Regardless, manufacturers continue to churn out compact cameras, and the good thing about a slump is that they're forced to innovate and experiment. Sony, Fuji and Olympus have released some noteworthy cameras in the last couple of years, but the dp series of cameras by Sigma seems to suggest that they went back to the drawing board for designing compacts entirely.

I'd looked up a review of the dp1 Quattro right after I got the call asking if I'd be interested in reviewing it. While the photos did kind of prepare me for the unusual design, it was only when I actually held it that I fully appreciated the bold new design. It isn't without its flaws, but it makes up for them in my opinion.

Sigma's strategy with the dp Quattro series strikes me as a little odd: four fixed-lens compact cameras?
In mid-2014, they announced the dp0, dp1 (which I'm reviewing here), the dp2, and the dp3.
What makes it perplexing is that other than the focal lengths that range from an ultra wide-angle (dp0: 14 mm / full-frame equivalent: 21 mm ) to a telephoto (dp3: 50 mm / full-frame equivalent: 75 mm), there are no discernible differences between these cameras. I'm no market researcher, but this seems like quite a bold move. I wouldn't have thought that the market even exists for each of these products, and suspect that this is a "lets test the market with these products" exercise by Sigma.

I'd imagine that this approach has some potential, but I would have much preferred to see it as an ILC or EVIL or mirrorless. Or whatever term the industry is using for an interchangeable compact camera these days.

Anyway, kudos to Sigma for innovation in a market that -thanks to the smartphone- has seen much turmoil, and for daring to dive into waters without hesitantly testing the temperature beforehand.

Note: This review is being published a little later than I'd originally intended (more on that in a bit), because Sigma now has exactly that: a camera line called the 'sd quattro'. Announced on Feb 23, 2016, I'll be looking forward to seeing reviews from other bloggers.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:

A few noteworthy points from those specs:

• There's no built-in flash, although the hot shoe provides the option of adding one. Flashes on compact cameras can add to design-complexity, price, and create ugly, harsh shadows, but they occasionally come in handy as fill-lights. Shooting indoors at night would be a huge problem.
• For a fixed-lens compact, 19mm (28 mm full-frame) is a good focal length / field of view. The lens is distortion-free, but the wide-angle means that you'll only want to purchase this if you're going to be using it as a travel or street camera: it wouldn't be my first choice to shoot portraits, since you'd have to be right up in somebody's face, but it will certainly fare better than your phone.
• APS-C sensor! Yay! While this indubitably increases the price of a camera, I love the fact that manufacturers are pushing for this to be the de facto standard for enthusiasts or serious shooters.

DESIGN

Here's where I have to tip my hat to Sigma. The design of the dp line of cameras immediately makes an impression on you. Whether you like it or hate it, it's going to turn heads. Photographer's heads, that is. I found it to be surprisingly inconspicuous while using it in the field. A DSLR always garners attention in the street. Even with the comparatively large (for a compact) lens, the dp1 didn't seem to.
If I only had words to describe it (thankfully, I'm a photographer so photos will soon follow), I'd have to say that it looks like a smartphone with a handgrip that was welded on to a prime lens. It's unique and striking. When I first held it, I spent a few minutes just looking at it.

It's quite a departure from the typically clunky compact cameras that the market is flooded with. Sigma's dp line unmistakably stands out among the competition. They've definitely gone to work on rethinking what a compact camera should look like. It's good to know that Sigma is spending time on the drawing board while other manufacturers merely continue iterating newer versions of the same product.

This is what I mean:

Overall, the design -although refreshing to see- is a bit of a mixed bag. The camera isn't something that will fit in your pocket, unless you're a Hulk-sized individual. While the camera body is slim and sleek, the protruding lens adds considerable heft and volume, making the entire camera both compact and not compact at the same time. Its size and design are reminiscent of a mirrorless camera.
 

FEATURES AND CONTROLS

Sigma's taken a no-nonsense approach to the dp1's button layout: it isn't riddled with unnecessary items that leave you scratching your head or gnashing your teeth in frustration.
Unlike some other compacts I've used in the past, I didn't find any need to go sub-menu-hunting for features like exposure compensation (wonderfully implemented, just hit the rear command dial), auto exposure lock (aka AEL), or quickly changing ISO or white balance.

About 3.5 seconds after you hit the power button, the camera's ready to shoot, displaying info about the battery level, ISO, white balance, image quality, aspect ratio, file format and frames remaining on the top, with exposure info at the bottom.

An overview of the rear buttons follows:

1. Display button (topmost, camera-back): controls readout on the LCD. Clicking once gets you an electronic horizon level that turns green when perfectly upright. I didn't really use it, but it's a nice substitute for a bubble level.

Hitting the display button (topmost on the back of the camera) overlays a horizon level and a histogram.

Here's the same screen with the lens cap attached so that it's easier for you folks to have a look

Hitting the display button once more will darken the LCD entirely, effectively turning it off. I have no idea why anybody would need this (the camera remains on and active).

2. QS (Quick Set) button: The quick set button delivers a screen that allows you to quickly change numerous settings: ISO, metering, drive mode, white balance, image file format, image quality, aspect ratio, and JPEG post-processing settings (standard, vivid, monochrome etc. - I rarely delve into these on any camera). For the most part, this is quick and easy. I would have preferred a dedicated button for white balance, but compact cameras have limited real estate, so that's understandable.

3. AEL buttton: no surprises here, it locks your exposure after metering. A second press will unlock. It also doubles as the button you hit for deleting files when reviewing photos. I'm not going to upload a photo for this screen, since it serves little purpose.

4. Menu button: Where you can access and change a plethora of features. Some of these can be accessed via the QS screen, but if you'd like to change whether ISO increments are 1/3rd of a stop or 1 stop, for instance, then you'll need to access the menu. It's a comprehensive list, as one would probably expect with an enthusiast's compact. A slideshow with all the screens follows, just in case you're interested.

5. The review button: does what you'd expect it to do. Enough said.

6. The D-Pad: is where Sigma have placed focus-related controls, when it's not being used to manipulate menu-choices along with the command dials. The left and right buttons do nothing unless you hit the top or bottom first. As already noted, this is a bit of a bummer.
The top button will change focus to manual. Without focus peaking though, manually adjusting focus on an LCD is next to impossible to get right. I would hope that a firmware change would make this possible in the future, but I don't know whether that's even possible.
The bottom button on the pad will bring up the AF sensor selection screen, and I found that I was using this frequently while shooting with the camera. Photos with some more details follow:

The top button on the D Pad switches to manual focus. Sigma has provided a distance scale to help, but I found it to be of little use as a substitute for focus peaking.

The down button on the D Pad brings up the AF point selection screen.

The buttons on the D Pad correspond to the 9 AF points that are available, as you would expect.

Turning the front command dial while holding the bottom button changes the size of the AF point.

There are 3 AF point sizes to choose from, but you probably won't find too many situations where you'd have to change the size at all. I found no need to change the AF point to its smallest size setting.

FIELD TEST, IMAGE QUALITY, REVIEW IMAGES

Since the design is so unusual, I expected the Sigma dp1 Quattro to attract some attention while I was out using it.

Surprisingly, it didn't. I didn't get as much as a second look. A few people on a Mumbai local were fleetingly curious when I raised the camera above my head, but that was it. A DSLR, in comparison, always garners interest. Often, not the right kind, either.

Anyway, the camera is fairly quick to focus, and I found no situation where it had to 'hunt' to confirm focus, either.
However, depending on the file format you've set it to, it might take a while for the camera to write to your card. To some extent, this depends on the SD card you're using, but even with a 90 MB/s Sandisk Extreme Plus (UHS-1), I found the camera to be really slow when writing RAW files. Considering that the files can be 40-50 MB, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Even JPEGs are a hefty 16-19 MB at their highest quality setting.

Controls are easily manipulated; I didn't once struggle to look for changing white balance, ISO, image quality, or selecting an autofocus point. Sigma's gotten the control placement right with the dp1: even compensation is a breeze.

The lens fares well, although there is visible chromatic aberration if you look for it. It's not exactly a deal breaker, but it's there. 

I found the colours that the dp1 reproduced to be quite accurate, and the Auto White Balance did a pretty good job most of the time.

The only real issue, I found, was noise. It isn't the pleasing kind of 'film-grainy' noise, and it's visible in both situations where you don't want it: low-light situations (or dark areas in a high-contrast photograph), and when you pump up the ISO.

1/15, f6.3, ISO 800. Standard, High quality JPEG.

At ISO 800 and above, noise becomes an issue with the dp1 quattro. Compared to modern DSLRs, this is noisier than I would have expected for an APS-C sized chip.

Also, while we're on the subject of RAW files, the reason this review is later than I'd planned is because i seem to have no way of importing them. Or for that matter, even viewing them on a computer.
After spending some time shooting RAW files almost exclusively, I discovered that Adobe doesn't support the camera. The .X3F file format is supposedly supported by Adobe, but despite having the latest version of Photoshop / Lightroom / Bridge CC, I couldn't import any RAW files.
I got in touch with Adobe tech support after I discovered this problem, and they confirmed that CC doesn't support the dp1 Quattro.

To make matters worse, I downloaded Sigma's Photo Pro software (which, I'm sorry, but is just plain awful: it's almost like they hired someone off elance.com on a shoestring budget) for Mac OS X, and it wouldn't read RAW files from the camera either!

I rarely shoot JPEG, so this was a bummer. Upon some investigation online, I've found out that this is because Sigma has made this a proprietary file format, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. If this were a camera that I'd purchased, I would be really upset. The inability to open a RAW file in Photoshop means that I wouldn't buy the camera. I rarely shoot JPEGs, and would hate to have to use JPEGs all the time.

Thankfully since the camera's been with me for a while,  I went out and took a few more photos. I was looking forward to seeing RAW photos from Foveon's much-touted triple-layer sensor, but the JPEGs honestly don't tell me much, other than that you couldn't tell the difference between a Foveon and a modern Sony or a Canon CMOS sensor. If anything, the other sensors seem to have a better high ISO performance, with significantly lower noise.

1/1000, f5.6, ISO 100. Standard, High quality JPEG.

At base ISO, as one would expect, there's little to no noise and everything's tack sharp.

1/125, f8, ISO 100, Standard, High quality JPEG.

The 19mm/2.8 fares well, but even at f8, you should expect to see some chromatic aberration: green and purple fringing is visible on either side of those poles. It's not too bad, though.

Even though it's a wide-angle, the lens resolve fine details quite well.

1/1250, f3.5, ISO 100.

1/250, f5.6, ISO 100, +0.7 compensation.

1/30, f5.6, ISO 800. Here's another example of high noise at ISO 800+. There are a few cameras out there whose noise can be pleasing to look at, resembling film grain of yore. The dp1 isn't one of them.

A 100% crop of the previous image, demonstrating poor noise performance at high ISOs, or in low light.

CONCLUSION

The Sigma dp1 Quattro is a strange albeit nicely redesigned fixed-lens compact. It looks like a camera that we should expect to see in the 21st century. If streetscapes and travel photography are your thing, this is a good camera to have in your bag (because it isn't one you can carry in a pocket).
The command dials and buttons are well placed, and the camera handles really well even though it doesn't have the most comfortable grip. Image quality is good for a compact camera, but high ISO or low light also results in higher noise than I would expect in 2016. Or for that matter, even in 2014, when the camera was launched. Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate to carry it with me on, say, a road trip. The lack of an easy way to import RAW into Photoshop means that I just wouldn't ever buy the camera myself.
 

PROS

• Discreet camera for street / travel photography, despite the large-ish lens. 
• Well-placed controls
• Excellent image quality at low ISO (100-400)
• Unique design that stands out among a crowd of conventional compact cameras
• Good colour reproduction

CONS

• RAW conversion and usage is married to Sigma's horrible software. I couldn't even get it to work. Big thumbs down here
• Poor high-ISO performance (800+), with noise that looks like it came out of a camera manufacture 5 years ago. Anything above 800 is practically unusable
• While the command dials are nice to manipulate, the camera is a little uncomfortable to hold
• Visible chromatic aberration, even at f8

I'm really not sure why Sigma has a bad rap in India.

Half the photographers that I speak to have some silly cautionary tale about buying or using Sigma lenses.
From what I can tell it's only hearsay, since none of the naysayers seem to have either owned or used any Sigma lenses.

Unlike the naysaysers, however, I've actually used and owned a couple of Sigma lenses (the 105mm/2.8 macro and the 12-24mm/4.5-5.6).
Both, I have found, were excellent: optically matching or even exceeding their Nikon / Canon counterparts.

And at a lower price, to boot.

So when the PR company that represents Sigma in India called and asked whether I'd be interested in reviewing their 50mm Art lens, I said thatof courseI would be.

With it's Art Line, Sigma's positioning itself as a top-notch lens manufacturer, among the best of the best.

The 50mm/1.4 isn't competing with Canon or Nikon 1.4s.

It's competing with the likes of the revered 55mm/1.4 Zeiss Otus, a lens that is touted as "the best standard lens in the world" by Zeiss.

Which is a tad self-proclamatory, if you ask me. Humility, Zeiss. Can you even autofocus? Tsk.

Compared to the Otus, the difference in cost is substantial. At the time of this writing, the Sigma retails for around Rs. 63,000 (or $950).
While the Otus isn't even listed on popular Indian e-commerce portals, it costs about 4 times as much: $4,000, or thereabouts.

It's worth noting that both Canon's and Nikon's 50mm/f1.4s are considerably cheaper.
They're both priced at around Rs. 21,000, i.e. approximately 1/3rd of Sigma's asking price for the 50 mm Art.

Sigma claims that this lens is a "pro level performer for shooting everything including portrait photography, landscape photography, studio photography and street photography", so I put it through its paces to see if that was true.

If you'd like the short version right here, the lens (mostly) holds up to those claims. Skip to the end of this post to see the conclusion, pros and cons.

As a final introductory note, the lens apparently ships with a hood, but Sigma didn't provide me with one, so all photos herein have been taken without one.
A shame, since there were situations where I probably needed one. Also, Sigma's newer lenses -this one included- can now also be tweaked, and the firmware can be updated if you purchase a USB dock separately. They didn't provide me one of those, either.

Probably a good thing, since at the time of reviewing I had a ton of other work on my plate.

Regardless, I gave it a workout:

TECH SPECS

BUILD QUALITY AND CONSTRUCTION

Before I made the switch to Nikon, I was using Konica-Minolta gear, and my lens of choice for table-top product photography used to be the wonderful Sigma 105mm/f2.8 1:1 macro.
It was the only third-party lens that I was using at the time: all other lenses in my kit were manufactured by Minolta.

Unfortunately, once I switched to Nikon, that particular lens wasn't immediately available in the market, else I'd have bought it in a jiff.
So I bought a Tamron 90mm/f2.8 instead; another great third-party macro. I'm fairly happy with it, despite the slightly shorter focal length and working distance. It more or less matches the Sigma in terms of optical quality.
Build quality, however, is another story. The Sigma macro wins hands-down in that department.

...and that's the first thing that struck me (well, other than its size -it's huge! But more on that in a bit) when I first removed the Sigma 50mm/f1.4 DG HSM ART lens from its nicely-padded soft lens pouch.
It definitely deserves the "Art" tag.
I don't usually throw around words like "excellent", but there's really no other word to describe the build quality of this lens. It looks and feels like a premium product. As it should, for the asking price.
The chassis is a combination of a metal alloy and what Sigma calls a "thermally stable composite". I don't know what that means, but the finish is lovely.

Three points worth noting here:

1. With a count of 13, this has more lens elements than any other 50 mm in the market. Three of these elements are SLDs, which are specifically for minimising chromatic aberration. Even the Zeiss Otus 55mm/f1.4 has 12 elements, so Sigma's really pushed some boundaries here.

2. The 9 bladed diaphragm makes bokeh nearly circular, wide open or stopped down.

3. At 815 g, this is also the heaviest 50mm out there. It weighs nearly as much as a Nikon D750 with a battery and SD card (840 g).
   Onlythe Otus weighs more (and is bigger, too), but that's a 55 mm.

What about size? It's big. Not just big, but, like, big.

At 9.9 cm / 3.9 inches, this lens dwarfs all other 50mms. It's almost twice as big as most other 1.4s and almost three times as large as some 1.8s.

Is the weight or size an issue while shooting? I'd have to say no.

Well, for the most part.

The one downside to its bulk is when you use it for street photography: other than the fact that it gets heavy after, say, about an hour of hand-holding, it's also really obtrusive. Meaning, you’d stick out like a sore thumb to potential street subjects.

Whether you're a master of being discreet or not, there's just no way you can inconspicuously create candid frames for a subject that's close to you, even with a smaller body like a D90. I tried, and although I sneaked in a few good photos, almost everybody that I pointed the camera at noticed me, unless they were already preoccupied.

Slap it on a Nikon D4 or a Canon 1Ds and you might as well be walking around in a gorilla suit. Regardless, if you're a capable street photographer, the lens does well. Just don't take it to a place where you know you need to be discreet. Anyway, street photos comin' up, along with:

AUTOFOCUS PERFORMANCE

"Snappy" is the first word that comes to mind here, thanks to the hypersonic motor (what "HSM" stands for, in case you were wondering).
Autofocus is quick even in very low light, and the HSM ensures that it is also quiet. No whining or whirring "whEEEEkhEEEE" sounds, thank you.

Also, I should mention that in the entire time I used it, there wasn't a single time where the lens really 'struggled' to focus, even in heavily back-lit situations.

To test autofocus performance (and to test Sigma's 'pro-level street lens' claim), I took the 50mm/1.4 coupled with a D90 down to the beach. There's always a lot of fast-paced activity on the beach. Cricket, joggers, people exercising, bathers etc.

Y’know, situations that kit zooms might find difficult to track.

But even for fast-moving subjects, autofocus was a breeze. It's easily the fastest-to-focus-confirmation lens I've used thus far. Unfortunately, there’s also a caveat, but I’ll get to that right after showing you a few samples:

50 mm + D90, f/1.4, 1/3200 s, ISO 200

50mm + D90, f1.4, 1/2000 s, ISO 200

50 mm + D90, f1.4, 1/1250 s, ISO 200

50 mm + D90, f1.4, 1/1000 s, ISO 200

Now, the caveat:
There's a documented problem with AF on this lens, and although 99/100 frames were fine, I did get to experience it first-hand.
On seemingly random but rare occasions, I'd receive in-camera AF confirmation and subsequently take a photograph.
To my disappointment, I'd later find that the lens had somehow "slipped".
Focus would be off, but ever so slightly.
This happened more than once and I know it's not the camera, because ensuring that camera AF is accurate is one of the first things I do when acquiring a new body.
(hint: all you need is a ruler/scale)
Upon Googling it, I found this to be a common complaint with the 50 mm Art, for Canon and Nikon users alike. Apparently it has something to do with off-center AF sensors throwing the lens' autofocus out of whack. I didn't go through all the forum threads or literature about it, but if you search for "Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART autofocus problem", you'll get a plethora of results, and loads of advice.

This is rather unfortunate, because the lens excels in practically every other department.

Apparently Sigma is aware of the problem and is working on a fix, so hopefully we'll see one soon.

For now though, if you're thinking of picking up this particular lens, try and test it first if you can. The sample that I received for the review performed admirably well; out of hundreds of photos, I only experienced this a couple of times. I'd consider that an acceptable loss.
However, some users have reported more frequent misses, with the focal plane shifting to the front.

Example below, along with what it should look like when everything's dandy:

Xena (focus confirmation on right eye)

50mm + D750, f1.4, 1/60 s, ISO 800

100% crop

Focus is way off. While it seems obvious when enlarged, this is a subtle shift when viewed through the viewfinder, very hard to immediately spot. Here, the focus seems to have jumped to somewhere around the nose.

Xena, a few minutes later

D750, f1.4, 1/60 s, ISO 800

100% crop

Spot-on results yield beautiful, razor sharp images even when wide open. The Sigma 50mm Art isn't just sharp, it's crazy sharp at 1.4.

Since we broached the topic, let's move on to...

IMAGE QUALITY, CHROMATIC ABERRATION, SHARPNESS

Rather than concentrate on yawn-inducing charts and graphs, I wanted to see how well the lens performs in the field. If you are interested in the charts and graphs, DxO Mark has put it through some tests here (tested only on a Canon body), and Sigma Rumors has a comprehensive list of reviews here.
Charts and graphs galore if you need 'em.

After looking at the specs, I had a bunch of questions that needed answering.
How good are the SLDs? Do they really kill chromatic aberration? Do you get your money's worth in sharpness and overall image quality? Is the bokeh pleasing? How does it handle flare?

Personally, I've always found some chromatic aberration (or CA) when using any lens wide open, regardless of optical design. Most photographers will pick up a fast lens in order to shoot it wide open, so it's really a matter of how much of a problem CA is in that situation.

And Sigma has minimised CA very well here, those SLDs do their job.
I had to really push its limits in order to create a pronounced effect. Here's a photo that tests flare and CA simultaneously:

On to the beach

D90, f1.4, 1/4000 s, ISO 200

100% crop

Visible purple and green fringing in high-contrast scenarious. In Sigma's defense, this is actually pretty darn good, given the crazy 4+ stop contrast difference.

More than the CA reduction, what I'm really impressed with is how well the lens handles flare. Direct sun in that coconut tree, and no discernible flare effects in the image. A less capable lens would likely have had the entire bottom-half of the frame engulfed in blue and purple overtones.

As for the chromatic aberration itself, it's easily corrected in Photoshop, and often seems to affect defocused elements.

Honestly, that's preferable to CA that affects the focal plane, because it would then reduce sharpness when corrected.

Here's an example.

Scratch interruption

D90, f1.4, 1/4000, ISO 200

100 % crop

The defocused crows in the background exhibit visible CA, while the dog is razor sharp and aberration-free.

I think this also answers "How sharp is it?" adequately (answer: you're likely to cut your thumb), but since this is a review and I'm not known for brevity, I thought I'd also test Sigma's claims about this being a pro-level portrait lens and kill two proverbial birds with one piece of glass.

Y'know, since I'm a professional and everything.

The Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art lens is tack sharp when wide open, which is ideal for portraiture, whether that's commercial, editorial, candid, or photos of the internet's favourite animal. This is the sharpest lens I've ever used.

Moreover, while I didn't shoot a graph for testing it, the lens also exhibits very low distortion. Faces didn't appear bloated even when I filled the frame with them at minimum focusing distance. The 50mm/1.8 Nikkor in comparison makes faces appear larger.

Here's a gallery of portrait samples, all shot at f1.4, with minimal adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw:

BOKEH

All that sharpness comes with one trade-off, though: slightly-to-moderately distracting bokeh.

Many people fuss over bokeh, the quality and appearance of the out-of-focus areas.
Are they creamy or distracting? Do you get smooth, easy transitions from the focal plane, or is it jarring? Do the out-of-focus elements have noticeable hard edges?
Bokeh is often over-discussed, but it is worth discussing, nevertheless.

Especially with the Sigma, because its sharpness is clearly a double-edged sword.
It's so sharp that the out-of-focus elements can indeedbe a little jarring. In some of the portraits above, you might’ve noticed that the defocused greenery is a little ...well.. sharp. A tad more well-defined than I'd like it to be, with halos at the edges in some cases.

This actually worsens as you stop down. Bokeh can range from slightly distracting at f1.4 to say f1.8, but once you go past f2.0, it starts getting sharper than I'd consider desirable.

Here's what I mean:

50 mm + D90, f1.4, 1/200 s, ISO 200

Visible halos around defocused elements that are closer to the focal plane are a little jarring. The specular highlight has a very prominent edge around it.

50mm + D750, f1.4, 1/160 s, ISO 1600

Specular highlights leave a bright and hard edge in the bokeh.

50 mm + D90, f1.4, 1/2500 s,  ISO 200

Even elements far off in the distance can have this haloing, double-edged' effect.

At f1.4, you can create some creamy bokeh if you choose a background that is sufficiently distant.

f1.8 shows little discernible difference, but will probably reduce chromatic aberration some. A good f number to be using with this lens.

Once you get to f2.8, however, the background begins to get jarring. Way too sharp for my liking. This is of course subjective and some folks will consider this to be absolutely fine.

Now don't get me wrong, this isn't a complaint in as much advice about how to best use the lens to get past this drawback.

Also, this doesn't mean that you can't get beautiful, creamy and dreamy bokeh. You can, you just need to get your subjects as close as possible, shoot close to wide open, and reduce specular highlights in the background if you can.
Since I provided some criticism, I think it's only fair to also provide examples where the bokeh really shines (also a more likely use-case scenario) so here goes:

D750, f1.6, 1/1000, ISO 100

D90, f1.4, 1/2500 s, ISO 200

D750, f1.6, 1/100 s, ISO 1000

D750, f1.8, 1/400 s, ISO 1250

D750, f1.8, 1/400, ISO 1250

CONCLUSION

This is a fast, ultra-sharp lens that really can compete with the likes of some of the best optics available in the market today. I can confidently say that the lens lives up to Sigma's claims of being a pro-level all-rounder.
Even up close and personal, there is little distortion. Chromatic aberration is superbly controlled, and I'd highly recommend the lens to anybody who can afford it.

PROS:

• Among the sharpest 50mm/1.4s available in the market. Super sharp even at f1.4.

• Practically distortion-free.

• Fast and silent autofocus.

• Very versatile, just like Sigma claims: excellent lens for portraiture, and quite suitable for street and studio work.

• Much cheaper than its only real competitor: the Zeiss Otus 55mm/f1.4

CONS:

• Sharpness can be a trade-off for hard-edged bokeh elements.

• Big and heavy.

• Costs 3 times as much as Canon or Nikon 1.4s

• While rare, autofocus sometimes fails.

I was referred to a gentleman named Mahadevan by the folks at Under the Mango Tree. Mahadevan, or "Maha" as he seems to prefer, is a beekeeper and although he's an IT consultant by profession, he's equally passionate about pollinators.

Maha, in turn, connected me with the Director of Maharashtra Nature Park -a gentleman named Mr. Avinash Kubal- and I visited their trails and grounds a couple of days ago.
Mr. Kubal was generous enough to allow me access to some areas of the park which are off-limits to other visitors. He also introduced me to another passionate man named Pradip Patade, who patiently showed me around all the trails while braving a nasty cough.
Pradip has been working on a project that involves documenting marine life of Mumbai's coasts, and I was blown away by his photos. I'll share a link to his work soon.

While walking around, I was very pleased to finally encounter Apis dorsata, aka the giant honeybee or the rock bee, on the park grounds. They're all over this park, making me regret that I haven't visited earlier.
(In my defense, the monsoon season over the last couple of months has really prevented me from going anywhere in search of bees)
 

The rock bee is the largest of all honeybee species, easily distinguished from its cousins by its long, tapering abdomen. And of course, its size.
They're also the only honeybees that cannot be tamed. While they're relatively docile when foraging, they're purpotedly easily provoked if you approach their hives, unlike the European honeybee or the Indian species. They're not too bothered by humans chasing them around water lily ponds, though.

Some walks down the trail got me these gems:

However, the park is also abundant with these beauties:

Ceratina sp., the small carpenter bee. At 6-8 mm, they're easily missed, or mistaken for flies. While they're tiny in comparison to their Xylocopa cousins (which get pretty big), they're closely related. Just like Xylocopa, genus Ceratina also burrow into soft woods to make nests. Interestingly, several species are social bees.
I'd initially mistaken these beauties for sweat bees, but stumbled across the Wikipedia article while trying to identify them.

All in all, the trip down to the park was quite satisfying.

I'll be making several more trips to this wonderful little nature reserve, but I wanted to put up a quick blog post about it.

Well, mostly. Despite the news making PetaPixel and Imaging Resource (among many other photography websites), if you read the actual paper and watch the video below, you'll note that the supplied photo that is making the rounds is a simulation. Also, there are situations where this doesn't work perfectly.

So perhaps we shouldn't be hailing the end of overexposure just yet. Regardless, the concept is sound (the researchers have used the technique for grayscale images as proof-of-concept) and I wouldn't be surprised if major camera manufacturers adopted the idea at the hardware level.

So how does it work?

By putting a "counter" on overexposed pixels.

Image sensors have millions of photosites that collect light. You might think of these photosites as tiny little 'buckets', collecting "raindrops" in the form of photons.

When the bucket is "empty" (e.g. "your lens cap is still on, stupid!"), the photosite doesn't collect any photons, and the colour black is recorded.
When the bucket is "full", the photosite records white light.
Colour is recorded by using red, green, and blue photosites, and then interpolating the results.

However, once the bucket fills up completely, it "spills over". In other words, the photo site receives more 'raindrops' than the 'bucket' can hold.
And that's how you get overexposure in a photo. In technical terms, the recorded information exceeds the upper end of a photosite's dynamic range.

Up until now, we've just had to live with this.

But in the new approach -the kind that makes you think, "Why didn't someone think of this earlier?", the MIT researchers created a counter for each photosite, so that when it fills up, it resets and begins recording anew.

Watch the video below explaining the process.

For more info: http://web.media.mit.edu/~hangzhao/

What is notable is that Sigma, Olympus, Fujifilm and Sony have also picked up multiple awards.
Sony expectedly got an award in the Professional CSC (aka mirrorless or EVIL) category for the fabulous α7 II, as well as awards in the CSC lens and Compact Camera categories.

Sigma was awarded the best DSLR Lens for its 24mm/1.4 ART lens, and best DSLR Telephoto Zoom for its acclaimed 150-600mm/f5-6.3. The reviews for both of these products have been overwhelmingly positive.

Olympus bagged the Professional CSC Lens for the 40-150/f2.8 lens and "Prosumer CSC" for the OM-D E-M5 II.

Fujifilm's X-T10 won the best Consumer CSC, and the 16-55mm/f2.8 won the best CSC Zoom.

Nikon (and I use their gear) only managed to secure the Consumer DSLR award for the D5500. I hope they're paying attention, for that's probably the most boring category to possibly win an award for.

The LG G4 took the award for the best smartphone camera. I would have expected that to be the iPhone 6, but the G4 apparently has a faster lens, a colour spectrum sensor, laser autofocus and most importantly- manual controls and RAW output! That puts it leagues ahead in terms of features, at least.

Honestly though, I think that Canon and Nikon really need to be doing more than just upgrading yesteryear's DSLRs. It is quite ominous that neither company won anything in non-DSLR categories, and complacency will very likely cause them problems.
While the DSLR isn't 'dead' like a lot of people proclaim, the technology has certainly become dated, and professionals are getting tired of a lack of choice. Some have even made the switch to Sony. While I'd rather wait for the mirrorless market to mature a little before taking that step, I can sympathise.
There are fewer and fewer arguments for having a large, mechanical mirror that flips up before you take a photo.

Here's the full list of awardees:

PROFESSIONAL DSLR LENS 2015-2016
Canon EF 11-24mm F/4L USM

PROFESSIONAL DSLR CAMERA 2015-2016
Canon EOS 5DS/5DS R

PROSUMER DSLR CAMERA 2015-2016
Canon EOS 7D Mark II

PHOTO INNOVATION 2015-2016
DxO ONE

COMPACT SYSTEM ZOOM LENS 2015-2016
Fujifilm Fujinon XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR

CONSUMER COMPACT SYSTEM CAMERA 2015-2016
Fujifilm X-T10

PREMIUM COMPACT CAMERA 2015-2016
Leica Q

EUROPEAN SMARTPHONE CAMERA 2015-2016
LG G4

CONSUMER DSLR CAMERA 2015-2016
Nikon D5500

PROFESSIONAL COMPACT SYSTEM LENS 2015-2016
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40‑150mm F2.8 PRO

PROSUMER COMPACT SYSTEM CAMERA
Olympus OM-D E-M5 II

PHOTO & VIDEO CAMERA 2015-2016
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7/G70

DSLR TELEPHOTO ZOOM LENS 2015-2016
SIGMA 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports

DSLR LENS 2015-2016
SIGMA 24mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art

TRAVEL COMPACT CAMERA 2015-2016
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX90/V

COMPACT SYSTEM LENS 2015-2016
Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS

PROFESSIONAL COMPACT SYSTEM CAMERA 2015-2016
Sony α7 II

DSLR ZOOM LENS 2015-2016
Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD

1. For Image editing and/or retouching: Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop.
Well, duh. This had to be in here. Before Adobe launched its subscription-based business model (i.e. Creative Cloud), many photographers would understandably look for cheap or free alternatives: Photoshop was priced completely out of reach for a lot of beginners. However, none of the cheaper or free alternatives provided the power and versatility of Photoshop/Lightroom. Adobe's been leading the pack for a reason: both products are excellent.
Some paid apps (On1, Capture One Pro) come close to the feature-richness, but none really match it in my opinion.
Moreover, due to its quarter-century-old legacy, there are reams upon reams of tutorials and tips on the web. There are several excellent channels on YouTube.
Besides, with Photoshop and Lightroom now bundled together for the meagre price of Rs. 499/- (or $9.99 in other regions -haha, we Indians always get a bargain), it's now also affordable. Gone are the days where it would cost hundreds of dollars, or tens of thousands of rupees.
The advantages and features are too numerous to list or describe in a single blog post, but whether you're an amateur landscape photographer or a seasoned professional portrait photographer, this is one absolute must-have combo. Adobe allows you to install both applications on up to 2 computers for a single purchase; helpful if you have an office computer and a home computer, or a laptop and a desktop.
Just bear in mind that image editing and retouching have their own learning curve. It's all a tad overwhelming at first, but you'll get into the groove soon enough.
Technically, these are actually two apps, but since they're sold bundled together, I'm also bundling them together in the list.

2. For making digital notes: Evernote
A note-making app that syncs across any phone or computer you want to use it on? Check.
Can add photos, videos or hand-written notes? Check.
Rich text editor if you need it? Check.
Metadata? Check.
Free? BIG OLE CHECK.
'nuff said. Get it here.

The paid version allows you to share notes with others, annotate PDFs, discover text in images, etc. If you need to. I haven't found the need to purchase a premium license yet, but I know several people who can't do without the paid features.
I use Evernote for the following, among many other things:
- Recording lighting diagrams for/from shoots.
- Blog ideas (this post was one of them, ha!).
- Noting down conceptual ideas, or "aha!" moments.
- Digitising business meeting notes
- "Penning down" stray thoughts that need to be recorded.
- Saving web page snippets as reference material.
Some folks even use Evernote to create blog posts.

3. For Cloud Storage: Dropbox or Google Drive
I'm still sometimes taken aback when people say that they don't use (or worse, haven't heard of) either of these cloud-based storage applications. They've made life so much easier, especially when it comes to delivering and sharing images to clients and business associates.
There's no clear winner here, although I prefer Drive because it integrates well with my email and makes sharing easier. Still, there's little that you can do with Google Drive that you can't do with Dropbox. I've even found that larger files upload to Dropbox quicker.
The tipping point for me towards Drive? Price. While both services are free for around 15 GB (Google gives you 15, to attain that with Dropbox you have to refer friends etc.), only Google Drive has the option of 100 GB for $1.99/month.
You can purchase 1 TB of cloud storage for $9.99 on either, but I really don't need that much space. It's not quite enough as a cloud backup option and way too much if you're just going to use it to share or deliver files via email. I keep a backup of some of my latest work in some Drive folders, but my backup is mostly unclouded.

4. For tethered shooting: sofortbild (Nikon, Mac only) and digiCamControl (Nikon or Canon, PCs, tablets and smartphones)
Admittedly, "sofortbild" sounds like some Norse monster or something. "Look, the sofortbild just devoured a bilgesnipe!"
But no, rest assured that it is, in fact, an application for Mac OS. If you're unfamiliar with tethered shooting, there's a great primer on DIYPhotography.
Sofortbild currently only supports Nikon cameras, but since I'm a Nikon user, I'm hardly complaining. It's quick to launch, intuitive, and has a very low memory footprint.
I use it for every catalog shoot, wherein I set up the camera on a tripod and subsequently have an assistant change products while I use my Macbook to trigger the shutter. The app also has a few other cool features: interval-based shooting for creating time-lapse, and the ability to change exposure, metering, and image format from the computer. Beats having to get up and mess with camera dials every time a change is needed.
digiCamControl is a great PC and smartphone or tablet option, and it also triggers Canon cameras. I'd only installed it on my PC and haven't used it much, but it's the best alternative. It also has additional features: an astronomy module, and time-lapse videos right out of the box. So to speak.
I should probably state that LIghtroom also allows you to shoot tethered, but I've found it to be a tad slower, and it doesn't have the features that either of the other programs here offer. Perhaps it's because tethered shooting isn't Lightroom's primary purpose. Moreover, that's all the Lightroom module does: if you want to change settings, you'll have to do it in-camera.

5. For outdoor shoot planning: The Photographer's Ephemeris.
Originally an iOS-only app, this program is now available on Android, PC and Mac. The Web app is free, but the apps on the phone (where it really comes in handy) cost around Rs. 300/-.
What does it do? Well, among other features, it gives you a time and direction of sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset, phase of the moon and % of illumination it provides, automatic detection of elevation above sea level and time zones,  and you can even determine what time the sun or moon will be visible over a hill or mountain.
There are quite a few other features, so check it out. I use the web app for any outdoorsy types of shoots, even if they're casual trips to Mumbai's national park.

What's your list? Would you add more? Remove any? Let me know in the comments!
 

Once we got to his house, we ventured out almost immediately. Immediately after I'd weather-proofed my camera. And  after two beers and a rum 'n coke.

Now, I've seen a lot of protective gear for cameras. Short of the underwater housings that cost as much as a camera body, I haven't found any of it to be worth the money one spends on it.
If anybody has recommendations, please feel free to post a few in the comments, but I prefer a DIY low-tech approach. Mostly because I'm a cheap bastard.
Haha, just kidding. I'm a photographer. 
We're all cheap bastards.
With that in mind, transparent shower caps and elastic bands seem to work well. The downside is that you can't change lenses once the camera is in it's shower-cap-nappy, and using command dials can be a little tricky. Not that you can change lenses during a downpour with other kinds of protective gear anyway, but I kept wanting to switch to the wide-angle lens that I'd brought along with me but rarely used it.

The upside, of course, is that it's cheap and effective.

Note to folks who might want to try this (or people who've had two beers before attempting to do so): when using a radio trigger and a flash, make sure that the trigger is secured on your camera's hotshoe and that it is triggering the flash before you start wrapping the camera up in a shower cap. Removing the shower caps and re-securing them with the bands is a bit of a chore.

Anyway, here's the camera and flash with their plastic nappies:

Once that was done, we were all set to go shooting six-legged critters. I knew I wasn't going to find bees: it was either continuously drizzling or pouring like crazy, and bees don't venture out in the rain.

But the makeshift protection proved to work and I did manage to get a few good photos of some other arthropods:

The Lumix GX-8 replaces the well-received GX-7, and the upgrades are noteworthy. They've crammed a few more megapixels into the camera: 20.3, up from 16.
Other upgrades include a slightly higher frames-per-second burst mode, an electronic shutter that can capture at speeds of up to 1/16,000th of a second, and a lower base ISO (100 vs 125 on the GX7). You can find a good comparison chart here if you want all the spec changes.

The biggest upgrades? 4k video, and dual stabilisation!

4K in itself is a big deal, but dual stabilisation is one of those things that makes you think, "I wonder why nobody else thought of that before."
Sensor-based stabilisation technology has been around since the Maxxum 7D. I used to use one, and it allowed a liberty of at least 2 stops in low light situations.
When I switched to Nikon, the only stabilisation available was, of course, VR, or vibration reduction. Again, that saves you about 2 stops.
Push comes to shove, it'll even do 3.

It remains to be seen how well dual-stabilisation will work, and the handicap here seems to be that you can't use 4K and dual stabilisation together.

One oddity I found is that of the swivelling viewfinder. I would imagine that this would be handy if you didn't have an articulated LCD, but since that's present, what purpose does it serve?

The Lumix GX8 can do 4k at 24 and 30 fps, which is ...impressive.  Processors will continue to improve and offer more cycles per second, but 8 megapixels 30 times a second is quite a feat.
Other notable features:

• NFC (although I have yet to meet anybody who uses this)
• WiFi connectivity
• Time-lapse recording

The body-only price seems to be $1,200. A little steep, but worth the features, in my opinion. Dpreview has a good hands-on article here.

About the video:
Konrad Eek has been working in darkrooms for 40 years.
Watch a master technician work his craft, as he explains how old-school darkroom dodging, burning, layers adjustments, sharpening, selection tools, feathering and contrast adjustments were made before Photoshop came along.
While some of you may be familiar with these techniques, most photographers today haven't even seen an enlarger, much less a darkroom. Personally, I've done some darkroom work, but it was right around the time that film photography was making its transition to digital photography.

This was part of lynda.com's celebration of 25 years of Photoshop in February this year. If you're a professional photographer and haven't seen an experienced hand work in the darkroom, this is a must-see!

Editorial portrait photography throws you many wildcards. Some shoots go according to plan (for the most part), while others require some "duct-taping". Still others are more to the tune of you-have-no-idea-of-what-to-expect. Somehow, I seem to always find the shoots that fit that last description.

What makes editorial photography more challenging is the tighter budget that magazines tend to have compared to commercial productions. It entails travelling light, shooting quickly, and being cognisant about where and how the photos are going to end up, way before you hit the shutter release.

But that's also what makes them fun and exciting.

A print magazine cover will mean that you're working within a few constraints:

1. The resultant photograph needs negative space that allows for copy. The composition needs to accommodate the title and copy about stories within the mag. The image above serves as an example, as does any magazine cover, really.
2. One has to compose with vertical or 'portrait' layout in mind. Dimensions of magazines can vary, but this is a commonality among most, if not all. Any exceptions are few and far in between.
3. For this particular shoot, the magazine wanted full-length photos. They didn't say why, but that was a prerequisite. These are always a little harder to do than say, headshots. Not only do you have to worry about body language and coach/goad your subjects when posing, you also have to break through the defensive barrier people put up when in front of a camera. This can be easy enough with light conversation, but people are doubly conscious in front of the camera when you're taking a full length portrait. Headshots, in comparison, are a breeze.

Preparation and lighting gear

The first, most obvious prep is to do your homework about the magazine and its cover layout.
This will at least partially drive creative decisions that govern composition. How much headroom? How much space at the bottom? Wide angle or tele?
The mood of the story and the magazine are also considerations, but they weren't really discussed in this instance.
On the day before the shoot, I usually call all parties involved to confirm that the shoot is still on, and create a checklist for all the gear that I'll be carrying with me.

As for the gear itself, big surprise: I tend to carry what the budget and the shoot call for. Neither the PR agency nor the magazine said how much time I'd have for the shoot, so gear decisions would have had to be based on the assumption that I'd have 15 minutes, tops.

In other words, the lighter, the better: other than the camera and lenses, one flashgun, one modifier and one stand. I always check and see if everything's working properly before I leave.

• A: Digitek wireless radio trigger/transmitter for the flash, on camera hotshoe. There are now a variety of brands that perform the same function. Yesteryear, the only two that were reliable were PocketWizards and Cactus triggers, but I'm pretty happy with the range and reliability of this device.
• B: Nikon SB-24 flashgun, with a spare set of batteries. This is my go-to flash for quick editorial shoots. It's seen some wear over the last few years. Poor flashy's taken a few falls.
• C: Digitek receiver that is paired with the flash
• D: Flash umbrella bracket. Sits atop a stand (not pictured)
• F: An Elinchrom silver reflective umbrella. I like these way better than the shoot-throughs. They're "punchier", i.e. they're more contrasty, don't create hotspots in the middle of the beam, and cause less light spill.
• Other than what is pictured above, I had a camera bag (a Lowepro Compact AW) packed with a D90, 18-200mm/3.5-5.6, 50mm/1.8, a Tamron 90mm/2.8, a light meter for measuring ambient light and flash output, and 2 sets of 4x AA batteries.

Making the photograph

I arrived early so that I'd have time to quickly set up my flash, scope the place out, and take a few test shots. The office had a very noticeable red sofa that I decided to stop and stare at for a minute. I'd hoped that the recording studio would be more photogenic.

It wasn't.This, for instance was the vocals booth in the recording studio.

Ugh.

Not much you can do here, really. A tiny room that can barely fit three people isn't exactly conducive to making good photos. I'm sure it works fine as a studio, but it doesn't do me any good as a photographer, especially when the magazine is looking for full-length portraits.

The slightly larger mixing room was an option, but it was occupied and people were in the middle of an edit, so that was out until they were finished.

I was finally ushered back into the office with the red couch, where I immediately started setting up. That was going to have to be the location.

Window light was nice and soft, but there just wasn't enough of it: at 1/8th of a second, f3.5 and ISO 2000,  even the slightest movement by Pritam was going to result in some serious motion blur.
To illustrate, I'd taken a few frames illuminated only with window light just to see what it was doing (answer: not good things), and here's what I got:

But I'm getting a little ahead of myself. The photo above was taken after I'd finished taking the cover shot.

I wanted to emulate the window light, but I wasn't particularly keen on creating the split-lighting results the window was creating.
The solution was simple. Umbrella emulating window light. Like so:

Oh yeah. Muuuuuch better. at 1/4th power with the SB-24, I'd effectively gained 8-odd stops: the exposure was now 1/200th, f6.3, ISO 200.

Out, damned spot shake!

I could've had a softer light source like a shoot through umbrella, but I still prefer the silver to the flat look that white umbrellas give you. I rarely carry them to portrait shoots because they spread light everywhere. In a large room this isn't a problem, but Mumbai has tin-can sized apartments, so light from a white/transluscent/shoot-through bounces off everything. And that makes every wall in a room a secondary, tertiary and quaternary light source. Flat. Booooring.

Initially, I'd imagined shooting Pritam at the far end of the couch while keeping the angle somewhat similar to the above photograph, but closer to his eye-level.
I was about to ask one of the ladies from the PR agency to be my stand-in model to check what the light was looking like when he walked in.
One advantage of working with somebody who's famous and has been the subject of many-a-shoot is that they always have several changes available. Pritam was no exception; he brought a small suitcase full of clothes with him.
We quickly went through some of his options and I picked the blue T-shirt and leather jacket as I thought it'd pop against the red. Harmonious primary colours and whatnot.

But as it turned out, the end-of-the-couch idea wasn't going to cut it:

Light? Check. Looking good. Negative space? Check. Everything else? Not so much. It's not a bad shot, but somehow doesn't really say "cover". Plus, I really didn't like the break in the background being right behind his head. That had to go.

So, yeah. Less is more: I had him move right into the middle of the sofa, and finally ended up with these:

I probably would've gone with the "smiley" shot, since Pritam is a sociable person, but the magazine chose the first one. They also muted the reds and evened out the skin tone.

But that's a cover shot all right :).

Permalink

]]>Making the shot: Pritam Chakraborty for Score magazine.Post ProcessingInput DevicesAkshay JamwalFri, 10 Jul 2015 13:19:48 +0000https://www.akshayjamwal.com/blog/2015/7/10/if-youve-ever-wished-for-more-tactile-editing-palette-is-a-tool-that-offers-dials-and-sliders55142b2de4b07d78d6c0c753:556f043ce4b01f283c9b6653:559ece65e4b0445daef62e4dThere are times when the mouse and keyboard shine over other input devices. Playing a first person shooter game is one example: although I've tried all sorts of game controllers over the years, nothing beats the good 'ole mouse 'n keyboard.

But as a photographer, there are other times when the mouse and keyboard fall short. On numerous occasions, I've wished that I had a DJ-style analog slider or dial as an input device, or a button to perform a function instead of clunky keyboard shortcuts that are prone to error due to coffee or sleep deprivation. I don't care how many DPI the latest Razer mouse is, its marriage with an on-screen slider is purely one of convenience. Trackpads are just as bad, although Apple products admittedly make this less painful. So when companies launch input devices with the intention of filling this very gap, I'm certainly paying attention, and especially when its integrated with Adobe products.

Palette is a device that's designed for folks that prefer the tactility of dials and sliders. It's "tightly integrated with Adobe Photoshop CC", or so they claim. Based on the photos and Youtube videos of the device being used in action, I'm inclined to believe them. And pick one up.

Palette raised close to $160,000 a couple of years ago via a Kickstarter campaign. While there's plenty of reason to be wary of some Kickstarter campaigns, this looks like a quality product that's had plenty of thought put into its product design.

Being able to use a real physical slider and dial to control exposure, white balance, saturation, curves etc. to me would at the very least solve the problem of having to look at a slider instead of the image you're using it on. I can't say for sure until I've used one myself, but I"m betting it'd make workflow more efficacious. With the amount of time we photographers have to spend on computers these days, that is more than welcome.

What makes the product even more enticing is that it's customisable. And how! No really, it's the how part is really interesting. No wires, no ports, magnets! Who doesn't love magnets? The modularity of its design means many possible configurations for many possible workspace sizes. Presumably that's what they had in mind.

The 'core'module connects to your PC or Mac, and you can attach the many dials, buttons or sliders to it (and each other of course) depending on your needs, workspace and workflow:-

Palette is taking pre-orders, and will start shipping units in November 2015. It's made quite a bit of news already. The kits seem to be reasonably priced: the Aluminum Starter kit, containing 5 modules (the core, 2 buttons, 1 slider and 1 dial), costs $199. For what it seems to offer, that's a very competitive price-point. I've bought Logitech mice that have cost nearly as much.

The other three, viz. Aluminum Expert, Aluminum Professional, and Limited Edition Wood Professional kits will set you back $299, $499 and $899 respectively. The expert kit contains 8 modules, while both professional kits contain 15. In addition, they also sell  the individual buttons, sliders and dials separately should you need them.

Will I be buying one soon? I don't know yet. I'm sort of leaning towards yes, but I've never really been much of an early adopter. I usually sit it out for a bit and wait for reviews by several users. The Starter Kit is tempting, though and November seems really far away to wait for reviews.

You can have a look at and purchase their products here, and they have a couple of Youtube videos that are worth watching. Watch the videos below for more info, or head over to their channel on Youtube, where in addition to photography, they also have design, music and animation usage examples. Whether or not this product becomes mainstream, hat's off to the design team for envisioning it.