Sigma DP2 Camera - New Sensor

[Henry Gentles]

New type of sensor with higher resolution. Check out the photos here.

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-dp2-test-shoot?utm_source=Sigma+Corp+of+America&utm_campaign=9aca34b07a-dp2_Quattro_Test_Shoot_View_the_Gallery7_5_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34bfa8ccd3-9aca34b07a-50814017

[maxotics]

Hi Henry, I'm long-time Sigma user.  Here's my review

 

http://maxotics.com/?p=350

 

Mercifully, they're removed video from the camera.  This sensor is a somewhat bastardization of their original Foveon designs.  In order to increase detail they split the top layer, blue I believe, into four pixels per 1 pixel of red and green below.  I didn't test against my Merrill, but others have found what I suspected, you lose a little color microcontrast, though gain some speed.  

 

If anyone here is interested in getting a medium format image quality at ISO 100, and you can work slow, like in the film days, these are cameras worth having.  The lenses alone are generally what an interchangable prime lens of the same quality would cost so you get the body for free.  So if you see a used DP1S, X or M, or DP2S, X M (the 1 is around 28mm and the 2 is about 42mm), give them a try.  For architectural photography a DP1 simply cannot be beat IMHO.  Also, the Sigma software you have to use to process the X3F RAW files is slow and horrible.  But again a real 3D look.

[Henry Gentles]

Thanks Max! Had no idea about this camera, just thought the pics looked pretty good and thought it might be reasonable?

[jgharding]

I have a DP3 Merrill, it's lovely. Oh, I mean the images are lovely, it's a pig you have to wrestle with, as is the Sigma Photo Pro software, which i believe is steam powered.

 

I hate what they've done here with the new models, made a sort of half foveon. Why not just up the processor speed and card write speed and buffer, and keep proper, true film like Foveon X3?

 

They've created a compromise, rather than pushing the most promising photographic technology out there. It makes me sad. BOO! Grow some nuts, Sigma!

[Nikkor]

I wonder if you could hack open one of these and glue a nikon speedbooster on it -> 1337

[jgharding]

Someone in china will sell you M, EF and Nikon mount ones:

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/02/sigma-dp-cameras-hacked-to-play-nicely-with-leica-m-lenses/

[leeys]

I hate what they've done here with the new models, made a sort of half foveon. Why not just up the processor speed and card write speed and buffer, and keep proper, true film like Foveon X3?

 

They've created a compromise, rather than pushing the most promising photographic technology out there. It makes me sad. BOO! Grow some nuts, Sigma!

I think it was necessary to keep up with the high ISO capability that other cameras can do. I recall Foveon cameras pretty much stink once it hits ISO 800 - the three layers don't do the light sensitivity thing very well.

[Julian]

The new camera still is crap above iso 400. That's not the point of the camera though. Compare it with old CCD medium format cameras. They are bad at high iso's too.

[Quirky]

The new camera still is crap above iso 400. That's not the point of the camera though. Compare it with old CCD medium format cameras. They are bad at high iso's too.

 

indeed. Or think of it as the equivalent of Kodachrome 64. Back in the film days Kodachrome was popular and kept its devoted users until the digital age, even though the mainstream was using mostly ISO 100 to 800 films, and Kodachrome was more expensive and slower to process than the mainstream films. That didn't stop the Kodachrome users from buying and using it. 

You bought a roll of Kodachrome in your camera fully aware of its nature, but you still chose to load it in your camera, fully aware of its nature. The end result was worth the extra effort. There were eager users for Ektachrome and Velvia 50, too, which needed about a half a stop more light still. Not to mention the few crazy ones who used Kodachrome 25. 

 

Now that's a bit extreme, especially towards the end of the film era, but not every photographic product needs to be just like everything else.

[leeys]

Eh, thought they'd improve it, since I recall reading somewhere about Sigma wanting to keep up. I guess they meant that in other ways.