Contrary to the writeup, it’s pretty easy to come up with a megapixel count regardless of the sensor. Look at one of the photos the camera produces when set to maximum resolution, and count the pixels.
You see, sensors don’t have pixels, only images do.
Here’s one guy’s sample images-- with full resolution jpegs.
Those are 4704*3136 pictures. (14.8 million pixels).
Sigma claims 46 megapixels, which is sort of true, and sort of not true…
The problem is that if you take a 36 Megapixel camera, like the Nikon D800e, 9 megapixels will be used for red, 9 for blue, and 18 for green-- the final 36 MP picture will involve a lot of interpolation. The Sigma sensor doesn’t interpolate–so if what you care about is color, it will be a more impressive image than 15 MP would imply.
$1000 for a fixed focal length f/2.8 camera that doesn’t perform well in low light? Yikes, that’s a tough sell. I’ve always found these Sigma cameras fascinating, but I could never justify buying one.
I got to try the dp2 for a week. It can take some amazing images as long as you stick to 100 ISO. Noise city outside of that.
would be an interesting landscape camera if there was something a lot wider than 50mm on it. (It’s APS-C, not 135)
the Merrill is the previous generation, the current generation is the Quattro. There are four quattros.
On the dp3, you can screw an additional adaptor onto the lens to produce a 60mm f2.8 lens.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.