I'm visually hooked
Spring 08 / Is it really true???
The color noise at ISO 800 is discouraging. This looks to be a low ISO camera with a slow lens. From what I've seen so far, I'd take the GRD2 over this.
I see the mottling in the sky in the full res image. Here's a 100% crop:
If I just resize the image, the sky looks normal. So I don't know if that mottling is normal or not.
A 100% crop of the hood. Looks good to me:
The green shadow noise 100% crop. Tough circumstances, I would think:
The magenta area, 100% crop:
Overall, I'm very impressed. I'd really like to see the same shots side-by-side against the Ricoh.
I'm viewing on a 23" Sony monitor (driven by my MacBook Pro) and I can clearly see (at 100%), the colour noise I'm referring to. In the Hummer shot, it appears as greenish/yellow noise on the hood shadow areas (the darker horizontal band below the windshield and the the horizontal areas at left foreground), it's splotchy. The hood colour is not a uniform orange in these areas. Considering that this shows at 200 ISO (let alone the noise in the 100 ISO sky), as I said, I'm not impressed.
I should clarify
It wasn't the pictures I was HOOKED ON (rather boring shots indeed)
Being a jaded New Yawker
I was sooooo into the Advertising Concept behind the Dp1.
The Sigma site is just cutting edge with word & imagery
An artsy intellectual edge
Maybe I'm a sucker for advertising since I haven't owned a TV in ten years
Last edited by helenhill; 3rd February 2008 at 04:43.
Looking forward to seeing some in depth reviews on this new body.
More examples from a pre-production DP1 on the DPreview site now here I think I'm sold on this.
Well the RAW shots are certainly better than the jpegs but in the one ISO 800 shot (sdim0059.jpg), I'm still seeing some magenta and yellowish colour noise in the shadow areas of the petals, and this is not even a darkish scene. I really wonder what it is capable of in lesser light, especially with the relatively slow lens.
Please understand that I'm not trying to pick fault with this camera... when it was announced, I was ecstatic, even with the slow lens. When they announced the delay, I had hoped that they were reconsidering the lens choice and that we might see a faster version. With a sensor this big (compared to our traditional small sensor digicams), I think we have a right to expect stellar performance, and so far I'm not seeing that.
Obviously we'll have to await further more rigorous testing. We can still hope, I guess.
I've been thinking that the DP1 isn't actually a small sensor camera so it should be in another area of the forums as well but it doesn't seem to be.
Strangely all the sample images on dpreview are stated to be 28mm equivalent. Have I missed something or have they just made a mistake?
Some more samples here. Large jpg files.
There are more examples here: www.letsgodigital.org/en/18382/las-vegas-photos/
It seems pretty clear that the DP1 will be stiff competition for the GRDII. The size is very similar. Closer than I had guessed it would be. Low ISO quality from the DP1 is pretty amazing. Unfortunately the lens is 1 1/2 stops slower and the high ISO performance not very impressive. None of this matters to me very much as the 28mm (equivalent) focal length is too wide to be my everyday carry. A slightly larger follow-up model with a 35 or 40mm (equivalent) field of view and a slightly faster lens would make me very happy.
I'm quite impressed with these latest samples. Looks very promising to me and I'm now really looking forward to seeing a proper review. I would probably buy one based on these images without reading a review anyway :/
The Las Vegas art picture is incredibly sharp, clean and undistorted.
...and which doesn't produce enough "grain"! :-) Though I must say that, as a grit-meister, I haven't been that interested in it.
Seriously, though, let's see what this camera is really like before reaching any conclusions. I'm sure that Sean's review will allow anyone to make a decision of whether this camera is for her or him.
Specifically, shortly after I asked Guy to start this forum for small sensor cameras (which he hadn't yet heard of at the time) I wrote :
"Guy was kind enough to create this forum at my request so that people who are interested in small sensor cameras (and 4/3rds as well) could have a place to discuss them that does not have any brand boundaries.
From my perspective, this is a place to talk about photography generally as well and I rather hope we go off-topic, at times, in interesting ways. If the Sigma DP1 ever arrives, it will likely end up being discussed here as well.
Maybe we should think of this as the "Get Depth of Field" forum. <G>
At the time, I urged Guy and Jack to make 4/3 a separate forum but it took a little while for that to happen so 4/3 discussion was here initially.
The DP1 is definitely not a small sensor camera, and it doesn't draw like one, but one thing many of us here have in common is an interest in cameras that can be with us all the time. The DP1 seems to be that sort of camera so I think this is as good a forum as any to discuss it.
It's not a 4/3 camera either - not by sensor size and not by conforming to the 4/3 standards.
I agree with Sean that it's appropriate for the DP1 to be discussed here, as it's designed in the same spirit as small sensor cameras in the sense of being small enough that it's always with the photographer.
Well the get the title changed from small sensor, otherwise it makes a mockery of what you classed as a small sensor, the DOF etc..remember the insistance of not using the term P&SNot a mistake at all. This forum was intended to cover the DP1 as well.
When other brands start producing similar cameras we will end up with a great divide sensor and result wise, untenable comparisons will be made between sensors etc. Are we going to call all of them small sensor cameras............??
Or is it all a matter of we will think about that later and change tact at convenience
no it's about the drawing of the sensorspirit as small sensor cameras in the sense of being small enough that it's always with the photographer.
You're right, Imants. But in practical terms this small sensor group is a lot more active than the 4/3rds one and there is more interest here in the DP1 than in the other groups. Therefore, it seems to me it's sensible to continue to discuss it here until it's justified to move the discussions elsewhere.
No, it doesn't make a mockery of the small sensor format and I don't think its worth worrying about. People get caught up in these sorts of things unnecessarily. We know what small sensor cameras are, why they're different, etc. but this is also a good place to discuss the DP1.
If there come to be a whole new class of cameras with larger sensors and small bodies then maybe we'll worry about making a new forum, etc. I don't see that as being imminent, however, so lets just discuss the camera here and not worry about it for the time being. The DP1 isn't a 4/3 camera and it isn't a small sensor camera, etc. Its an orphan of sorts and I think it should be welcome here.
Last edited by Sean_Reid; 8th February 2008 at 21:32.
so a forum of convenience to some? There is a heck of a lot of people out there with no idea of the differences but have an interest........
bugger it Guy scrap me from the forum, this is crap!!!!!!!!
Last edited by Guy Mancuso; 10th February 2008 at 08:29. Reason: too many complaints. User banned
I think that if people want to discuss the Sigma in the "Other Cameras" forum, or here, or wherever, its cool. The very active forums here are this one and Leica M. Naturally, a lot of small sensor camera owners may be interested in the DP1 even though its a different kind of camera in some ways. It won't draw like a small sensor camera but it does fit in a pocket. Some people value the former most, some the latter, some both, etc.
I don't think discussing the Sigma takes away anything from the discussion of small sensor cameras. Again, if the Sigma really ends up needing its own forum then I'm sure Guy and Jack will look at that. But I don't think we're at a point where this is a problem.
I don't know where the problem with a DP1 discussion here lies. While it is not a small sensor camera it is the closest real competitor to the GRD II so a lot of people will be interested in the differences between the cameras. I know I am interested in a comparisson at low ISO between the DP1 and GRD II to see how much the advantage really is between them.
For me the DP1 looks nice but not quite there whereas the GRD II is there. As good as te IQ at low ISO might be for the DP1 the GRD II will perform better in low light situations, has a great macro mode, the adapter lenses (21mm and 40mm) make it more versatile, the build (handgrip, size) and apreture and shutter speed controlls are better on the GRD II. From the looks of it the only thing the DP1 has going for it is the larger sensor and maybe the focus wheel.
Shame it isn't 40mm because it would help to have an excuse to own one as well as my GDR2 :/
and come on people, don't turn this great forum into another dpreview personal vendetta site.
Last edited by Will; 9th February 2008 at 03:24.
A discussion about the DP1 in context to the Ricohs, et al, actually helps clarify the parallels and differences between these formats. That's a good thing.
As a Ricoh/small sensor devotee I have to at least wonder what this thing will mean in terms of my interest in pocketable, serious cameras.
Regarding grain, Mitch, over the past week I've been putting the new version of Exposure (Alien Skin) through its paces, and it's amazing. Something about it — in philosophical and technical terms — doesn't feel entirely kosher, but the results — control over grain and contrast and color caste to achieve specific film-like qualities using parameter sliders with names that speak to our knowledge of film characteristics — is very, very good, and may be exactly what you're looking for.
I won't claim it's exactly comparable to Polapan or pushed Tri-X, but the results are extremely pleasing
Sean, if you've spent any time with it, I'd be curious about your experiences (and anyone else's).
Three quarters of the way down the page of the following link, under the heading Other Niches, M. Reichman makes a pretty good summary of what's going with the DP1 sensor(s). Not that it will necessarily quell your skepticism (he's quite skeptical), but you may find it interesting.
The reason the lens had to be so slow is that they wanted light to hit the sensor as close to perpendicularly as possible, as is the goal with all digital designs (source here). This minimizes light falloff, color, and clarity issues in the periphery of the sensor. The samples so far show excellent corner performance. I'd trade some of that corner performance and lack of light falloff for a faster lens. Give me a 40mm equivalent FOV and an f/2 lens, make the body a bit bigger (G9 size) allowing for some vignetting and corner softness wide open (improving as stopped down), and put in a decent integrated OVF. I'd pay $1200 for that, even if high ISO performance were no better than what we're seeing so far from the DP1.
Regarding your cameras for sale, maybe folks just don't want to deal with you, but of course, to you, the cameras are to blame. As always.
Well yes, the DP1 has still to prove itself. Ricoh was proving to me already and the verdict is very bad. I know, it is because I know nothing about photography. But I will not longer use a cam where you can never say in advance (except some situations) what the result will be. So, I waite for the DP1 to see if it is better, but I do not start in advance to complain against it as I see here quite a lot as well as on other forums.
For me they made already some big mistakes, but this has nothing to see with IQ. Is more that you still need a separate viewfinder instead of build in one plus a few more. About Ricoh, I can say that they will have a hard time.