[Leica] OT: Sigma DP1 review

[leica at screengang.com (Didier Ludwig)]

Agree with Nathan.

The DP1 was announced as a pocket camera with a DSLR quality sensor - which 
made it interesting for many of us - but, in it's price category, it can 
neither compete with any newer dslr in terms of picture quality nor with any 
newer mid/upperclass point&shooter in terms of handling and speed. Not to 
mention a lens that is "prone to flare" and "quite heavy vignetting at F4" 
(I would have thought they had chosen the relatively slow aperture just to 
get rid of these issues). Considering the fact dpreview is giving a "Highly 
Recommended" in at least every second of it's reviews (if not more), then 
the "Above Average" they gave the DP1 must be hinting a barrel burst.

Like Steve, I also consider the E-420 w/Pancake as a much better solution 
for a compact digital camera - even if it's slightly bigger - but for a bit 
more than half of the DP1 price, and with other advantages like exchangeable 
lens and Live-View.

Didier

PS: If slowness is nice, then my Petri Color 35, Kiev 4AM and Mamiya 645 do 
fit my slowness needs perfectly enough!... :-) 


At 20:43 20.05.2008, you wrote:
>Well, the whole reason why many people got excited about the DP1 was  
>that it had a sensor similar to 4/3, i.e. much bigger than the  
>typical P&S camera has. Therefore, one had the right to expect that  
>it would perform on a level similar to the 4/3 cameras or the 1.6  
>sensor DSLRs, which clearly is not the case. And when is slow nice?  
>Certainly not when trying to do street photography, or any other  
>photography for that matter. When I had the GRD, one of the most  
>unbearable things about it was that it took 5-6 seconds to write a  
>RAW file to the card. From the review, it seems that the Sigma is  
>even worse in that regards.
>Forget it.
>Nathan
>
>On 20-mei-2008, at 7:57, mehrdad wrote:
>>Didier, this camera  is still more advanced than the R-d1! it is not a
>>5fps camera but it is quite nice. it is slow but sometimes slow is
>>nice. raw or jpeg? always raw!! not good in low light, which camera in
>>this class is? see if u can test drive one.