Your math is good, but like all financial analyses, the devil is in the assumptions. Specifically, I really question whether Sigma could sell 900,000 units of this camera at $650 - a price we know is a lot of bang for the buck, but I doubt the average consumer would appreciate.

Right, its just demonstrating the concept.

I don't have any data on what their actual demand/price curves look like.

But I do know Sigma is terrible at pricing things!

FlyPenFly wrote:

But I do know Sigma is terrible at pricing things!

Sorry, I was taking your example too literally.

As far as Sigma being terrible at pricing, I couldn't agree more when it comes to their cameras.

Jeff Kott wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:

But I do know Sigma is terrible at pricing things!

Sorry, I was taking your example too literally.

As far as Sigma being terrible at pricing, I couldn't agree more when it comes to their cameras.


+1

After all, we all remember the original price of the SD1....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

But how many people are actually prepared to buy a DP2? It's a very specialized camera and absolutely not made for average Joe. Upside with that for the producer - you can charge a premium price. Downside? You miss the volume market.

This thing would not sell in millions millions even if it was priced at $200 USD. It's only a fraction of the camera buyers that values what this does good.

OTOH I believe Sigma is missing most buyers not of pricing, but of the suckiness of the camera. I'd love a fixed focal length camera with an awesome lens and sensor, but if it comes at the price of being extremely sluggish and awkward to use, no thanks. Heck, if Sony/NIkon/Canon or whatever had used the lens/sensor combo, price would not be an issue at all for me personally.

I could forgive the poor battery life, terrible ISO, and even limited dynamic range if it didn't exhibit flickr like crunchiness, weird colors, strange repeating digital mosaic patterns, and strange outlines on high contrast borders such as a sky line. The files have high pixel level detail but at the expense of strange imaging artifacts.

JonasY wrote:
But how many people are actually prepared to buy a DP2? It's a very specialized camera and absolutely not made for average Joe. Upside with that for the producer - you can charge a premium price. Downside? You miss the volume market.

This thing would not sell in millions millions even if it was priced at $200 USD. It's only a fraction of the camera buyers that values what this does good.

OTOH I believe Sigma is missing most buyers not of pricing, but of the suckiness of the camera. I'd love a fixed focal length camera with an awesome lens and sensor, but if it comes at the price of being extremely sluggish and awkward to use, no thanks. Heck, if Sony/NIkon/Canon or whatever had used the lens/sensor combo, price would not be an issue at all for me personally.

that's how this discussion started - if the camera cost sigma the same but was a good at everything camera, would it be better for sigma to just charge more or go for the larger market.

I'd probably buy one of these if it weren't for the general poor quality of the camera and software. The price is fine. A few more iterations and refinement, some cooperation with third party raw converters, and Sigma could have something really interesting on their hands.

Have anyone tried to do some long exposure with DP2M? How does that performs in such area?

Max shutter time is 30 seconds and there is no bulb/timer mode so your rather limited on just how long of exposure you can do with it.

Haven't tried anything long myself yet, but the results I've seen of 5+ seconds on waterfalls etc looks good still.

Same on the time limit though as I rather enjoy using 10 stop ND's. 30 seconds is bad though for probably 95% of what I'd shoot, but I do like those several minute exposures sometimes

I don't know if that is based upon a limitation of the sensor, or just another example of Sigma's lack of camera design/photographically useful features.

Anyone know if the SD1 dslr can do longer exposures ?

itai195 wrote:
I'd probably buy one of these if it weren't for the general poor quality of the camera and software. The price is fine. A few more iterations and refinement, some cooperation with third party raw converters, and Sigma could have something really interesting on their hands.

I have to agree. As I eye this camera and read the reviews, I am shocked at how awful a camera is built around this amazing sensor. Lens aside, the list of deficiencies is enormous. Add into that equation the god awful software and you have to be a veritable masochist to want to shoot with this camera! The IQ seems top notch, I just dont understand why Sigma cant build a proper camera around it.

Take the battery life for example. Truly appalling. Why not include a more powerful battery? A camera like the DP2 is not an every day camera. Certainly not like a compact is. So why does it have to be so small? Would people stop buying it if it were larger like a Fujifilm X100 or X Pro 1? I doubt that would affect sales at all, plus you get a much better battery life.

Why not make the camera with an f/2 lens? Since high ISO numbers destroy the IQ of this camera, give folks 1 extra stop of lens to help keep ISO levels down. If the X100 can have an F2 lens, why not the DP2?

I find it surprisingly how many people bash the overall quality of the camera but that I doubt have ever actually picked one up.

Its actually a very solid build and nicely made IMHO. The quality of the lens is second to none, and the AF, while not blazing fast, seems quite accurate, which on the camera like this is far more important IMHO.

As for a f2 lens ? Don't think it needs it nor would it really make a difference most of the time. Building a faster lens could compromise the excellent optical quality of the 30mm f2.8, in addition to probably adding some additional size/cost, for little real world advantage as this is simply a base ISO camera.

Don't get me wrong, a faster lens is great in many situations, such as being able to shoot handheld at night at ISO3200 instead of 6400, but the DP2M your going to want at base ISO. Its not really an issue of being able to shoot at 400 vs 800, because your not going to want to shoot at either.

If you want to shoot it at slower shutter speeds handheld, its just the wrong camera. Its really no different than a LF camera, does it really matter how fast the lens is ? Usually not because everyone is working from a tripod these days, which unless its bright midday sun, where the DP2M belongs as well.

There just isn't any real point in shooting a camera that you bought just for its maximum IQ at anything less than base ISO/and or with good support. Otherwise your not going to get the best results and then whats the point ?

If you want a fast focusing camera, with good battery life, a faster f2.0 lens and great high ISO ability, then something like the RX1 makes a ton more sense.

Camera like the RX1 and DP2M are as different as you can get really, other than both are a compact size.

Can't really compare the DP2M to most cameras because it just does one thing, and does it very well.

There is no real point wishing for faster lenses, tracking AF etc.

Trying to use it for anything else is really kind of silly IMHO.

I'm never, ever, going to try to use the DP2m as a general snapshot camera.

I'm never going to try to take some handheld night cityscapes at ISO800 with it.

Bottom line as I see it is if you can't accept, and afford to purchase it as a very, very specific use tool, and can't be okay with that type of limitation on something you spent $1000 on, your going to be unhappy.

It really is just like buying a 4x5 LF camera.

No one buys a 4x5 with any thoughts of using it for anything other than landscape, architecture or studio work these days. Would just be silly to do so and as a result, that is why most people don't want one, don't own one.

I have a 4x5 Toyo though and I like it.

Its never been shot without its tripod, and I've never tried to shoot moving subjects etc with it, never wished for a faster lens, or anything.

It simply is what it is, just like the DP2m.

Really though when your standing out in the woods shooting a static scene though, do you care about AF ? Do you want a stop faster lens ? No, its just about the IQ, which is the one area where the camera delivers.


I'll admit though that I do wish it could have a cable release instead of having to use the timer button.

Other than that, it simply is what is and that is a unique high quality tool for shooting pretty pictures of things that don't move lol

well, shortcomings aside, I just ordered one. Damn.

This camera along with the NEX 7 means the end of 35mm gear for me. There is something so medium format about the Sigma images, I had Mamiya 645 gear years ago and I have looked at the images provided in this thread and my drum scanned Velvia images and the Sigma easily holds up to those, and in my eyes, actually exceeds the scans. Wow.

This will be my landscape cam, I know the limitations of the software (but scanning MF film is also a PITA). Also know I will be stitching to get a wider FOV, but color me sold.

Thanks. 30s is actually what I (reasonably) hope to get from a compact... I seldom do several minutes long exposure... in such dark places, I think focus would be a big problem for DP2M (I suppose AF won't work and I guess DP2M MF is "focus by wire" --no hard stop infinity).

How about long exposure NR? Is that compulsory ? Is the results good if it is turned off?
Sorry so many questions

Why not make the camera with an f/2 lens?
f2 would definitely make the DP2M sounds more interesting but sounds like the DP2M is better on tripod when light is dim so one might as well use even slower than 2.8..

A little difficult to choose between DP1M or DP2M....

Yakim Peled wrote:
sculptormic wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Ultimately, it seems so far it's a great idea with terrible execution.

This seems like good summary. If I may, I'd revise it a little by saying that it looks like a great sensor inside a terrible camera.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Very easy and wrong conclusion.

It is actually quiet a sturdy and straightforward designed camera. The AF is rather good. The lens is great.
The buffer is quiet good. It is like a Hasselblad in your pocket for €999,-

At least you upgraded from "a great idea" to "a great sensor" The potency of this sensor is (already) extraordinary. Counting 50 mb, the files must carry a lot of information.
It takes a lot of PP for me to get my NEX-7 files halfway near it in sharpness and crispyness. I am looking forward to use it on a tripod with panohead.

This camera is not ment for fast photojournalists and yes it is not (yet) a low light camera. It needs some carefull handling and time to get the best out of it.

But nobody is obliged to buy it, but to come to such simple conclusions without ever actually using one is a bit simplistic at least.


Think of it this way - Would you or anyone else buy it if it had a regular sensor, e.g. Sony's 16MP which is considered by many to be a great APS-C sensor? I think that most will answer 'No' to that question. They are willing to put up with all the handicaps this camera imposes on you just because of the output of the sensor. Hence, I still think that my definition is correct.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


Yakim

Compared to a Nex 5n, the dp2m autofocus is slower but more precise (that counts for me).
The dp2m offers a mulitple exposure mode from -3 to +3 EV, great for HDR. The Nex 5n does not.
The dp2m offers ISO in 1/3 steps.
The dp2m with it's control wheel and buttons, handles way better than the nex5n. I never have to go to the menue system.
The dp2m has a hot shoe. I have a bulb spirit level in mine. Essential for me.
The dp2m lens is world class and optimized for the sensor. e.g. the Contax Zeiss G28 Biogon on the Nex 5n is not on the same level.

Advantage of the Nex5n is the tilt option of the lcd.
Option for a remote control (with the dp2m you have to use the 2 sec selftimer)
Option for an EVF
Better battery live. The dp2m can use cheap third party batteries. So bring plenty (3 stacked dp2m batteries have the size of a Nex 5n battery)

And as already discussed, the image detail of the dp2m is on a medium/large format level. High ISO of the Nex 5n is better. The nex 5n is the better allrounder, and the dp2m is a medim format (coat) pocket camera.

It boils down, to what tool you need at the moment, and convenience angainst image quality.

But to make it clear, the camera body is in many points better than the Nex 5n.
The sensor/lens combination is outstanding.

Nonsense. An f/2 lens will allow you to shoo at base ISO in more situations than an f/2.8 lens. Further, there are plenty of extremely sharp f/2 lenses.

Glacierpete, have you compared the DP2M to the Sigma 30 on the Nex-7?

rattymouse wrote:
itai195 wrote:
I'd probably buy one of these if it weren't for the general poor quality of the camera and software. The price is fine. A few more iterations and refinement, some cooperation with third party raw converters, and Sigma could have something really interesting on their hands.

I have to agree. As I eye this camera and read the reviews, I am shocked at how awful a camera is built around this amazing sensor. Lens aside, the list of deficiencies is enormous. Add into that equation the god awful software and you have to be a veritable masochist to want to shoot with this camera! The IQ seems top notch, I just dont understand why Sigma cant build a proper camera around it.

Take the battery life for example. Truly appalling. Why not include a more powerful battery? A camera like the DP2 is not an every day camera. Certainly not like a compact is. So why does it have to be so small? Would people stop buying it if it were larger like a Fujifilm X100 or X Pro 1? I doubt that would affect sales at all, plus you get a much better battery life.

Why not make the camera with an f/2 lens? Since high ISO numbers destroy the IQ of this camera, give folks 1 extra stop of lens to help keep ISO levels down. If the X100 can have an F2 lens, why not the DP2?



"the list of deficiencies is enormous" Actually NOT when you work with it

The camera is fine. It handles in many regards better than a Nex5n.
I can very well live with an excellent 2.8 lens. It is tack sharp wide open and has a very nice bokeh. 2.0 would make it bigger and introduce more optical compromises.
The lens is better than a Leica 50 Summicron (no asp) or Zeiss Contax G 28. It is really as good as it gets. Fully optimized for this sensor.

The software is the weakest point at the moment. I hope that it will be supported by CaptureOne and Lightroom soon.

rattymouse wrote:

Nonsense. An f/2 lens will allow you to shoo at base ISO in more situations than an f/2.8 lens. Further, there are plenty of extremely sharp f/2 lenses.




Rattymouse, it is a rangefinder lens. The lens on the body is very small, it goes deep into the camera body and sits nearly on the sensor. To construct a digital sensor/lens combination to perform here with out corner softness and color shift is a master piece. The nex 5n, and more the higher resolving nex 7 have their problems with range finder lenses.
That is the reason why even Leica had to code it's lenses to get some in body correction running on their digital Leica M's.

The only comparable extremly sharp 28mm 2.0 rangerfinder lens, I am aware of, would be the LEICA Summicron 28mm f/2 ASPH. (Price: $4,295 without body)
Or in case you really want a 2.0 lens fixed on a body you might want to look into the Sony DSC-RX1 for 3x the price.

glacierpete wrote:
the image detail of the dp2m is on a medium/large format level

Are you saying that it is better than full-frame 35mm sensor? (say, D600)