{} {} {} {} {} {} APS-H sensor, 25.5MP native resolution, or up to 51MP mode; "SFD" mode, something like Pentax's sensor shift hi-res; possibly Sigma SA mount, dual back screen, 3 inch 1.62MP + info screen; dual TUREIII processors; CDAF+PDAF; focus peaking.
Kind of cool concept... but why are their cameras always so weird looking... their lenses look absolutely normal!
In sd Quattro and sd Quattro H, the size of the image sensor is different. sd Quattro is the so-called APS-C equivalent to the size (23.4 × 15.5mm), sd Quattro H is APS-H equivalent to the size (26.6 × 17.9mm). The actual recording angle of view, sd Quattro is the focal length from about 1.5 times the equivalent of the lens notation, sd Quattro H is about 1.3 times equivalent. Aspect ratio are both 3: 2. The number of effective pixels is, sd Quattro is about 29 million pixels (up to 5,424 × 3,616 pixels, the top layer 1,960 million pixels). This number is dp Quattro series equivalent. sd Quattro H is about 4,480 million pixels (up to 6,200 × 4,152 pixels, the top layer 25.5 million pixels).
true, but I must say their differentiation works in a good way, it's like anyone who sees this camera will know that it does things like no other, I guess the same can be said for Lytro. as for Sigma lenses, they look normal because they need to be sold to C/N/S owners, though I still remember how the focusing element wobbles inside 19 & 60 2.8 when not powered, they never are any normal...
I really like what Sigma is doing in the industry. Their lenses are top notch and their cameras, while polarizing, exhibit a sleek modern minimalism in my opinion. While more traditional looking than the others and perhaps not terribly ergonomic, the Merrill series were beautiful chunky blocks of metal. I like the the Quattro fixed lens cameras as well - the matte finish, the simple buttons with easily readable text and their nicely displayed menus. I've always been tempted by the Sigmas but I shoot a lot of high ISO images and have moved away from spending hours post processing images in front of a PC, so they wouldn't be the best fit for me unfortunately.
So close Sigma! Why do you make a mirrorless camera but with the Sigma SA mount? Why not make it an E-mount and use your new E-SA AF mount adapter? I know this means that people will buy your lenses rather than adapting, but adapting is such a joyful part of the process, especially when you're dealing with a camera system that has notoriously slow AF anyway and you're using it for deliberate photography... That said, I imagine this will produce outstanding image quality. The APS-H version will probably outperform any other camera on the market for resolution, though the Pentax K1 will be a strong rival in tripod-mounted circumstances with sensor shift...
Interesting, not sure whether to applaud or laugh at Sigmas desire to be different when it comes to design. For one, that viewfinder looks too far to the right which for righteye eyeglass wearers probably means alot of marks on your glasses from the back of you thumb, and no idea how a left eyed shooter would even use it. The general design is so different I really don't know if it could be better or worse.
They usually get amazing IQ packed into often infuriating bodies, lol. I will get around to owning a Dp1M one day.
An interesting concept, but as a former APS-H owner (Canon 1D Mark III) there's one thing most people don't think about: NO LENS is made for APS-H, and that can be very infuriating, especially if you want to go wide. APS-C lenses generally won't fit (or will vignette) and full frame lenses never quite get wide enough. My 16-35L II turned into a 21-46mm. I've always found this to be the greatest downfall of APS-H.
Sigma has a 12-24, though, so that's 15.6mm equivalent. I would presume an APS-C crop mode would be available (Easy on mirrorless) and then you could use an 8-16mm for 12mm equiv.
