Sigma SD1 DSLR Priced at $10K ... What was Sigma Thinking?

[PhuNguyen88]

when you making the video, the question is What were you thinking man ! All of your videos are rated awfully low.

[Dreadfultime]

i has a mag alloy body and its weather proof... why he keeps saying it is an entry level body?

[killthebetrayer]

Sigma annonced a huge price drop. They also changed the name : Sigma SD1 Merrill. It'll be available in march at a price of 2000€ (don't really know the US price, sorry..).

[ifwewerecatsband]

why are you doing this and saying all of these things about it when you haven't even touched the camera?

[MrMatisrand]

This guy is retarded

[bluepowder7]

wow, your first 3:26 are a complete waste of time! not only do you explain it in a much more complicated way that needed (you make it HARDER to understand), you then appear to finish the ramble only to repeat half of it all over again. pretty horrid beginning to the vid.

[mattakadeimos]

My canon 30D outperfoms the SD1. I've seen the raws at its max iso and they are shockingly bad. The look like something out of a phone camera.

[scottelly2]

I see someone say that Sigma needs a lesson in basic marketing. Indeed, it seems so, but upon further inspection, maybe this is very complex marketing. All the controversy has given Sigma more free advertising than they would have ever received otherwise. Maybe this is very smart marketing. Afterall, they will not sell a lot of cameras, and they probably really don't care about that, since their primary business is to sell a lot of lenses.

[scottelly2]

14.7 megapixels of green (the Nikon D3x shoots 12 megapixels of green)

14.7 megapixels of red (the Nikon D3x shoots 6 megapixels of red)

14.7 megapixels of blue (the Nikon D3x shoots 6 megapixels of blue)

Look at the images comparison at the "Comparator" on Imaging-resource, and you will see for yourself what incredibly high resolution the SD1 is capable of producing. Enough said.

[garydmercer]

I shot with the SD1 for two days. You have no clue about the SD1. My tests show that the SD1 shot at a higher resolution than my Canon 5D MK II which is a 21 megapixel camera. The soft image detail is absolutely amazing. The only problem with the SD1 is its price.  If it was f priced in the Canon 7D price range, this would be selling like pancakes!

[ArtoftheImage]

@garydmercer I'm sure the resolution is great. The problem is that the SD1 is an entry level camera. I'd much rather own a Nikon D3x or a Pentax 645D for a similar price.

[MrDanCartell]

@garydmercer

if Sigma had lowered the price a lot of people would have bought this camera and they would have recouped money from the sale of lenses for it .A lot of people were excited and really wanted to have the SD1 , but when the final price was announced it blew almost everyone out of the water! Sigma blew it with the SD1 they could have got a lot of users and this camera was going to be iconic but instead it will hardly be remembered which is a shame for such a great camera.

[garydmercer]

@MrDanCartell The high price was due to Sigma President seeing huge prints from the SD1-thought these were Medium format quality and against the plans of his son, set the price ridiculously high. The son fell on his sword like a good japanese and supported his fathers huge mistake, hinting on twitter of cost overruns etc which is total B.S. You are preaching to the choir here. There is no reason for the high price other than an elderly man making this judgment call against all plans and advice

[garydmercer]

@MrDanCartell The high price was due to Sigma President seeing huge prints from the SD1-thought these were Medium format quality and against the plans of his son, set the price ridiculously high. The son fell on his sword like a good japanese and supported his fathers huge mistake, hinting on twitter of cost overruns etc which is total B.S. You are preaching to the choir here. There is no reason for the high price other than an elderly man making this judgment call against all plans and advice

[sigmasd10]

Things Matt got wrong: The SD1 sensors resolution is actually equivalent to at least a 30mp Bayer sensor. FACT, not mentioned by Matt: There are NO APSc sized Bayer sensors, let alone full frame Bayer sensors, that have 30mp resolution!...So the SD1's resolution is clearly the highest in its class.

Things Matt got right: The SD1 is way overpriced!!!.

Sigma flat out lied to everyone about the price, so imagine the shock when it was released at about 10x more than that!!!

[ArtoftheImage]

@sigmasd10 - Can't agree with you about the SD1 being equivalent to a 30MP Bayer sensor. I think it might, and that's a big "might," be equivalent to the Canon 5D MkII's sensor, but that's about it. And then of course we come back to the entry level body. :-(

[scottelly2]

@ArtoftheImage - Visit Sigma's sigma-sd dot com site and read a little. Then compare the resolution of the images from the SD1 to what the ultimate in standard size DSLR cameras (the Nikon D3x) can make at the Imaging-resource dot come site (their "Comparator"). Then you will understand.

[mrbobjim99]

hes complaining about the screen on the sigma, i cant stand nikon screens, they are so tiny, same with the 1d all high end cameras dont have the largest brightess or most detailed, so get over it, im thinking trying one over the canon 1d or nikon d3x

[ArtoftheImage]

@mrbobjim99 Huh? The Canon 1D series and the Nikon D3x have the same size and resolution LCD screen as most of the rest of the Nikon and Canon DSLR (with the exception of the very bottom end).

[Vanzanvang]

@mrbobjim99

Hell yeah, bout time u say tat, lol...Nikon got the ugliest n tiniest screem..bs, nikon camera are jsut plain ugly haha

[Jayvo86]

I would totally own a SD1 for 1500 to 2000. Unfortunately, the new Canon and Nikon cameras are going to utterly destroy sigma for MUCH less money.

[scottelly2]

When people start seeing what can be done with the SD1, Sigma will sell thousands of them. It captures better images than a Nikon D3x, and it costs less than the D3x body, even when you include a good Sigma EX lens, like the 24-70 f2.8.

[scottelly2]

Go to ffphotos.zenfolio.com slash sd1samples and download the first photo. When you look at it closely you will understand.

[scottelly2]

Hello?

[SvetozarIvanov]

Hi, Matt, thanks for the comprehensive and objective reviews that you provide, keep doing it I am a fan of you r channel, I really liked this one that you clear out the mystery about the Sigma 46 mpx. sensor. I know there was some catch, as the companies advert a lot of rubbish. But to be honest this really blew me away when I saw the price in Calumet photo magazine I though that it is printing mistake, as I though for that money I will buy a medium format DSLR or full frame camera for much less

[Ndeira08]

the foveon sensor mimics the actions of the human eye more realistically , because the human eye has 3 types of cone cells which separately account for blue, or red or green

[ArtoftheImage]

@Ndeira08 - Too bad Sigma's demo photos for the Sigma SD1 look worse than anything out of even the cheapest level DSLR's. :-(

[MaxVxM]

I would save that money for a true medium format camera, or get any of the upcoming Nikon full frame cameras, Sigma is known for their lenses but Cameras! I don't think so. I do agree with what you said!

[JogBird]

SD1 = $500 body + $9000 sensor = LMAO

[Rationalific]

Thanks for filtering out the B.S. The only reason Sigma's price is so high is that it simply can't compete with Nikon and Canon in the high range, so it has to come up with an albeit pretty impressive gimmick which, nonetheless, can't make up for its lack of innovation in other areas. Sigma knows that it can't sell as many as Nikon or Canon, so it ups the price, hoping that the huge profit from each camera purchased will make up for the small number sold.

[MrDanCartell]

@Rationalific

yeah but if they had lowered the price they would have sold more units and this would eventually make them break even financially , in addition they would have made a lot of money from the sales of lenses and flash guns had many people bought this camera and it would enabled them to get more people onto their cameras (which would be good for future camera releases) but now all people will look at is the price vs the spec sheet and say no thanks

[cmedip]

Did you film this with the d7000 on 1080 24p or 720 30p?

[ArtoftheImage]

@cmedip - It's filmed with the Nikon D7000 on 1080 24pm, but then processed down to 720 in Sony Vegas and then further processed in Handbrake to reduce size. The quality is fine for Youtube, but the original footage is MUCH higher quality.

[Meatmiester]

I think it was a marketing ploy, its been dropped nearly 4 grand. As you said Matt, the 645D walks all over it for the original asking price. Hell, the full-frame Nikon, Canon cameras would walk all over it too; I'd also bet that the likes of the Pentax K-5 and Oly E5 will be better.

[ArtoftheImage]

@Meatmiester - That marketing ploy is likely going to cost them dearly. By the time they bring the price down to $1K or less, they'll likely be no one interested in buying it. :-(

[Meatmiester]

@ArtoftheImage Well its their own wrong doing. Nothing about the camera is ground-breaking, whatsoever.

[vinayakaca]

only idiots would buy this camera @ that price. Wonder if they even sold 1 piece so far

[TibetArchive]

If you have time, can you please talk about the Recent Nikon law suit against Sigma

[alreacon]

the sensory cost 3x15mp sensory

[ArtoftheImage]

@alreacon - The sensor is a 15 MP sensor, not a 15x3 MP sensor. Each photosite absorbs the R G B at a different level.

[87solarsky]

It's priced at about 5000 in the Sigma store. So what about changing the title to: a 5000 $ camera priced at 5000$?

[ArtoftheImage]

@87solarsky - They announced it at $9700 USD. They've since brought it down to $6900 at B&H, and I'm sure it'll come down MUCH more as these won't sell unless they're in the $1,000 price range.

[87solarsky]

@ArtoftheImage Why even quote the B&H price tag, when SIGMA's own price tag in their web store is now at about 5000? Please include these updates, if you want credibility to continue. thx.

[johanneswingerlang]

@ArtoftheImage Hey again, did you watch the sample photos? It beats every $1,000 cameras about 1000 times over and over. It's just super amazing awesome sensor.

And agreed, it's not a $10,000 camera anymore. You can't say that D90 is a $2083 (changed from SEK to $), which was the price it was announced for here. It have dropped from $2000 to $750, over the time, which make it a $750 camera now ;)

[blacklovin]

damn, you guys got trolled good.

[appacana]

Sigma is competing with Canon with mega pixels all over the place

[rawdk]

LMAO!!! $10K for that camera… Hahahahahaaaaa have we time travelled back to April 1st, come'on stop fooling around, whats the real RRP price.

Price point for that camera is about $500-700 max and even then I sooner have the D5100 or 600D over that any day.

[johanneswingerlang]

@rawdk The only April 1st is your post. Check the sample shots before making such stupid comments.

[KodieMacIntyre]

Something isn't right here..sigmas website lists the Sigma SD1 alone for 9.7k, yet their most expensive kit (Sigma SD1 + Sigma 24-70 2.8 + Sigma 70-200 2.8) is 8.6k, two extra lenses...and you save $1,000..not bad ;) all of their other kits are cheaper too... curious.

[markuslowe9]

Please please please do canon 35L vs 35 f2 vs sigma 30 1.4

[ArtoftheImage]

@markuslowe9 - Coming VERY soon! :-)

[tek5828]

How is 15 x 3 46?

[JHVH1]

Sensor sounds awesome, but the camera does not. Does not accept canon or nikon mounts? If they just did that alone it would ad more worth.

[elopez412]

Thanks for your video. I'm big on "buyer beware" and have always advocated on educating yourself before you spend hard earned money on anything. All manufacturers like to play with words in order to "up" the price on their goods. This however is a great example of how some companies still believe that consumers can be easily fooled into parting ways with their money. It may have been easier in the 60's and 70's but today we have a wealth of resources (like the internet) in order to research.

[ArnanCarmelo]

with that price?! just go for the Nikon D3s

worth it!

[Zacherius8]

Good and educative....

[MrRusswarez]

Sigma SD1 for $10K , WTF =-0

[TFareCool]

For 10,000 dollars I'd rather have a 645d or an M9. This sounds like it could run against an entry level camera (3100, 1000d).

It looked interesting back when not too much was known, but it really an higher entry level camera... Oh well, they still make great lenses.

[77Totems]

Sigma's website states they can take a 4800 x 3200 for 15.36 mega-pixels.

Nikon D7000 takes a 4928 x 3264 for 16.08 mega-pixels.

The Foveon sensor has been around since 2002 and used by Sigma since then starting with SD9. It has yet to take over the market from Bayer sensors or produce better pictures. This does not mean it will not happen but at this time, as Matt points out, he can take better pictures with his D7000 or his Canon 60D. After looking at Sigma's SD1 pictures, I concur.

[johanneswingerlang]

Matt, how about: googl/xO5kY ?

I think, the camera is looking super-awesome. And hopefully it will bring more competition to the game! Gogo Sigma!

[ArtoftheImage]

@johanneswingerlang - I'm not getting anything off that url in youtube or in google?

[johanneswingerlang]

@ArtoftheImage Forgot to mention: add "h t t p : / /" in the url. (Google have that epic link filters nowadays...)

[ArtoftheImage]

@johanneswingerlang - Just get an error message... page not found.

[nerwin]

@ArtoftheImage Its goo.gl /xO5kY

[johanneswingerlang]

@ArtoftheImage Damn, forgot the other thing: make googl into goo.gl, then it works. Or simply google SD1 sample shots... h t t p + link and the dot.

[thePowerPlant]

Err...that sensor is NOT a little different, its revolutionary!

[mp4podcastDOTcom]

BH price as of right now is Price: $6,899.00. This camera does not even do video.

[mp4podcastDOTcom]

Sigma did marketing tricks like this before. I remember one of their old camera that was a three megapixel that was said to be as good as a six megapixel camera. Sigma should just make lens.

[johanneswingerlang]

@mp4podcastDOTcom You think? check the sample images at their website. It's freaking awesome.

[atamola]

Please sombody correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's fair that sigma calls it 45MP.

Standard sensors use 3 photo-whatever (red, green, blue) to collect light and then they interpolate that info. so, when you have 15MP in a standard sensor you are getting only 5MP (three pixels are contributing to one unit). So, now sigma is Stacking pixels and hence you get 15 effective MP which is 3 times what you get from a regular sensor. For the sake of comparison it's fair that they call it 45MP

[ArtoftheImage]

@atamola - No, Sigma isn't stacking pixels. It's a 15 MP sensor and each pixel captures the R G B at a different depth. It's not 3 x 15MP. It's 15 MP that captures RGB differently.

[atamola]

@ArtoftheImage But in a standard each pixel records only one color (red, green, blue) and then interpolates that. You are not getting information from each pixel individually but it's an average from the info taken by three pixels. So, 15/3 = 5 and when Sigma says 45 is in someway true as 15 = 3x5 (and that 5 is reported as 15 by other makers).

Clearly I'm not an expert in sensor and I may be wrong.

In any case, thanks for the reply.

[dethmerc]

why is it priced so high for what seems to be at par or lower then in some cases with 1k cameras. Y would anybody spend around 7-10k on the sigma when you can get a nikon D3s or D3x for the same price range.? Sigma has a bad marketing department i guess.