MP models, but in terms of the situations where the Sigma/Foveon combo is at its best, think medium format. How many people regularly shoot ISO 800 or 1600 film in their medium format bodies? Do they even MAKE ISO 1600 film for medium format? I honestly don't know.
If you're shooting low-light street photography, this isn't the camera for you. If you're taking sports shots, this isn't the camera for you. But for slower, more deliberate situations, this P+S will churn out some stunning shots that would make its Canon and Nikon cousin cringe.
And another thing: take a spin through the lens selections offered by most medium format companies and you'll see that most of their lenses begin at max apertures of around 4.0.
Thank you for a measured addition to this line of thought. It would be nice if replies could skip the statements like "stupid"; let's just discuss the merits or faults of the camera.
As a person who enjoys landscape photography with a DSLR, I find some of the f/4 aperture related comments way off the mark. I am trying to imagine a scenario where I would would ever want to use f4.0 for a landscape shot (forget f2.8!). All the lenses I've ever used perform significantly better when the aperture is raised up toward the f/5.6 -f/11 region, and if you need to let in more light for a landscape shot, a tripod is essential; f/2.8 will look vastly inferior in terms of sharpness aside from the fact that either the foreground or background will be totally out of focus due to shallow DOF. Chromatic Abberations are also a problem here. See an experiment below which I performed on a lens and which may help to to assess your lens quality.
The only thing I find strange about this camera is the limited number of pixels. Not being able to get a large blow-up of a shot beyond around 12inx8in (~A4 in metric) without sarting to experience degradation seems somewhat limiting. However, I am assuming that this camera does indeed have an effective pixel cound of 4.67 million as I've read in several places. Sigma would do well to clarify this.
Experiment:
Steps
1. Fix the lens to be tested to your camera. Each lens is different and zoom lenses often perform very diffently across the zoom range so multiple test will be neccessary for zoom lenses or multiple prime lenses.
2. Using a tripod in even lighting conditions (overcast would be good), aim the camera at a door from a reasonable distance (i.e. 10metres or more) with the door positioned at the right or left corner of the frame where the sharpness usually varies most. Doors with high contrasting posts (i.e. white door black wall or vice-versa are best as lens weaknesses are more clearly exaggerated)
3. Using aperture priority mode (marked 'A' on the camera), take a single photograph across the f stop range of your camera from lowest to highest, preferably in raw format. (jpeg will do fine too, just turn off/lower any in-camera sharpening). Be careful to use a remote trigger or timer to ensure camera does not shake at slower shutter speeds.
4. Without processing the photographs in any way, view the photos in pairs side by side starting with the lowerst aperture numbers and working upwards (e.g. f/2.8 and f/3.2 together, then f/3.2 and f/3.5 together etc.). Make sure you concentrate your analysis on the door at the edge of the frame. You will probably seem a marked improvement fairly quickly (e.g. by f/4.0 with more improvement up to a certain point and then possibly a mild fall off in sharpness depending on the lens quality and type.
5. Create a PowerPoint presentation with screen captures showing the difference and highlight the best quality shot in terms of shaprness, purple fringing and so forth. This can act as a simple reference for your lens and help you to use it to create sharper shots. Note: this is n ot the kind of sharpness you get from photoshop, it's way better and makes things look more natural and actually softer in the right way whilst maintaining sharp definition across the whole frame.
Anybody know if the DP1 uses CompactFlash cards or did Sigma change to SanDisk? And, still there is no news? They know how to kill marketing edge, don't they? It sounds just like what Polaroid did with the x530. Now, we hear reports of it being distributed in France (but you have to pre-order it with no idea of what the price will be et al). Maybe they are dealing with the SD 14's issues of slowness (like Apple moving all their designers and programmers over to iPhone and delaying Leopard as a result?!). It's killing me!
Mike, If I remember correctly, the DP1 uses SD cards.
Where can you buy the DP1 in Southern California, LA?
I shoot news and manually focus most shots. I think there would be too much focusing error for such a camera at f2.8 or faster. So even if the lens was faster I would dail up the iso and stop it down to be safe. The 28mm is my favorite focal length; good angle coverage, natural looking perspectives. DOF isn't that big a deal for a wide angle. I don't think Sigma expects to replace SLRs with the DP1. The specs are great, just what I'm looking for. I'll buy if it has relativly low noise at high iso and short shutter lag.
Also love that this thing would be totally silent. I am hoping this would become my everyday camera. Anyone know when it would be on sale.
F4 really is the only Achilles heel on paper anyway - unless this thing can handle some serious low light. Otherwise the specs sound awesome. If the Ricoh GRD could get a larger sensor and faster processor that would be the one to get- the size and layout of the GRD is really great.
The DP1 may give it a run for its money though, sounds like it will be quite fast even in raw, that will be a huge jump up from the GRD. Really too bad about the F4 max - F2.8 for a camera spec like this is a minimum. I have heard nothing of pricing or availability, yet Sigma people have said under $1K – how far under??