The World's Shortest Camera Review: The Sigma DP2

It pains me to write this. It really does. In so many ways, Sigma has made a valiant effort to create the kind of camera I first called for four years ago, and that I think is still needed in the marketplace: the DP2 is a true compact, with a fixed lens of highly utilitarian focal length and acceptable lens speed, yet with a DSLR-sized sensor. Compliments of a generous reader (thanks again, T.J.!), I had a chance to shoot with a DP2 for a few days last week.

My reaction could be confined to the two sentences in the second-to-last paragraph of this post, except that would be the world's shortest camera review.

The good news is that Sigma did two of the most important things very well: the lens in this camera is superb, and the sensor's image quality is beguiling. Despite one or two minor IQ oddities that I consider basically inconsequential, the overall look of the image files is distinctive and remarkably pleasing. These two important parameters are good enough that for some people, the results that are possible could be worth putting up with the camera. In some ways, DP2 images look better than what I get from my DSLRs.

The bad news is that the camera is slow. I mean like 2002 all over again.

The only way to get good shutter responsiveness in AF mode is to pre-focus, but as soon as the action around you fires up to more than leisurely-stroll-level, pre-focusing seems to take forever. It takes so long that you can't even pre-focus directly on moderately fast moving subjects, because the subject moves before the camera can lock on to it! As for throughput...well, when a camera uses an hourglass symbol to indicate progress writing a single picture to the card and you find yourself not infrequently watching that hourglass symbol as you wait to take the next shot....

The DP2 is a camera that would virtually force you to work out a method that it's capable of and that's acceptable to you in order for you to use it, virtually to the point that it would dictate the kind of subject matter you could use it for. At least comfortably. If you shoot almost exclusively static subjects at middle distances or greater, it could work. Sean Reid describes using it with a clip-on optical viewfinder for medium-distance subjects outdoors, guesstimating focus distance with the handy manual-focusing wheel. (In my past experience, this works reasonably well at middle apertures for subjects farther away from us than we are tall, roughly—with practice. For closer subjects, like maybe four or five feet on in, you often need more exact focus, so you'd either need to be really good at the aforementioned guesstimation or switch to AF.) You'll also be better off shooting JPEG, so the camera has a chance to keep up with you. Shooting raw with the DP2 is like walking holding hands with a three-year-old: it's just gonna slow you down.

For me, the camera's egregious lack of responsiveness makes it a non-starter. Workarounds are all well and good, but I would just prefer to have a camera that works better.

I wanted to like the Sigma DP2. I really did. But it's like a tripod with two legs: what's missing overwhelms what's done well. I have to call a personal verdict of "not recommended."

Mike
(Thanks to Ted Johnson)

Send this post to a friend

UPDATE: I just found out the camera I used last week did not have the latest firmware, which is said to improve AF speed. So add a grain of salt—or another one, if you disagree with what I said—to my comments about that.  —Mike

Featured Comment by Colin Work: "The problem with workarounds with the DP2 (and many other cameras) is that they were not designed to support this.

"Old film cameras were designed for manual focus and a pleasure to use in this way as well as being quick.

"When technology works well, great, but when it doesn't, trying to work around it is generally worse than not having the technology at all—try retuning a modern TV when you've lost the remote!

"For me, the best cameras (old and new) are those which reduce the need to take the camera into consideration when shooting. An old manual film camera achieves an almost perfect level of 'transparency'—it works pretty much exactly as fast as you can think and react.

"Very few DSLRs in my experience can match this...my 1D3 comes close, but even then I occasionally have to make a focus point change when it 'mis-locks.'

"From what I read, the DP2 has nothing like the level of transparency I would want. Yes, IQ is very important—but of no value whatsoever if the critical moment is missed.

"I think we will wait a long time for the perfect DMD—not because it can't be made, but because the manufacturers will not risk bringing a stripped down, feature-limited camera to market. We may get a usable DMD, but only by using a sub-section of an otherwise highly spec'd (and priced) camera."

Comments

[erlik]

Well, the shortest review would have certainly been "it sucks". I know you are too much of a gentleman to write something like that, though.

[Bryce Lee]

Sort of an either or, but not both scenario.

As to the three year old child...
you've been there as I recall.

[Cateto/Jose]

This is an evidence demonstrating that long reviews are not necessarily more informative, Mike.

To say that you nailed it would be more than understatement (in more than one sense!).

[Ken Sky]

And you forgot the "elephant in the room" - the Olympus E-P1 which makes it redundant. I'm not saying the latter camera is perfect, but at least it's responsive with a similar IQ and form.

[conrad schneider]

Here's a suggestion for your ideal DMD camera. Take a Canon G10, add up to an inch in height and up to an inch an a half in width and put in a full size sensor. Charge up to double. If for that price you also can offer me few tweaks, 3 fps, better glass, better viewfinder, etc., then great. If you need to ditch the video to do so, good riddance. Now is that too freaking hard for these masterminds at the manufacturers?!

I laid hands on the EP1 this weekend (courtesy of a big NYC retailer) and it is really no more pocketable than the hypothetical one described above and - call me a sucker for knobs - far less quickly adaptable. Seems like an object, not a tool.

[Dibutil Ftalat]

A camera for Japanese retired gentlemen to take pictures of tranquil Japanese landscapes with low bulk and great quality. If I were to live in Japan I would certainly get one (once retired).

[John Camp]

My daughter is visiting this week, and took the two kids (toddler, new baby) over to visit their great-grandmother, and I got to watch her work with a Canon G10. It's small, responsive, has a nice zoom, good ISO performance and resolution for what it is -- a small sensor design --and makes decent small prints of the kind people pass around. If Sigma had duplicated just a few pieces of that, you would have had your DMD. The astonishing thing is that *it's all there* in different cameras, and across the photo blogosphere, pretty much everybody agrees on what is needed (a G10 with a larger sensor.) So what's the problem?

[Rubén]

The D-P1 with a wide-angle lens is faster in some sense: you can prefocus it...

[Darrell Marquette]

Sounds like a piece of junk. Why not just use a good 35mm film camera.

[Bill Corbett]

I must know quite a bit less even than I originally thought I knew (which was very little) about the technical challenges involved in creating a small, good IQ camera which functions smoothly!

How can a company, which has already made one attempt (DP1), and surely would have had to be aware of its shortcomings, produce another camera with almost the same shortcomings as the first, at least with respect to performance?

I don't understand...

[Tom K.]

Really a shame. I had such hopes for this camera.

[Keith B.]

Just recently, I held in my hand for the first time a DP-1, a camera I had plans to acquire before the scathing reviews started. I noticed one overwhelming sensation: It's slippery. Lame, lame, lame.

[JCdeR]

Absolutely right, for a combination of good images and speed you need a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad at least ....... fast and speedy contraptions, made for speed and optimal imagry....

[Britton]

You must be fair however. Sigma has never said the DPx series was for action shooting (where rapid focusing is important). It is a camera targeted at people wanting top image quality and are looking to capture the emotion in a scene. The DPx series does this extremely well.

Having personally shot over 10,000 images with my DP1 (which is not as fast as the DP2), I can say that for me and others like me, it is a great fit. I could have shot the same 10,000 shots with a faster, feature laden camera but I would have been so disappointed in the resultant image quality.

After all the shooting is done, what is left? The image. I want it to be the best possible.

No camera will fit everybody's style. Obviously, the DP2 did not suit your style. does that make it a bad camera? No, it just means it's not the right one for you.

[Bojidar]

Hope the Olympus Pen is better!

[Gary Mortensen]

Mike -
Your conclusion is pretty well in line with everything else I've read about this camera which, on paper, is very attractive to me. What I just don't get is why the AF on the DP2 isn't a lot better. My mid-nineties $500 Hexar AF has really fast, really accurate AF regardless of light level. I can understand that implementing an AF system in a zoom lens camera is no simple matter but, in this day and age, why can't a fixed lens AF camera focus instantly?
End of rant...

[chip w]

I don't understand why it's so hard to call a dog a dog. Sigma's job was to listen to customer reviews and complaints. They've failed. All we need to know. End of story.

[triplight]

I disagree, it's a great camera (no fanboy-ism here, I've had it for 2 months, my first Foveon). I think you fell into the same trap every other DP2 reviewer falls into -- comparing it with their DSLR because it has an DSLR-sized sensor. A case of failed expectations, maybe.

Think of it as a Jeep Wrangler; lots of fun for certain conditions but not something you'd want to drive everyday. I wouldn't want it as my only camera, but the images are the only thing this side of digital to compare with Kodachrome, so for me it's a joy even with all its quirks.

[Ken Tanaka]

Well, y'all already know my opinion of the DP-2.

As I jot this note I'm in the final stages of preparing an E-P1 write-up. Preview: I think Mike will enjoy this camera much more. Nope, it's not perfect. But it's fun and a better picture-maker than I expected.

[Danny Chatham]

Mike,
Thanks,there is obviously a great deal of
pleasure in the TRUTH.Please,keep it coming.

[Edward Taylor]

Mike -

An amazing thing to me was that after I reviewed the DP1, I was deluged with emails and comments about how I misjudged the speed of the camera and that it really was a pretty fast camera if you knew how to use it.

Now that the camera's reputation is well known, you probably won't get much "hate" mail, but it is always interesting how much some camera buffs rationalize. The tendency is to blame the user of the camera or the reviewer.

I stopped using the DP1 even though I liked some of the images. I was missing too many shots because of slowness. I had a DP2 for about a week, but it too was very slow and less forgiving with focus issues, so I sold it.

Ed

[Marc Rochkind]

I think the explanation is pretty obvious: Sigma makes lenses, and they are enamored with the Foveon sensor, which no one else is. They want to put the two together, but don't have or want to spend the engineering money to build a serious camera because they don't see themselves as a camera company. So, they did they best they could, or were willing to.

So, you get an excellent lens and excellent IQ. But bad mechanics and electronics.

A decent DMD won't appear until a serious camera company makes it, which means pretty much the usual suspects: Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Casio, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus.

--Marc

[Damon Schreiber]

It's not polite to throw someone's words back at them with a hearty "I told you so!"

I'll therefore forgo the last part:
So which would you rather have: a beautifully built, ergonomically perfect camera that gives you so-so image quality at best, or a hunk of antediluvian junk held together with baling wire and chewing gum that yields image quality that's really outstanding?

Actually, as you pointed out, a tripod should ideally have all three legs.

[Ken White]

"How can a company, which has already made one attempt (DP1), and surely would have had to be aware of its shortcomings, produce another camera with almost the same shortcomings as the first, at least with respect to performance?"

Maybe it's a corporate culture thing. The largest corporation in the US, General Motors, managed to produce products with the same shortcomings for more than 20 years. Of course they recently got a do-over so all is well or not once again.

I wonder if the Sigma DSLR is any good. I'd really try the sensor technology out for myself but the reviews of the DPx cameras scare me.

[fmertz]

Your verdict would be "absolutely not recommended" if you had seen some of the photographs of the inside of this camera that are floating about the internet.

The best that can be said for it is that no chewing gum or scotch tape is involved.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

Hmmm, reminds me of my experience with the Olympus Stylus Infinity. I fell in love with that camera the moment I saw it. So much that I actually bought one for myself and THEN wrote a glowing review of it.

Wouldn't have been so glowing had I tried it for any real candid work. I'm more of Dibutil's school of photography, so I didn't notice the abysmally slow response time -- nearly half a second -- until I tried using it at a birthday party. Not a single photo with an animated expression nor gesture was acceptable. One can only anticipate so far into the future.

Maybe acceptable in a special purpose camera, but not in the one I wanted to carry in my pocket everywhere.

(The next generation Stylus Infinity Epic was *MUCH* better.)

pax / Ctein

[triplight]

I never said the DP2 was fast. It's not. It's slow. I've never missed shots with it because I carry (at the same time) a fast camera for fast subjects and the DP2 mostly for still subjects.

It is interesting how many TOP readers have the patience for old film SLRs, large format, pinholes, manual focusing, etc. but none whatsoever for the DP2's operational slowness. Leaving Sigma the company out of it and considering the camera strictly as-is, I have to believe people are just not understanding its limitations going in, or if they are, simply ignoring them and wishing for something else.

[Michael Eckstein]

I've been using dslr's since the Canon D30 days. I am currently using a 50D. About 3 weeks ago I purchased a G10, and frankly if I were not a nature (bird) photographer the G10 would be all I need. I am making 13" x17.3" prints that no one can decide if they were taken with the 50D or the G10. At iso's of 200 or less the image quality is amazing. If Canon would get off there design butt and make a G10 with a much lager sensor we would have the killer camera many people desire. Even in it's current configuration, the G10 is an amazing piece of camera design. This is best walk around camera I have had since my Leica days. With all sounds turned off this camera is dead silent and very responsive.

[Robin P]

If I had the money I'd be tempted to go out and buy one after reading your review!
When I want people shots to pass around I borrow the wife's Fuji P&S. For the rare occasion that I shoot moving subjects I would use my DSLR.
The Sigma sounds ideal as a pocket camera, except for that missing viewfinder - sure you can buy an accessory finder but it makes the camera a difficult shape and costs more than several good film cameras could be obtained for these days.

[Sam]

fmertz jokes that no chewing gum or scotch tape is involved in holding the camera together. He may not realize that a number of years ago, Sigma actually did use tape to hold their lenses together, and quite often, the tape didn't stick and the lenses just fell apart. Seriously. I'd post a few links but I'm not sure if that's allowed here, but if you Google you'll find some horror stories from users.

As for the camera, I can't help but laugh at the comments, such as triplight's comment that it's so slow, he has to carry a second camera that's much faster. Isn't the whole idea of a large sensor compact to not carry so much stuff? Why is carrying two mediocre cameras better than carrying one good camera?

[Jay]

I recently acquired a Sigma DP-1 since the price is more reasonable these days (south of $400). In the limited time I have had with it, I have really come to love the photos it takes. Its image quality really is better than my DSLR in some respects. Now, slowness is certainly an issue, there is no denying that. Slow autofocus is particularly annoying - and inexcusable. For me however, there are several factors that make this camera indispensable.

1) Astounding image quality. Super sharp 28mm lens. This focal length works very well for me although I'd prefer 35mm.
2) Unique Foveon look of the images.
3) Light weight and compact. I went to my local store this weekend to compare the DP-1 with the EP-1. I'm sure there will be smaller and lighter m34 cameras in the future, but EP-1 is not it.

DP-1 is useful to me for most of the photo opportunities I encounter every day. The joy I get from looking at those photos far outweigh the pain of missing a few photos because of its slowness.

I am secretly happy that DP-1 will never become a mainstream camera. It means those who are willing to work patiently around its shortcomings, will be rewarded with very memorable images while others will simply dismiss it off as a failed experiment. If a DP1S ever comes along, I will surely be in line to pick it up. Until then, I am hoping to get the best out of my DP-1.

[Mike Johnston]

"fmertz jokes that no chewing gum or scotch tape is involved in holding the camera together. He may not realize that a number of years ago, Sigma actually did use tape to hold their lenses together, and quite often, the tape didn't stick and the lenses just fell apart."

It's not particularly valid to generalize one product from another, even if they're from the same company, especially from different eras--an old Chevette doesn't give us meaningful information about a new Corvette. However, I was privvy to one set of tests in the 1980s (actually, the source was another lens manufacturer, for what that's worth, but it was a high-end one) in which several inexpensive lenses tested very well when they were brand new but tested significantly worse after some time had passed. One thing that especially made an impression on me was that in one case, a specific lens's tested performance deteriorated over time even though it *hadn't been used* in the meantime. Its numbers got worse after it just sat around for a year.

I should caution against generalizing from that, which might not be fair either. Still, one of the things you pay for when you buy a very good lens is the knowledge that you can use it hard and it won't drift from its original spec.

Mike

[Seascape]

Thank goodness I have an M8, that performs beautifully, superb image quality, and compact size.

Given this review, and the other M4/3 near misses of late, the M8 looks like a dream come true.

Life is too short to constantly be waiting for the DMD, it's here already......it came out in 2006!

[Blake]

Re; The G10/larger sensor issue...
Consider this scenario. Canon puts a larger sensor in, ups the framerate/response time,ditches the video, etc. Then, maybe a lot of SLR users would move to the G10 and take SLR LENS revenue stream with them and Canon would suffer economically.
Remember, OUR wants are secondary to Canon wanting as much $ as possible from their products, so, even if the "new" G10 was a wild success, it might hurt Canon's revenue stream.
Or, maybe it's possible I don't know what I'm talkin' about.;)

[triplight]

The idea of a compact, large sensor camera may in fact be to carry less stuff, but there are only five to choose from at the moment and only the GH1 comes remotely close to doing it all -- at $1,500, with a slow, big zoom that's not yet optional. Even if some uber-compact existed, I'd want to carry the DP2 along just for the way it renders color.

[Patrick Perez]

Quoting Mike: "I have to call a personal verdict of 'not recommended.'"

So in DPReview-speak, it is Average?

Patrick

[CK Dexter Haven]

Those were precisely my comments, posted to dpreview forums. It's quite unfortunate, because the sensor is really impressive. I had always read those claims of Foveon's "3-D imaging" with extreme 'doubt.' But, i believe i actually did see those effects, even in the limited amount of time i spent with the camera.

In the end, the camera does dictate the way you take pictures. That's also true of a camera like a Rolleiflex, but i just didn't buy a 'convenience camera' to be inconvenienced. And, i really didn't like the way the thing felt.... Oh, well. Maybe in a few more years, someone will do it right. I only hope it's NOT Leica, because it will cost a fortune.

[YS]

triplight,

When a manual camera is slow, it's the user's problem. A good user can be very quick when familiar with how manual cameras work.

Also there's the perception of waiting. On a manual camera the photographer is doing the work. Cock the shutter, fiddle with the dials, turn the focus ring. While it might not be as fast, the sense of involvement means there is no waiting to be felt, and any slowness is on the consequences of the photographer.

On a slow automatic camera like the DP series, there is nothing the user can do to speed things up. You're just left with tapping your foot as you wait for the camera to get on with it!

[Ted Johnson]

As the owner of the DP2 Mike tested, I can say that I agree with Mike's assessment of the camera's slow autofocus. I haven't found the file flush wait a problem, but I can understand that it could be an issue. I have found the image quality stunning, and for my style of photography that is enough for me to keep and use the camera.

Clearly, the DP2 is not perfect. Nor, I think, has been Sigma's hype over it. 14MP: puleese. That said, I am willing to be patient with their efforts. Canon enjoys sales of about $40 billion per year, and operating cash of $6 billion, Sigma $400 million in sales and only $5 million in operating capital. $5 million doesn't buy a lot of R&D in today's world. That explains the long gestation period and shortcomings of Sigma's cameras, if nothing else does. And even with their $6 billion, Canon was able to trip over autofocus with their 1DSMkIII flagship camera. Also, look at Leica's M8 problems, even with Dr. Kaufmann's deep pocketbook. By the way, Dr. K pumped in 6 million more Euros in capital, which makes me suspicious about Leica's inherent health. I think questionable financials explains why the M8 came out with so many problems as well. Am I the only one that sees similarities between Leica and Sigma in the speed they introduce cameras, and way both company's cameras seem to not be quite "finished"?

And how both companies do lots of firmware/incremental upgrades?

That said, lots of people use Leica M8's, and "get around" their shortcomings, including no autofocus at all. Why? Image quality. In the final analysis, I'll work around the DP2 shortcomings and concentrate on image quality too.

[Peter Simmons]

Interesting the comments on the Canon G10 with a larger sensor. This of course would require a larger lens in order to maintain the same zoom ratio, maximum F stop etc, and would make the overall camera larger. That said, the Pentax Espio lineup of compact film cameras were small and had a 35mm size sensor (film) and still managed to get a fairly small lens, so perhaps this is a doable proposition by Canon. Add the articulating LCD and it would be a big selling camera.

[Derek]

--Gary Mortensen wrote:

My mid-nineties $500 Hexar AF has really fast, really accurate AF regardless of light level.... [I]n this day and age, why can't a fixed lens AF camera focus instantly?

I'm pretty sure the primary issue is, as you might imagine, cost. The Hexar, Contax T2, Fuji GA645 and other high-end fixed lens cameras used active AF systems; hence their ability to focus in absolute darkness. Active AF systems require more hardware, while the ubiquitous contrast-detect systems basically only require soft/firmware since an AF motor and a sensor are already there. Ricoh used active AF on the GRD and GX100, but had to drop it for the GRD II and GX200 apparently because their supplier stopped making them and the other suppliers they found wanted too much money.

It would be very nice, indeed, if manufacturers used active AF for more of their fixed-lens cameras. I'd be willing to pay more for it.

[Roger Suppona]

What Ted said. My DP2 is still the camera that I pick up and use at least 98% of the time.

It's kind of fun reading the various criticisms of the DP2 while in the midst of my umpteenth re-reading of Edward Weston's Daybooks: Pages of laments over leaky bellows, warped film holders, lousy lenses, and defective film/paper. And yet Mr. Weston managed to produce exceptional art.

We'll see how I feel about the DP2 in a year or so (assuming it's still in one piece). In the meantime I'll take that sensor and that lens despite the qualities of the light-tight box that houses them.

[James McDermott]

Given Sigma's dire record of producing overpriced, near-obsolete-at-launch digital cameras that can't compete with what's out there already, and their superb record of taking lens sales from Canikon, etc ....

Ummm, what was my question ...?

[triplight]

YS, you know the old saying about the workman blaming his tools... and the DP2 has a manual focus dial that utterly eliminates AF lag. The only real holdup for the experienced owner is RAW write speed.

[Nick]

"Life is too short to constantly be waiting for the DMD, it's here already......it came out in 2006!"
I'm with Seascape on this one. Haven't enjoyed picture taking this much since selling (stupid) the Epson R-D1!
Come to think of it......it came out in 2004!

[Poagao]

Wasn't one of the DMD requirements "remotely affordable"? The M8 doesn't even come close to fulfilling that one.

I'd place my bets on Panasonic getting another MFT compact out before Canon; we'll see.

[Alex]

C'mon guys, give the Caesar what is Caesar's... but don't expect miracles. Sigma is a lens manufacturer and you only need a peek at the rest of their camera line-up to know how "good" the DP-3 will be.

Now imagine Ricoh would have acquired Foveon...

[Ed O'Mahony]

Hi Mike,
I too am with Ted on this one,when I need to, I use my IDS MK3 in the studio or my 5D with a 24,50 or 85 L lens for weddings, I can achieve what I want. BUT sometimes (usually just wandering) I bring the DP2 along and enjoy its incredible picture producing quality. Yes occasionally it reacts slowly but so, I am not working for Sports Illustrated,Reuters etc and suspect most of the great TOP community don't either.
Ed.

[John Roberts]

I still don't understand the allure of a "pocketable" camera.

[Laurence Matson]

If you are so interested in "capturing the moment" then set it up the same way you did your M6: manual focus with a hyperfocal point, M exposure, and - if you want - turn off the LCD.

Image quality is what counts, and as with any camera I have ever used in the last more than 50 years, you have to learn to work with the device rather than bend it to your liking.