evaluating two different APS-C approaches

[Codger]

I keep reading about the remarkable IQ from some of the small single-focal length cameras, and have wondered if it would be better to get a Sigma DP1m (or Ricoh GR) along with a DP2m  (with an est combined cost of $ 1,140) . . . OR . . . a Nikon D7100 and a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 at about $ 2,000?

These set-ups would be roughly equivalent for range.  The downside with the compacts would include not having any kind of viewfinder (back LCD, only) and no possibility of other focal lengths (tele) in the future.  The downside for the DSLR would be the higher initial cost (and weight, size), but would allow for the addition of other focal lengths in the future.

In terms of cost-effectiveness for serious picture making (IQ and exposure flexibility -- DR, ISO, noise) do you feel one has an edge, long-term, over the other?  I print (Lightjet and FCA, avg 26x34 size) rather than just Internet.  Thanks.

[pflower]

The shortcomings of the DPxM cameras are well documented all over the place.  They are slow to write, are only useable for colour at 200 iso or below (though others have produced some very good looking B&W at much higher iso), you have to use Sigma's clunky and slow software to export as Tiffs and battery life is terrible.  The upside is the image quality which is stunning.

I don't think you can compare except for image quality.  I have the DP2M and DP3M which are now pretty much the only cameras I use.  I also use a Nex 7 and an HD39 and even sometimes my old D2x.  However once you learn how to process them the Sigmas produce far better quality than anything other than the Hasselblad files - and they are pretty close to those as well.

The experience of using them as opposed to a DSLR is a wholly different matter and only you can decide if you would be happy with a compact, slow, low iso and screen only camera or would prefer a DSLR.  But from the perspective of the files, my own view is that nothing short of a medium format back rivals them at present (caveat - I haven't looked at either a Nikon D800 or the files from the Sony A7r in real life).  Here in the UK they are down to £338 inclusive of tax.  That is probably less than one would spend on a lens for a DSLR.  Why not rent or just buy one of them and see what you think. 

Good luck

I keep reading about the remarkable IQ from some of the small single-focal length cameras, and have wondered if it would be better to get a Sigma DP1m (or Ricoh GR) along with a DP2m  (with an est combined cost of $ 1,140) . . . OR . . . a Nikon D7100 and a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 at about $ 2,000?

These set-ups would be roughly equivalent for range.  The downside with the compacts would include not having any kind of viewfinder (back LCD, only) and no possibility of other focal lengths (tele) in the future.  The downside for the DSLR would be the higher initial cost (and weight, size), but would allow for the addition of other focal lengths in the future.

In terms of cost-effectiveness for serious picture making (IQ and exposure flexibility -- DR, ISO, noise) do you feel one has an edge, long-term, over the other?  I print (Lightjet and FCA, avg 26x34 size) rather than just Internet.  Thanks.

[jjj]

With any tool, first determine if is can do what you require now and maybe in the near future.
If it passes that test only then compare it to other tools that also do what you need and see what the pros and cons of each item is for your needs - and unfortunately only you can determine that. 

[NancyP]

Viewfinders are available for the DP#Ms, made by Sigma for DP1M and DP2M, and by Voigtlander for the DP3M (it is a "75mm" viewfinder for a full frame camera). The viewfinders are attached via hot shoe.

The one question you need to ask yourself is whether you object to learning and using the Sigma RAW converter program Sigma Photo Pro. Workflow is a minor PITA for those who shoot both Bayer sensor and Foveon sensor cameras. Basic color temperature and exposure corrections and a few other manipulations are done in SPP and then exported as a tif file, for further manipulation in an external program such as Ps, Lr, or your favorite editor. On the plus side, SPP does a reasonably good job.

[Vladimirovich]

The one question you need to ask yourself is whether you object to learning and using the Sigma RAW converter program Sigma Photo Pro.

iridient rawdeveloper has good support for X3Fs

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Your dilemma is that you would choose the DPxMerrills for image quality, but not for exposure flexibility.  When you have good capture conditions (good light, tripod in many situations, esp. low light ones) the file quality is spectacular, and very suitable for larger prints.  I feel the Sigma software is not as difficult to use as some make it sound.  Just boot the program, highlight the Sigma raws, and let the software convert into same-size tiffs.  You don't have to do any adjustments in the Sigma program.  Then you can take the tiffs into Adobe Camera Raw (via Bridge) or Photoshop, or Lightroom, or whatever, and do what you want.  Go do something else while the Sigma program processes the files -- yes, it takes a while, and perhaps the speed depends on your computer's capabilities.  Good captures look fantastic on-screen, pixel-peeping, at even 100 percent.  They are enough to make one happy to live with a fixed-lens single focal-length camera (except that you can get two or three of them at different focal lengths!). --Barbara

[MrSmith]

The sigma Merril price has just dropped massively as the new model has been announced. I paid £280 (ex vat) for mine so s/h prices should also come down a lot as people trade up to the new models so you could dip your toe in the water and try one for not much outlay. I doubt you would sell it on

[Codger]

Thanks, to the several people who gave me their input on this question. When I first posted I pared the content down to two opposing approaches for brevity, and knew I'd get some worthwhile feedback.  I think the most workable solution for me will be going with the gear with an integral viewfinder and faster operation.  I prefer working with one system and getting to know it very well.  While it's clear the little Sigmas have not only charm (light, cheap, unobtrusive, etc.) but the potential for exceptional output, I'm leaning heavily toward the DSLR.  Maybe in a few months, if there's an announcement about a new Sigma camera that features the Merrill technology in a body with a contemporary viewfinder and either a fixed moderate zoom (say, 3X or 4X) or compatibility with their newer DX or even FX series lenses, I'll rethink things.  Anyway, I appreciate the responses.