Sigma DP1

[Sean_Reid]

Guy closed the other DP1 thread because it got, shall we say, a little off-track. So here's a new one that I hope will stick to photography as its subject.

The introduction of the DP1 invites an interesting question for photographers who like small sensor pocket cameras. That is: is it the size or the drawing of these little cameras that matters most to one? Is it both? For some, the portability of these cameras are really what is of interest. For others, and we all know Mitch is one, the specific visual qualities of the format are very interesting.

I think my own answer is that I have some interest in both aspects. What say you?

Cheers,

Sean

 

[bbodine9]

Sean,

As for myself I really await your review of the DP1 to see how it measures in all respects to the Ricoh cameras. Have they indicated when you might receive a unit to test?

 

[Otto]

Hi Sean,

It was too bad the other thread had to get "out of hand" over where it should be placed. I thought that "Other Cameras" made the most sense to me as it wasn't a "Small Sensor Camera", and it isn't a "4/3's Sensor Camera" as far as I know. Anyway, none of that matters as I visit all three forums regularly if I see a post in them.

For me, it's a combination of physical size, camera control and image quality that interests me most in these "niche" cameras. I'm very interested in seeing how the DP1 shakes out. I'm hoping that Sigma has hit a home run with this, and that it might get other manufacturers to follow suit. All that can come from that is "good" for us.

Right now I'm trying to decide if I want another dSLR, as in the form of the Panasonic L1. I've owned some others and my main reason for not owning them any longer is their bulk, weight, lens changing etc. I like small cameras, and have more of a tendency to carry them with me. I don't think the L1 is very small, but I really like the idea of it's "rangefinder" styling, and the way the manual control of both the aperture, and shutter has been implemented. I don't really care much about other lens availability as the 14-50 (28-100 efl) would suit me just fine. I'm just concerned that it might be too bulky to carry often.

Do you have any experience with the L1 and, if so, I would be interested in your opinions of it.

Good shooting,
Otto...

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Sean,

It was too bad the other thread had to get "out of hand" over where it should be placed. I thought that "Other Cameras" made the most sense to me as it wasn't a "Small Sensor Camera", and it isn't a "4/3's Sensor Camera" as far as I know. Anyway, none of that matters as I visit all three forums regularly if I see a post in them.

For me, it's a combination of physical size, camera control and image quality that interests me most in these "niche" cameras. I'm very interested in seeing how the DP1 shakes out. I'm hoping that Sigma has hit a home run with this, and that it might get other manufacturers to follow suit. All that can come from that is "good" for us.

Right now I'm trying to decide if I want another dSLR, as in the form of the Panasonic L1. I've owned some others and my main reason for not owning them any longer is their bulk, weight, lens changing etc. I like small cameras, and have more of a tendency to carry them with me. I don't think the L1 is very small, but I really like the idea of it's "rangefinder" styling, and the way the manual control of both the aperture, and shutter has been implemented. I don't really care much about other lens availability as the 14-50 (28-100 efl) would suit me just fine. I'm just concerned that it might be too bulky to carry often.

Do you have any experience with the L1 and, if so, I would be interested in your opinions of it.

Good shooting,
Otto...

Fortunately, that tempest in a teapot is all done now and we can discuss the Sigma here, on the other cameras forum or wherever it logically seems to fit into the conversation.

I need to call Sigma Monday and we'll see where things are.

The L1 - yes, I reviewed the Digilux 3 and you might want to read that. That definitely is a 4/3 camera so we have a good forum for that.

Regarding "Image Quality"....assessing that means that one first has to define what makes up desirable image quality for him or her. The desires vary a lot.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Otto]

Fortunately, that tempest in a teapot is all done now and we can discuss the Sigma here, on the other cameras forum or wherever it logically seems to fit into the conversation.

Yes, I'm glad to see that over. One of the great things about GetDPI.com forums is the lack of "that kind of thing".

I need to call Sigma Monday and we'll see where things are.

I will be anxious to read about your findings.

The L1 - yes, I reviewed the Digilux 3 and you might want to read that. That definitely is a 4/3 camera so we have a good forum for that.

I didn't realize they were basically one in the same. I will definitely have to read your review.

Regarding "Image Quality"....assessing that means that one first has to define what makes up desirable image quality for him or her. The desires vary a lot.

Yes, Image Quality is in the "eyes of the beholder".

Cheers,

Sean

The same to you, Sean. Thanks for all your hard work here.

Good shooting,
Otto...

 

[Lili]

Sean, Guy, et al,
I hope I did not contribute to the Tempest.
In answer to Sean's question, the size and speed of operation is very important to me.
But, and this is very important, I VERY much prefer the way the smaller sensors draw.
It took me quite a while to realize that. But once my artist friend told me to play to the strengths of digital imaging and not try to make it 'just like film' it really opened my eyes.
The DP-1 is indeed a very interesting camera and I look forward to seeing more about it.
Until then, I do not feel limited by my first generation GRD at all.
As to where discussion on this new Sigma belongs, it is too early to say.
I was never stressed by it being in the Small Sensor forum.

 

[kai.e.g.]

To me, the DP1 exists first and foremost because it is compact, and this makes it relevant to most everyone who has an interest in small sensor cameras [certainly in this forum]. For that reason, I reckon the Small Sensor Camera forum is the appropriate place for discussion of the DP-1; if this causes confusion, it might be better to rename the group "Compact Digitals" rather than split the DP-1 off into another group where it might be an even worse fit. I suspect a good deal of initial discussions are going to revolve around comparisons with other small-sensor cameras - not necessarily just about image quality, but also usability - so it'd be ideal to keep it here.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Hi folks thanks Sean for restarting this back up with the DP1 . Let's just leave it here in this section it seems to be the spot that compares well to the other systems in this group. I am also not picky about where it should go just that it goes and it is the thread you all want to enjoy being in. i thought shutting down the other thread made the most sense to me and for all that where on the other one no one is in any shape or form a issue that has not already been dealt with. i do not enjoy being the jerk and being the heavy but that is my role as the owner and i am here to protect the members and you can count on that in the future. Jack and I want a place that we call home and want our members to feel the same way. Alright go have fun folks. thanks for your understanding. Guy

 

[Guy Mancuso]

BTW folks just to spread your wings a little , love for you to see all the amazing images that just came out of our Moab workshop. So if you have the time take a look. Now go have fun. :ROTFL:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=681

 

[Sean_Reid]

I didn't realize they were basically one in the same. I will definitely have to read your review.

I'd have to test them side by side but, historically, the differences between the Leica and Panasonic versions of a given camera have been minor. The firmware is a little different, the JPEGs can be a little different but basically they tend to be two versions of one camera.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Sean, Guy, et al,
I hope I did not contribute to the Tempest.
In answer to Sean's question, the size and speed of operation is very important to me.
But, and this is very important, I VERY much prefer the way the smaller sensors draw.
It took me quite a while to realize that. But once my artist friend told me to play to the strengths of digital imaging and not try to make it 'just like film' it really opened my eyes.
The DP-1 is indeed a very interesting camera and I look forward to seeing more about it.
Until then, I do not feel limited by my first generation GRD at all.
As to where discussion on this new Sigma belongs, it is too early to say.
I was never stressed by it being in the Small Sensor forum.

I remember when you first posted that and I think your friend gave you excellent advice. Over the last few years, I've tried to emphasize that these cameras are indeed a distinct format (and the name for the forum was very carefully chosen to respect that). But, the pocket size of these cameras is really the defining quality for some folks and its they, I think, who may the find the Sigma very interesting.

I definitely don't want the name of this forum changed. We just don't need to be uptight about discussions that can drift off the exact topic of small sensor cameras, especially when it comes to cameras that are so small.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[johnastovall]

BTW folks just to spread your wings a little , love for you to see all the amazing images that just came out of our Moab workshop. So if you have the time take a look. Now go have fun. :ROTFL:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=681

I guess I was spreading some wings today. I was back shooting film in my IIIG with the Old LTM 'Cron on it. But I've decided it's not the technology but the vision that counts. I've had a rant going in another forum that one should buy at least 10 good art and photography books for every piece of gear.

I keep trying to learn new ways of seeing light and then communicating that luminous vision to others. If I keep down this path, I may end up thinking William Blake is the greatest photographic theorist of all time. :lecture:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

John, It is ALL about the light. I can't teach that enough

 

[Maggie O]

John, It is ALL about the light. I can't teach that enough

Testify!

IMO, the work of the photographer is to capture the momentary interaction of light on matter. Every photograph is a Zen koan; a moment observed and a new moment created and shared. The moment captured will never come again, but though the photo is always the same, it is different with every viewer.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Subject matters helps too. :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[Irenaeus]

Both drawing and size are significant to me.

Drawing takes the cake, of course, but there IS a limit to how much I'm willing to pack on any given day so small is good. I'll be looking forward, then, even in a somewhat reserved way for a long while, to seeing what those Sigma files actually look like.

Until then, the question remains. I don't know how to talk about image quality in the abstract, so here are some of the photos that have moved me and which I'd be delighted to be able to echo:

1. A dim memory of somebody else's Rodinal induced high accutance B & W negatives.

2. A photo from Sean's first GRD review of a Bellows Falls street after the rain with the principal street coming in from the left, an offshoot bending sharply away toward the distant right and third one directly ahead dropping straight down out of sight towards a railroad below. There's a stop sign on edge in the foreground and a wonderful row of old buildings in the middle and I love what the light's doing with the wet.

3. The grainy and intimate photos of Sean's family and friends from family and friends from his GRD2 review.

4. B & W infrared "documentary portraits" I took of my own children and of significant places in Israel in the '70s.

5. And finally, and nearly best of all, Sean's photo in the Long Term Epson review of firefighters making arches of water in the middle ground while four soaked kids stand in the foreground eagerly hoping to be able to run through again!

I can't do them all, especially not all at once, but I do see a way forward. Film has become out of the question for me. One of the Ricohs will almost certainly end up on my belt again but not right now. That picture of the kids and the firemen, though, keeps drawing me back and I can no longer stall off seeing where THAT kind of image might take me.

So I've just blown my stash for a really nice RD1 and I just happen to have that very lens to put it on!

All of which is to say that what I'd be looking for in any eventual DP1 or GRDx or Whatever 2.0, would be drawing and image quality that bowls me over like the Epson's does, and that fits with it well enough not to jar.

More later, and in another thread.

Irenaeus

 

[Irenaeus]

"I may end up thinking William Blake is the greatest photographic theorist of all time."

Now THAT'S interesting! Would you care to elaborate, or to point us to some of his work?

Cheers!

Irenaeus

 

[7ian7]

For me, size is crucial — not pocketability, but really how less camera impacts the shooting experience for me and my subjects.

Today, Sean and others have the option of super-shallow depth of field with their M8's for when that type of creamy blur is appropriate to their vision. I'd like that option too, but in a cheaper, tiny manually controllable autofocus digital with however fast a lens is scientifically viable (the oft-dreamed-of digital Hexar).

Also, even though I love the way these small sensors draw, sometimes I find myself processing images from my GX100 that I do wish had greater resolution, especially in terms of dynamic range.

Eventually, I'd like to see the kind of imaging and focus speed we expect from dSLR's like the D300 and 40d (at least) make its way in to a compact.

Since I've been playing with the tone controls in Alien Skin Exposure 2, my sense is that the "grit" and "grain" many of us love is achievable in post-processing, even (or especially) from a higher resolution file.

The fantastic depth-of-field for days ... that's another issue altogether.

Ian

 

[Sean_Reid]

"I may end up thinking William Blake is the greatest photographic theorist of all time."

Now THAT'S interesting! Would you care to elaborate, or to point us to some of his work?

Cheers!

Irenaeus

I agree, that is interesting. For Chris Killip, it was, or is, Yeats. Killip's book, of pictures made in the north of England, begins with Yeats:

"Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,

Enwrought with golden and silver light,

The blue and the dim and the dark cloths

Of night and light and the half-light,

I would spread the cloths under your feet:

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;

I have spread my dreams under your feet;

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Irenaeus,

You wrote:

"Until then, the question remains. I don't know how to talk about image quality in the abstract, so here are some of the photos that have moved me and which I'd be delighted to be able to echo:

1. A dim memory of somebody else's Rodinal induced high accutance B & W negatives.

2. A photo from Sean's first GRD review of a Bellows Falls street after the rain with the principal street coming in from the left, an offshoot bending sharply away toward the distant right and third one directly ahead dropping straight down out of sight towards a railroad below. There's a stop sign on edge in the foreground and a wonderful row of old buildings in the middle and I love what the light's doing with the wet.'"

I'm happy that you like some of the work. That water on the pavement -- that you were talking about -- that water is very important to that picture, as I imagine you know. One of the challenges of "street photography" (ie: the photography of actual streets) is that pavement tends to be uniform and often, itself, has little visual surface. So too for sand... They can tend to create passages in a picture which can quickly become monotonous if un-relieved. Over the past few years, I've been using water, of all kinds, to activate different kinds of picture surfaces. Water on sand, on pavement, skin, rocks, clothing... The water, itself, is never the subject of the picture, but its been playing a very important supporting role in a lot of the pictures I'm making.


"4. B & W infrared "documentary portraits" I took of my own children and of significant places in Israel in the '70s. "

I'd like to see those.

"5. And finally, and nearly best of all, Sean's photo in the Long Term Epson review of firefighters making arches of water in the middle ground while four soaked kids stand in the foreground eagerly hoping to be able to run through again!"

That's something I've been photographing for about three years now. In my little village of Saxtons River, Vermont there are big doings on July 4 each year. The big sports event is a sort of soccer played with a ball and high pressure fire hoses. By its nature, it tends to be visually classical even before the camera ever enters the equation. Romantic sometimes maybe but, to my eye, highly classical.

In any case, I'm pleased that some of the pictures interested you. There are more from the water soccer in the 35 mm (M8) lens review and then, of course, many more, of the same subject, that aren't published yet.

I decided quite awhile ago that the general illustrations for these articles would have to come from whatever I really ended up using the camera or lens for. Each time I publish, I know there will be a lot of people who, naturally, won't be interested in the illustrative pictures, per se. But as photographers, I think we do our thing and just put ourselves out there, through the pictures, and let the chips then fall as they may. But it's good to know that some of that work has been interesting to you and I thank you for saying so.

Cheers,

Sean