PDA

View Full Version : examples Sigma DP1



stnami
2nd February 2008, 16:22
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ja_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2fcda%2f review%2f2008%2f02%2f02%2f7893.html

helenhill
2nd February 2008, 17:23
WOW .......
Quite riveting
I'm visually hooked
Spring 08 / Is it really true???

simonclivehughes
2nd February 2008, 17:50
WOW .......
Quite riveting
I'm visually hooked

Really? I'm not very impressed at all. Even in the ISO 100 shot (lower left), you can discern colour mottling in the blue sky. The ISO 200 shot of the Hummer has a weird mottling effect noticeable in the shadow areas of the hood and the single ISO 800 shot shows an even more exaggerated mess in green to the left of the main entrance and in magenta to the right of it. Perhaps these examples are from an early version, but unless they can do a better job than this, they'll have little to tout it over a smaller sensor.

Lili
2nd February 2008, 17:56
Really? I'm not very impressed at all. Even in the ISO 100 shot (lower left), you can discern colour mottling in the blue sky. The ISO 200 shot of the Hummer has a weird mottling effect noticeable in the shadow areas of the hood and the single ISO 800 shot shows an even more exaggerated mess in green to the left of the main entrance and in magenta to the right of it. Perhaps these examples are from an early version, but unless they can do a better job than this, they'll have little to tout it over a smaller sensor.

Simon,
I cannot see the effects you describe at all :(
The blue sky looks quite smooth and even on the 17" widescreen TFT display on my Toshiba Satellite Laptop

asabet
2nd February 2008, 19:31
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.

gromitspapa
2nd February 2008, 19:31
I see the mottling in the sky in the full res image. Here's a 100% crop:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308933/3dc.jpg




If I just resize the image, the sky looks normal. So I don't know if that mottling is normal or not.

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308929/e53.jpg




A 100% crop of the hood. Looks good to me:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308931/493.jpg




Resized:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308928/df7.jpg




The green shadow noise 100% crop. Tough circumstances, I would think:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308930/d94.jpg




The magenta area, 100% crop:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308932/1a0.jpg




Resized version:

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1308927/a07.jpg




Overall, I'm very impressed. I'd really like to see the same shots side-by-side against the Ricoh.

simonclivehughes
2nd February 2008, 19:48
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.

helgipelgi
3rd February 2008, 01:29
Much better in RAW (both 800 ISO):

RAW (http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-02/02/DP1/SDIM0840-m.jpg)

JPEG (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2008/02/02/sdim0846.jpg)

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/

helenhill
3rd February 2008, 04:35
Sorry Folks
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.
Http://www.sigma-dp1.com/
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
Cheers !:toocool:

Sun
3rd February 2008, 04:58
Looking forward to seeing some in depth reviews on this new body.

John Carolan
3rd February 2008, 08:15
More examples from a pre-production DP1 on the DPreview site now here (http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sigmadp1_preview/) I think I'm sold on this.

Maggie O
3rd February 2008, 08:31
Interesting- DPreview says the DP1 has a 4/3rds sized sensor.

simonclivehughes
3rd February 2008, 08:57
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.

Will
3rd February 2008, 12:11
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.

Terry
3rd February 2008, 12:21
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.

I think these threads just ended up here because the same people that have been interested in the GRD II, GX100, D-lux3 etc. are also interested in the DP1 and posted about it on launch.

Maggie O
3rd February 2008, 12:33
Its sensor is around the size of a 4/3rds camera, but it's not a 4/3rds camera. It might as well be here, I reckon.

Jorgen Udvang
3rd February 2008, 15:00
Interesting- DPreview says the DP1 has a 4/3rds sized sensor.

That's almost correct. The E-3 sensor is 18.0 x 13.5mm, while the DP1 (and the SD14) sensor is 20.7 x 13.8mm. The height is almost identical, but it's wider, with the traditional 35mm aspect ratio.

Will
3rd February 2008, 15:46
Strangely all the sample images on dpreview are stated to be 28mm equivalent. Have I missed something or have they just made a mistake?

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sigmadp1_preview/

Maggie O
3rd February 2008, 15:55
That's almost correct. The E-3 sensor is 18.0 x 13.5mm, while the DP1 (and the SD14) sensor is 20.7 x 13.8mm. The height is almost identical, but it's wider, with the traditional 35mm aspect ratio.

I didn't say it was identical. It is obviously a different aspect ratio.

Will
8th February 2008, 14:53
Some more samples here. Large jpg files.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/18382/las-vegas-photos/

asabet
8th February 2008, 14:59
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.

Will
8th February 2008, 15:06
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.

Maggie O
8th February 2008, 16:32
I'm sorry, but there's no way I'm going to pay $700-800 for what is basically an f4, ISO800, 4MP camera.

Mitch Alland
8th February 2008, 17:41
...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.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Sean_Reid
8th February 2008, 19:36
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.

If you look at the thread where I introduced this forum, you'll see that I expected it to cover the DP-1, as well, if that camera was ever introduced. Its not a small sensor camera but its a compact camera and one that I think will be of interest to many people who use the GR2, etc. So let's keep the discussion of it here because this is a good, active forum.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean_Reid
8th February 2008, 19:37
Strangely all the sample images on dpreview are stated to be 28mm equivalent. Have I missed something or have they just made a mistake?

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/sigmadp1_preview/

You realize its a fixed lens, right?

Sean_Reid
8th February 2008, 19:39
My mistake for starting the thread here, it may be a small camera but it is not a small sensor camera ........DOF will be as with DSLRs
see
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10123#post10123

Not a mistake at all. This forum was intended to cover the DP1 as well.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean_Reid
8th February 2008, 19:46
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>

Cheers,

Sean"


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.

Cheers,

Sean

Mitch Alland
8th February 2008, 20:23
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.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

stnami
8th February 2008, 20:42
Not a mistake at all. This forum was intended to cover the DP1 as well.

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&S

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


spirit as small sensor cameras in the sense of being small enough that it's always with the photographer. no it's about the drawing of the sensor

Mitch Alland
8th February 2008, 20:50
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.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Sean_Reid
8th February 2008, 20:50
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&S

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 sensor

Hi Imants,

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.

Cheers,

Sean

stnami
8th February 2008, 20:57
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!!!!!!!!

Sean_Reid
8th February 2008, 21:29
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.

Cheers,

Sean

jonoslack
8th February 2008, 23:57
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!!!!!!!!

LOL - toys and pram?:p
Stick around, we need some spice,

VladimirV
9th February 2008, 02:08
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.

Will
9th February 2008, 02:40
You realize its a fixed lens, right?

Yea, I had a brain storm late at night and for some reason thought it was 40mm equ lol. I wanted to delete my post but I left it to late.

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.

Maggie O
9th February 2008, 07:18
4.7MP sure seems small to me.

7ian7
9th February 2008, 08:05
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.

Robert Campbell
9th February 2008, 08:07
4.7MP sure seems small to me.

I read somewhere that the pix from the Sigma DSLR were roughly equivalent to those from an 8 MP sensor of the same size.

7ian7
9th February 2008, 08:09
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).

Maggie O
9th February 2008, 14:32
I'm dubious to the actual x3 claims that Sigma is making. I was being a bit facetious.

Has anyone compared the size of the DP1 to, say, an M8 or GR-D II? It looks like it sits somewhere in-between.

7ian7
9th February 2008, 15:22
Maggie,

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.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/tea-leaves.shtml

Cheers,
Ian

asabet
9th February 2008, 15:35
I'm dubious to the actual x3 claims that Sigma is making. I was being a bit facetious.

Has anyone compared the size of the DP1 to, say, an M8 or GR-D II? It looks like it sits somewhere in-between.

It's very slightly larger than the GRD II as you can see halfway through this video (http://capacamera.net/pma08/index.php?page=1&id=25).

Maggie O
9th February 2008, 16:11
Interesting.

I have a feeling it might be best to wait for the DP2 or at least the DP1.5.

asabet
9th February 2008, 16:46
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 (http://www.photokina-show.com/0475/sigma/information/sigmainterview/)). 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.

Player
10th February 2008, 03:21
Seems that lots of Ricoh users like to see things in such a way that the Ricoh is still better. I know better. As user of rthe GRDII, GX100 and R7, I can tell you that when you take the same (same) pictures with a Ricoh, the quality will be much less and not a little bit. You will not see blotches in the skycorner, but you will see them all over. I think people who are blaiming the DP1 now, are just doing so because they see that it is much and much better. So, little bit of honnesty is on his place here.
The Ricoh gear is so good, that I try to sell it now for few months and nobody is quite interested. Strange.

Well, the DP-1 does have to prove itself superior to the Ricoh offerings, and from the preliminary data, the Sigma doesn't seem very compelling.

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.

lucridders
10th February 2008, 04:00
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.

Cindy Flood
10th February 2008, 05:34
The Ricoh gear is so good, that I try to sell it now for few months and nobody is quite interested. Strange.

I know that a couple of Ricoh's have changed hands here on the b/s of this forum during the last month, because I bought one of them. I am very happy with my GX-100 purchase. This is off-topic to this thread, but I think that your statement is wrong.

asabet
10th February 2008, 05:54
The Ricoh gear is so good, that I try to sell it now for few months and nobody is quite interested. Strange.

It took less than a day for my GX100 to sell recently at the asking price. I have not seen your cameras for sale in the Buy & Sell forum here, nor FredMiranda or Ebay. Where are you selling, and what is your asking price for the GRD II and GX100?

gromitspapa
10th February 2008, 06:10
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 (http://www.photokina-show.com/0475/sigma/information/sigmainterview/)). 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.
It's more than that. With the Fovean sensor, the photo sites have color receptors stacked vertically, and with a wider aperture, the red sensor at the bottom of the well doesn't get the light and the red color drops out.

Lili
10th February 2008, 06:19
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.


From what you are saying it would appear that you would be far better off with a pure Point-and-Shoot. One working very well in fully automatic mode. Something that neither the GRD, GX-100 or indeed the DP-1 are designed to be. So the fault does not lie with Ricoh. Indeed you might better be served with something like a Fuji Finepix F31fd. I've found it to be very very good for general "happy snaps". Had I still had mine I would offer it in trade for your GX-100 :)
You might consider also the Finepix F50fd or the new F100fd (it has a 28mm wide end of the zoom).

edit pardon the OT wandering here, I simply saw an opportunity to be of help ;)

Lili
10th February 2008, 06:26
It's very slightly larger than the GRD II as you can see halfway through this video (http://capacamera.net/pma08/index.php?page=1&id=25).

Asabet, thank you so much for posting that video! It is indeed far smaller than I'd imagined. :thumbs:
I wish I'd more experience with the Foevon sensor (the only APS-C sensor camera I've ever used is my Pentax K100D).
Depending on price I may get a DP-1.
That is, if I don't get a GX-100 first.
I very much like my GRD and the look of the images it yields, and the work I've seen for Wouters and others using the GX is very impressive.
There is much to be said for keeping to the same interface ;)

asabet
10th February 2008, 06:56
Sure thing Lili. It's smaller than I was expecting also. Right now, Amazon has the DP1 for pre-order at $800. Ricoh should pay Wouter for all the GX100s being sold due to his excellent work!

Player
10th February 2008, 08:31
From what you are saying it would appear that you would be far better off with a pure Point-and-Shoot. One working very well in fully automatic mode. Something that neither the GRD, GX-100 or indeed the DP-1 are designed to be. So the fault does not lie with Ricoh. Indeed you might better be served with something like a Fuji Finepix F31fd. I've found it to be very very good for general "happy snaps". Had I still had mine I would offer it in trade for your GX-100 :)
You might consider also the Finepix F50fd or the new F100fd (it has a 28mm wide end of the zoom).

edit pardon the OT wandering here, I simply saw an opportunity to be of help ;)

I like your response Lili! :clap:

It's a very tactful and kind way to say "LEARN HOW TO WORK THE CAMERA ________"!

And we know how dreadful those automatic point 'n' shoots are. :ROTFL:

Me? Mince words? :toocool:

Lili
10th February 2008, 08:50
Player,
It was not my intent to 'diss' anyone.
Just giving advice.
Some people are not 'gearheads' and simply want to take a decent image of what they concieve.
My Friend to whom I gave my F31fd is one such.
She has splendid concepts but little grasp of the nut and bolts.
For her the Fuji is great, as it has superb exposure and focus in full auto mode.
It does fantastic with both flash and available light if left to its own devices.
But I wanted far more control.
With control come the chance to fail.
With failure comes the chance to learn.

7ian7
10th February 2008, 09:01
For what it offers (on paper), the DP1 is truly tiny. I think (hope) that once we see real shooters working it, the images it produces will generate a lot more excitement about its potential than what we've seen so far.

As much as many of us love our current Ricohs, greater resolution in small cameras is a positive development. I hope that somewhere down the line we'll see offerings that address this need from Ricoh and from other manufacturers, whatever the technology necessary to achieve it turns out to be.

The M8 is a beautiful camera, but quite a financial commitment, and I've always had a difficult —*terrible — time manually focussing rangefinders, more than most people, I'm sure. So for me, my desire to own it because of the glass and design is besides the point — it really doesn't make sense. I'm interested in a rumored Nikon digital rangefinder, but have never actually seen an article about it, just hearsay.

Anyway, if the DP1 turns out to be good, at $800 it will be pretty compelling.

Lili
10th February 2008, 09:34
For what it offers (on paper), the DP1 is truly tiny. I think (hope) that once we see real shooters working it, the images it produces will generate a lot more excitement about its potential than what we've seen so far.

As much as many of us love our current Ricohs, greater resolution in small cameras is a positive development. I hope that somewhere down the line we'll see offerings that address this need from Ricoh and from other manufacturers, whatever the technology necessary to achieve it turns out to be.

The M8 is a beautiful camera, but quite a financial commitment, and I've always had a difficult —*terrible — time manually focussing rangefinders, more than most people, I'm sure. So for me, my desire to own it because of the glass and design is besides the point — it really doesn't make sense. I'm interested in a rumored Nikon digital rangefinder, but have never actually seen an article about it, just hearsay.

Anyway, if the DP1 turns out to be good, at $800 it will be pretty compelling.

Ian, I couldn't agree more

wbrandsma
10th February 2008, 09:40
Sure thing Lili. It's smaller than I was expecting also. Right now, Amazon has the DP1 for pre-order at $800. Ricoh should pay Wouter for all the GX100s being sold due to his excellent work!

Thank you Amin. I was suprised and flattered when I read your post. Thank you again!

Player
10th February 2008, 10:02
Player,
It was not my intent to 'diss' anyone.
Just giving advice.
Some people are not 'gearheads' and simply want to take a decent image of what they concieve.
My Friend to whom I gave my F31fd is one such.
She has splendid concepts but little grasp of the nut and bolts.
For her the Fuji is great, as it has superb exposure and focus in full auto mode.
It does fantastic with both flash and available light if left to its own devices.
But I wanted far more control.
With control come the chance to fail.
With failure comes the chance to learn.

"Some people are not 'gearheads' and simply want to take a decent image of what they conceive."

TRANSLATION: Some people haven't been able to figure-out how to work a simple little camera, and they're stuck with what the camera gives them. ;)

"She has splendid concepts but little grasp of the nut and bolts."

TRANSLATION: She doesn't know an f-stop from a shutter speed, but the lamp posts seeming to grow out of her subject's heads are very creative. ;)

"For her the Fuji is great, as it has superb exposure and focus in full auto mode."

TRANSLATION: For her (not knowing her a** from her elbow), the Fuji does a perfectly good job of ruining the exposures for her. ;)

"It does fantastic with both flash and available light if left to its own devices."

TRANSLATION: The images are truly horrific with both flash and available light, but much better than when she is left to her own devices. ;)

Seriously Lili, I'm just being silly, and no offense intended. :toocool:

I hope I'm not in trouble now. :angel:

7ian7
10th February 2008, 10:38
Wow, I didn't get that at all from Lili's post.

I'm frequently transfixed by the beauty of images made by non-professionals using cameras that are entirely automatic.

The GX100 doesn't excel in that arena, so the Fuji sounds like a generous recommendation; an inexpensive alternative for those not committed to RAW, who are interested in hassle-free snapping.

Lili
10th February 2008, 10:47
Wow, I didn't get that at all from Lili's post.

I'm frequently transfixed by the beauty of images made by non-professionals using cameras that are entirely automatic.

The GX100 doesn't excel in that arena, so the Fuji sounds like a generous recommendation; an inexpensive alternative for those not committed to RAW, who are interested in hassle-free snapping.

Ian,
Your take is correct.
Eileen does some lovely work with her Fuji.
For me my GRD is much better fit.

Player
10th February 2008, 11:54
Wow, I didn't get that at all from Lili's post.

Just satire. Sometimes attempts at humor are risky. :cry:

woodyspedden
10th February 2008, 12:01
How could you not be in trouble with such a pointed and negative response.

If you have suggestions as to how she may better understand the technicalities of photography instead of dissing her for her "deficiencies" then you will have helped someone instead of putting them down.

All in all a sad statement about inflated egos

Woody Spedden

Sean_Reid
10th February 2008, 12:24
Sean, if you've spent any time with it, I'd be curious about your experiences (and anyone else's).

I haven't yet but I'm looking forward to it.

Cheers,

Sean

Player
10th February 2008, 12:35
How could you not be in trouble with such a pointed and negative response.

If you have suggestions as to how she may better understand the technicalities of photography instead of dissing her for her "deficiencies" then you will have helped someone instead of putting them down.

All in all a sad statement about inflated egos

Woody Spedden

Was this directed at me? If so, lighten up!

I'm shocked at the negativity towards me.

I'm seeing sad statements about people taking themselves WAY too seriously.

I wasn't dissing anyone, and certainly not Lili. I have no idea who she was talking about, and I know that Lili meant exactly what she said.

Hey, I thought it was humorous, that's all. Nothing more and nothing less.

Sean_Reid
10th February 2008, 12:35
Just a reminder...and I speak generally here...for now <G>

This is a friendly forum about photography. We can be confident that anyone who trolls, cannot respect the rules etc. will be warned and/or banned. So I would encourage people not to get pulled in by the various kinds of bait that often gets put out on forums. It can end up being a waste of time both for the people who get pulled into it and for anyone trying to read a given thread.

As for any personal disagreements that really aren't about photography - don't forget that PMs and e-mails are great ways to have private conversations that really should be *private* conversations.

Jack and Guy are not at their computers 24/7 but they get things sorted out as needed as soon as they get a chance. And let's remember that we all treat each other respectfully here.

Cheers,

Sean

Player
10th February 2008, 12:47
Just a reminder...and I speak generally here...for now <G>

This is a friendly forum about photography. We can be confident that anyone who trolls, cannot respect the rules etc. will be warned and/or banned. So I would encourage people not to get pulled in by the various kinds of bait that often gets put out on forums. It can end up being a waste of time both for the people who get pulled into it and for anyone trying to read a given thread.

As for any personal disagreements that really aren't about photography - don't forget that PMs and e-mails are great ways to have private conversations that really should be *private* conversations.

Jack and Guy are not at their computers 24/7 but they get things sorted out as needed as soon as they get a chance. And let's remember that we all treat each other respectfully here.

Cheers,

Sean

Don't worry, nothing needs to be sorted out. It is what it is.

Here I was just trying to add a little humor to a very droll thread hoping I had hit someone's funny bone. Apparently I missed the mark. Oh well, live and learn. No disrespect intended.

Guy Mancuso
10th February 2008, 12:55
Hi everyone just walked in the door from driving all day with Jack from Moab so just catching up here . First off everyone let's settle down a little here . I already had several complaints on Stanmi and Lucridders and following our policy with regards to complaints and such and past history both of them have been removed from the forum. We simply had no choice and i had to do it on a Iphone driving home. Not my idea of fun folks. This camera has caused a stir around here from what I can gather and it seems to stem from where it should reside. frankly i have no idea if this belongs in 4/3rds or Small sensor. For now let's post about it in other camera's and we can figure out it's home and can move it to it's real home after we figure out where it belongs . LOL. I am going to just close this thread , just because it makes sense to me and I maybe wrong but i just think it is a good idea. Peace and harmony rule the day on this forum and we all know how much we like that here on this forum so from my seat just seems the right thing to do. i edited some comments and such but I'm too tired to deal with it now. I think after i had to ban two people from this thread alone enough is enough and let's just move on to something more important. Sorry if you disagree with my actions but we have close to 600 members and Jack and I will do what is best for the members at large. Enjoy the rest of the weekend and let's start this camera off on a better foot. Thanks Guy

Also thanks to Sean and others that have sent PM's and reports to us. This is important and we appreciate it very much, Jack and I have just finished our Moab workshop and we were very busy teaching and shooting so we were a little left out on the forum at large so we are sorry we could not react a little faster to this issue with these two individuals. Frankly they both knew the score when signing up and it's there own doing.