File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ITT Sigma DP1
>> Anonymous
ITT Duke Nukem Forever


also, sloooow lens + noisy Foveon sensor = fail
>> Anonymous
>>119856

An interesting entry to the P&S market, but I'm not sure I see the fuss.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
If they'd slapped a normal or even semi-wide f/2.0 or f/2.8 lens on there, this would be win. But 28mm-equiv is way the fuck too wide and f/4 is way the fuck too slow.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>119864

I'm going to disagree with that. I think the 28mm is perfect since it can do landscape as well as the party shots as well as everyday.

It's a nice street camera too. Small and pocketable. No real evidence of IQ problems as of yet and the f/4 is still going to give you more DoF than the average digital compact even at 2.8

I think Sigma has done the right thing, other companies will be watchin how this goes carefully.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>119868
Sony, laughing at how uncool it looks.

It looks about 30 years old ALREADY.
>> Anonymous
>>119871
Poor poor Sony, not knowing shit about design..
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>119873
Sony P&S are the height of current design fashion. No one uses black p&s anymore, everyone has silver or pink or gold.
>> Anonymous
>>119876

This Sigma obviously isn't directed at dumb, ditzy & fashion-conscious people (the kind of market Sony wants).

28mm is just perfect. any wider and the distortions won't be pleasant. They could've used a faster lens, though. But if Sigma's sensor can handle high ISOs well, then it would be alright.
>> Anonymous
>>119868
At 16mm f/4 and 1.7x crop factor, the Sigma lens is roughly equivalent to a 28mm f/6.8 lens on a film camera in terms of DoF; this translates to ~3.8m hyperfocal distance. Which basically means no nicely blurred backgrounds unless you shoot portraits of animu figurines.

For comparison, Canon G9 has a lens that's 7.4mm f/2.8 on the wide end, which is equivalent to 35mm f/13 on a film camera and gives the hyperfocal distance of about 3.2m - not much different from Sigma's 3.9m.

>>119878
In terms of high ISO noise, Sigma's sensor is somewhere between Four Thirds cameras and the aforementioned Canon G9.
>> Anonymous
people with compacts don't want blurred backgrounds anyway
>> Atomic !eB5C4Rw5bU
For those applications to which a P&S is suitable, I'm looking forward to this camera. f/4 is fast enough, 28mm is normal enough, and it's fairly small. I don't see the problem.
>> Anonymous
>>119896
Price. It's going to be much more expensive than a P&S.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>119868
Landscapes, sure. Party shots and everyday shots? Seems way too fucking wide to me unless you're doing group shots. You basically can't frame just one person with a 28mm-equiv like that. I just took a self portrait with my 18-55 at the wide end and to get just a shot of me and not me and my boring cubicle, I had to hold the camera closer than this Sigma's 50cm minimum focusing distance. And additionally, doing so made my admittedly large nose look positively gargantuan.

For indoor shots, my experience has been that f/2.8 is too slow for available-light unless you've got big windows and the sun's still up, and this lens is a stop slower than that. Granted, the big Foveon mitigates that somewhat, but you're still talking only a stop or two more low light ability than your average PowerShot A-series. So you're going to be stuck using flash, which means that the image quality will be similar to your average PowerShot A-series. And dollars to donuts this thing'll cost as much as an SLR.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>119899

How much will it be? I wonder if it'll be cheaper than the G9
>> Anonymous
>>119904
Rumor has it that the DP1 will cost around $800.
This seems to be likely since it has all the components of Sigma SLRs except the mirror box, and it's not going to sell in much larger volumes than those SLRs.
>> Anonymous
>>119864
QFT.

>>119868
>I think the 28mm is perfect since it can do landscape as well as the party shots as well as everyday.

It's not for landscapes, though. It has no advantages over an SLR for landscapes, whereas for street photography and other sorts of photography of people it does.

And a normal lens would be more versatile. Wide ties you down to a specific visual look you might not always want, but normal at least won't stick an obvious wide or telephoto look into the image. A a normal lens is far more suitable for landscapes than a wide-angle is for portraits of people at the aforementioned party.

(The real question is why they don't have interchangeable lenses. They're a lens company. They ought to go giddy over the idea of people buying an expensive camera and then a lens for it.)

>>119871
>It looks about 30 years old ALREADY.

Good, camera design went to shit past about 1980.

The Leica M8 looks 54 years old ALREADY. This is also a good thing.

>>119896
28mm equivalent is nowhere near normal.
>> Anonymous
>>119871
I love you, Butterfly.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
So if this is aimed at the bridge camera divison, what does it do better?
>> Anonymous
>>119913
Larger sensor, giving it more dynamic range and less noise.

I think it's not aimed at the bridge camera division so much as people who don't want/need not to have a big SLR with mirror clap and all but can't shell out for the M8 + lens. Now, people use bridge cameras right now for that purpose, but in low-light they're really difficult to get good results with.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>119916
Its a modern rangefinder?
>> Anonymous
>>119917
Pretty much, but without the rangefinder, unfortunately.
>> Anonymous
>>119918
I would disagree. It looks kind of like a rangefinder, and it certainly borrows some design ideas, but it lacks interchangeable lenses and rangefinder focusing which are both kind of important. It compares more to the 1970s cheap, fixed-lens RFs that were intended for the general consumer market like the Canon QL17 and Yashica Electro than it does to the classic high-end RFs like Leica M and Nikon S series.

It's just an alternative type of compact digital, probably targeted at people who use/have used rangefinders and would like a smaller and lighter camera to use in conjunction with a DSLR.

I'd like to get one and play around with it. 28mm is a nice focal length, but I would rather have a 35mm f/2 or so. F/4 isn't terrible, but given the kind of camera this is I think they made a miss by not going with a faster normal lens. I also hope that accessory viewfinder is included with the camera because they tend to be extremely expensive in the rangefinder market.
>> Anonymous
>>119916
The sensor is large by P&S standards, but by DSLR standards Foveon is one of the noisiest. So DP1's sensor noise advantage is actually 2 stops or even less, and if we take the slow lens (-1 stop) and the lack of IS (0..-3 stops depending on situation) into account, the situation may be actually not in Sigma's favor.
>> Anonymous
It reminds me of the Canonet or some of the fixed-lens rangefinders that used to be common.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>119949
Not to mention it's four actual megapixels. I'd much rather have my colors bayer-interpolated than have the actual pixels interpolated.

(Especially teh suck if you do a lot of B&W work. You wouldn't even get the advantage of the foveon's theoretical better color ability)

I'm familiar with and have in fact made the "Megapixels don't matter" argument many times, but 4MP is still pretty low.
>> Anonymous
>>119972
Foveon's pictures are sharper at the same number of MP, so those 4.6 MP are enough for up to A4-sized prints at least.

I wonder if Sigma will do anything about their sucky NR algorithms in DP1. What's the point of making a sensor with awesome color resolution when your NR smears the color all over the place?
>> Anonymous
>>119972

The image and print quality is more like 6-7MP from a more traditional sensor. It's pretty good.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
Taken with my Rebel at 18mm, which is about 28mm equiv on my 1.6x crop and f/4.0.

According to the press release, it'll focus down to 50cm or about 19-20inches (though they also say 'it is possible to shorten the minimum focusing distance to 30cm.' I'm guessing there's an extra adapter lens or something).

So, this is the tightest crop and the minimum DoF you're going to be able to get with this camera.

Too. Fucking. Wide.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:01:31 20:48:38Exposure Time0.3 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias1/3 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-247529232Color Matrix129Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeTimedFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownSelf-Timer Length10 secMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.480 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation4Sensor ISO Speed224
>> Anonymous
>>120112

Maybe it is too wide for you, but not everyone is trying to take a picture of your big nose at arms length.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>120114
At 28mm, *everyone's* nose is big.
>> Anonymous
>>120119

Not mine. Most of mine was blown off by a IED in the war.
>> Anonymous
>>120120
Pics or it didn't happen.
>> Anonymous
ISO800. Foevon.

FUCK YEAH
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/digitalcameras/multimedia/2008/02/gallery_pma?slide=4&slideView=2
"It will be on sale soon for around $1,000."

So yeah.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>120448
(Although this should be taken with a grain of salt, given that the guy writing the copy was apparently a complete moron when it comes to photography)
>> Anonymous
>>120448
"The lens doesn't retract all the way."

I lol'ed. (Then again, the only PMA announcement I'm even slightly excited about is that 6x7 Fuji folder, because it shows that companies understand products that are now niche really serve alot of people's needs better than a big DSLR. The Sigma's wide-angle, slow lens folly killed what would otherwise be a great camera. My guess is they made the stupid mistake of designing the lens around the body, meaning it wound up short and slow. It's much smaller than even a Leica CL. They could've made it that size with a fast normal lens and no one could've said a single damn thing negative about it. Or better yet, have it take interchangeable lenses, and make a line of three for it: a wide-angle, a normal, and a medium telephoto. Honest to God, I'd probably pay up for the camera, all three of them, and an auxillary viewfinder for each if they did that. But they had to try to compromise between being able to market this as an upgrade to point and shoot users and marketing this as a serious street-shooter to serious photographers, winding up with a camera that pleases nobody.)
>> Anonymous
http://rancid.outwar.com/page/109162

click here for more nudes