Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cube, Mar 5, 2008.
Cool. But it doesn't have IS.
The DP1 is looking more and more like a ripoff now. Buy this Olympus kit at a lower cost, and you receive a camera with far better control of your photography, a wider lens, higher ISO option, and an option for other lenses when they're necessary. While it's bigger than the DP1, the size of this kit is still quite small. The Sigma DP1 is still a good choice for those who would rather have a smaller camera, even if it meant giving up a lot of features and control. However, this is still going to steal some interested buyers of the DP1.
Poor Sigma. They meant well.
Comparing the 420 to the DP1 is ridiculous.
The DP1 is 4.5 x 2.3 x 2.0 inches, or 20.7 cubic inches. It weights 8.8 oz.
The 420 is 5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 inches, or 38.6 cubic inches. It weights 14.3 oz. That's without a lens. With the little pancake lens, it weighs over 17.6 oz. So, basically, it's at least twice the size of the DP1.
This is like comparing the MacBook Pro to a MacBook Air and being shocked, shocked I say, that the MacBook Pro is more powerful.
No, but I've seen a photo of the DP1 and E420 overlapping each other at DPReview (images were scaled so they could be compared), and they're not really THAT different. I trust the visual comparison more than numbers. I even got a good example of that today. Held a MBA for the first time, and the dimensions really don't do it justice. You need to hold it to understand how small an MBA is, or how solid the construction appears to be. I didn't really notice or care that the back was thicker than the front, or that the back was only around 0.3" thinner than my MacBook. All I noticed was how much smaller the MBA was than I imagined it.
Anyway, from the look of the scaled images of both cameras overlapping each other, I wouldn't pocket either of them in my jeans, and yet they'd both easily fit in a jacket or small bag.
What exactly about the numbers do you not trust?
The bigger point is, who are we talking about here? Are we talking about an E-3 user who also wants a smaller kit for portability? Then maybe getting an E-420 makes some sense because the camera could also serve the function of a backup. But the same applies to a Canon 1-D user getting an XTi. In fact, the dimensions of the XTi are far closer to that of the E-420 than the E-420 is to the DP-1:
(5 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)= 48.1 cubic inches. 19.6 oz w/o lens. Put the 50mm f/1.8 on there. That's light.
Or for a Nikon user, the D40:
(4.9 x 3.7 x 2.5 in)= 45.3 cubic inches. 18.4 oz w/o lens. Even closer to the E-420.
The E-420 just isn't that small. Adding even the small 25mm pancake lens looks like it adds almost half an inch to the depth of the camera:
You're talking about a pretty big pocket if that's pocketable.
That's the original pic someone made. He has now posted a corrected version.
I'd rather see something based on a single source.
Yeah. Nothing like a picture to illustrate the difference, which is huge.
The hotshoe size in that picture is not the same.
I wouldn't go for the DP1 if I was to choose between the 2.