<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self</title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[It's likely pricing will be the same as the DP1 at launch, US $699, which is a lot.  Still, until Olympus releases a Micro 4/3rds camera or Samsung comes out with it's new NX system, this camera is in a class of its own in terms of size and image quality.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[RobJ]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 11:38AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[DP1 was slow and had a clunky interface. A 20 percent faster processor doesn't seem much of an improvement.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 11:42AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[Can I get an incredibly shallow depth of field with this camera so I can work for Engadget and Autoblog with blurrycam shots?]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[LloydChiro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 11:54AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[With an f/2.8 lens, you can!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 12:09PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[Lumix LX3 FTW!  F2.0 lens FTW!]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Alex]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 12:39PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[14 Megapixels? What BS.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[David Vogt]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 12:55PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[Does this camera make phone calls? That's the only camera I want these days.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Anthony]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 1:23PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[@David Vogt<br><br>'14 Megapixels? What BS'<br><br>I believe you own a digital camera? So this is exactly the same, all digital still cameras (mainstream wise) use interpolation, so While it is malarkey, so is the Alpha 900's quoted 24.6MP, which is a true only 8.2MP, it's just Sigma used to be brave and quote the true figure for their Foveon sensored cameras.<br><br>Also. Alpha 900? Niiiiice pick. (100% viewfinder swing it?)]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[gingerninja]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 1:50PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[That assumes that you need a cluster of three pixels to equal one full pixel of information. That's not quite true. There are two separate resolutions you have to consider. Color and Luminosity. Color is derived largely from interpolation. However each pixel contributes more to the Luminosity.<br><br>Incidentally this is also how the human eye works; We too are more sensitive to Luminosity than Color. Which is why a 14MP APS-C Bayer sensor generally shows more perceivable resolution than a 14MP Foveon.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Plothole]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 2:39PM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Sigma DP2 gets real with its bad self]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/03/sigma-dp2-gets-real-with-its-bad-self/</guid><description><![CDATA[I agree that a F2.0 lens would have been more impressive, and "20% faster" is not exactly what I was hoping for. It is a shame that this sensor is "wasted" in a camera that will not allow a lot of the things you actually want a compact for. Nevertheless, be sure to go & check out the sample shots on Sigma's site. Sadly there is a "might have been altered" note but the colors on some of those are just... stunning. If I only into daylight & landscapes, I'd get this. It'll be the LX3 then.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Bad Beaver]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mar 3rd 2009 1:53PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
