I had only read very unflattering reviews of the Quattro compacts (basically that they were no better than the DPs, but WORSE ergonomically). I didn't realize they had brought out a "cheap" body. I could be tempted to give one a go with some of their awesome Art series quality glass.
I just don't like that it seems to be EITHER mind-blowing resolution....OR the ability to go above ISO 400. Or the compromise of AWESOME image quality and HORRIBLE UI (and software, and slow AF, etc.). I fully understand everything going in to the decision process, but these gripes have been the same for the last 7 years (or however long they've been making quirky cameras). Can't they just make the glass and the sensor and hire someone else to make the actual working camera and software?
To be honest... there is NOTHING that would induce me to buy this (or any of the other Sigma cameras, refurbed or not). I know the Foveon sensor is supposed to be wonderful, and I've certainly seen some wonderful shots posted in this forum from the DP series, but really, the cons far outweigh the one pro that it has... I'm a glutton for cameras, but the Sigmas have never even made a wishlist, for me. I will agree that ergonomically, the SD looks like an improvement. Maybe thats a half of a pro.
i agree sue. i had the sd12 and one of every ten or fifteen shots was superb. af was awful. vf was awful--i put it in the digilux 2 category. medium iso was awful (not high iso mind you which was not possible). there was simply nothing good about the camera except that 1 in 10-15 shots that was superb.