OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Cameras Methodology v3.0
Cameras Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Cameras Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Cameras Methodology v3.0

Sigma DP0 Quattro review: 112 specs compared

Avg. price:~£730Sensor size:APS-CWeight:500 gBattery life (CIPA):200 shots

Sigma DP0 Quattro Review: Compare 112 technical specifications and 13 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Cameras category and whether it is worth buying.

Sigma DP0 Quattro
5.3/10

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, best-of lists, expert reviews and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 35%, List score 30%, Reviews score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

35%

3.9

Technical score

30%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

3.9

Reviews score

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.1, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 87% of cameras
5.7

Value for money

Value for money
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the camera's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you want to know how much overall quality you get for the price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

6.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 94%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

28%

6.1

Sensor & Image

25%

2.5

Photo Features

18%

2.5

Video & Audio

14%

4.6

Display & Design

8%

3.7

Battery & Power

7%

2.0

Connectivity & Storage

â–¼Worse than 87%
3.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.5 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models

3.9

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

7.7

Popularity

Grades by review (13)
9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 90%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 30% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • sigma-dp0-quattro
  • sigma-dp0-quattro
  • sigma-dp0-quattro
sigma-dp0-quattro
sigma-dp0-quattro
sigma-dp0-quattro
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the Sigma DP0 Quattro

Based on 8 · 4

The lens and image quality earn strong praise, but high ISO results are weak and handling divides opinion.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Cameras model ranking

Ranked #387 of 975 models in Cameras (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of camera Sigma DP0 Quattro

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 35% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

28%

6.1

Sensor & Image

25%

2.5

Photo Features

18%

2.5

Video & Audio

14%

4.6

Display & Design

8%

3.7

Battery & Power

7%

2.0

Connectivity & Storage

3.9
Reviews score
3.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the camera's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you want to know how much overall quality you get for the price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

6.7

Price

5.7
Sensor size
APS-C
This camera has a sensor size of APS-C, which is larger than 58.6% of cameras and the same as 24.8% of cameras.
Sensor resolution
29 MP
This camera captures images at 29 MP, which is higher than 91.2% of cameras and equal to 0.1% of cameras.
Sensor pixel size
3.6 µm
Market range: <1.33 µm – >5.94 µm
This camera has sensor pixels measuring 3.6 µm, which are larger than those in 53.5% of cameras.
Base ISO
100
Market range: <80 – >200
This camera has a base ISO of 100, which is lower than 26.7% of cameras and equal to 53.4% of cameras.
Max ISO
ISO 6400 ISO
This camera reaches ISO 6,400, which is higher than 38.6% of cameras and equal to 15.7% of cameras.
Show more
What reviewers say
Lens mount
N/A
Built-in focus motor
N/A
N. of focus points
9
Market range: <9 – >399
This camera has a focus-point count of 9, which is lower than 66.3% of cameras and equal to 26.2% of cameras.
Phase-detection autofocus (photos)
no
This camera does not support phase-detection autofocus for photos. 36.6% of cameras support phase-detection autofocus for photos.
AF tracking
no
This camera does not support AF tracking. 87.5% of cameras support this feature.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max video resolution
N/A
Video bitrate
N/A
Video bit depth
N/A
Video chroma subsampling
N/A
Video codecs
N/A
Show more
Type
compact
Weight
500 g
Market range: <142 g – >812 g
This camera weighs 500 g, which is heavier than 63.4% of cameras and equal to 0.3% of cameras.
Width
161 mm
Market range: <96 mm – >142.6 mm
This camera is 161 mm wide, which is wider than 99.5% of cameras.
Height
67 mm
Market range: <57.6 mm – >105.8 mm
This camera is 67 mm tall, which is shorter than 59.5% of cameras and equal to 1.9% of cameras.
Thickness
126 mm
Market range: <21.9 mm – >92 mm
This camera is 126 mm thick, which is thicker than 97.6% of cameras and equal to 0.4% of cameras.
Show more
What reviewers say
Battery life (CIPA)
200 shots
Market range: <210 shots – >700 shots
This camera lasts for 200 shots per charge, which is shorter than 89.6% of cameras and equal to 4.4% of cameras.
Battery capacity
1,200 mAh
Market range: <700 mAh – >2.2k mAh
This camera has 1,200 mAh battery capacity, which is larger than 52.3% of cameras and equal to 2.6% of cameras.
Removable battery
yes
This camera has a removable battery, and 97.8% of cameras include one.
USB Power Delivery (PD)
no
This camera does not support USB Power Delivery. 10.6% of cameras support USB Power Delivery.
Wi-Fi connectivity
no
This camera does not support Wi-Fi. 48.2% of cameras include this feature.
Wi-Fi version
N/A
Bluetooth connectivity
no
This camera does not have Bluetooth. 24.1% of cameras support Bluetooth.
Bluetooth version
N/A
USB Type-C
no
This camera does not include USB Type-C. 16.4% of cameras use USB-C.
Show more

Sigma DP0 Quattro vs the average camera

246810TotalDisplay & DesignSensor & ImagePhoto FeaturesVideo & AudioBattery & PowerConnectivity & Storage
  • More megapixels
    This camera has more megapixels than the average camera (29 MP vs 16.2 MP). The average camera's sensor resolution is 16.2 MP.
    29 MP vs 16.2 MP
  • Larger image sensor
    This camera has a larger sensor than the average camera (APS-C vs 2/3"). The average camera's sensor size is 2/3".
    APS-C vs 2/3"
  • Lossless compressed RAW
    This camera supports lossless compressed RAW, while the average camera does not.
  • Built-in timelapse
    This camera includes timelapse capture, the average camera does not.
  • More megapixels
    This camera has more megapixels than the average camera (29 MP vs 16.2 MP). The average camera's sensor resolution is 16.2 MP.
    29 MP vs 16.2 MP
  • Larger image sensor
    This camera has a larger sensor than the average camera (APS-C vs 2/3"). The average camera's sensor size is 2/3".
    APS-C vs 2/3"
  • Lossless compressed RAW
    This camera supports lossless compressed RAW, while the average camera does not.
  • Built-in timelapse
    This camera includes timelapse capture, the average camera does not.
  • 40.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.5 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models

    3.9

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    7.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.9 vs 6.5
  • No AF tracking
    This camera does not support AF tracking, the average camera does. 87.4% of cameras support it.
  • 2 fewer microphones
    This camera has fewer microphones than the average camera (0 vs 2). The average camera has a microphone count of 2.
    0 vs 2
  • Lacks HDR mode
    This camera does not support HDR mode, the average camera does. 55% of cameras include HDR mode.
  • No continuous video AF
    This camera does not support continuous autofocus in video, the average camera does.
  • 130 shots shorter battery life
    This camera lasts shorter per charge than the average camera (200 shots vs 330 shots). The average camera lasts for 330 shots.
    200 shots vs 330 shots
  • 14 fewer focus points
    This camera has a lower focus-point count than the average camera (9 vs 23). The average camera has a count of 23.
    9 vs 23
  • 1.6 fps slower mechanical burst
    This camera has a slower mechanical burst than the average camera (4 fps vs 5.6 fps). The average camera reaches 5.6 fps.
    4 fps vs 5.6 fps
  • 40.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.5 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 90% of models

    3.9

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    7.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    9 reviews: 5 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.9 vs 6.5
  • 20.8% worse value for money
    Sigma DP0 Quattro has a worse value-for-money score than the average camera (5.7 vs 6.9).
    5.7 vs 6.88
  • 2.52x more expensive
    Sigma DP0 Quattro is more expensive than the average camera (£730 vs £290).
    £730 vs £290
  • 80.1 mm thicker
    This camera is thicker than the average camera (126 mm vs 45.9 mm). The average camera is 45.9 mm thick.
    126 mm vs 45.9 mm
  • No flash
    This camera does not have a built-in flash, the average camera does. 73.1% of cameras have a flash.
  • 42 mm wider
    This camera is wider than the average camera (161 mm vs 119 mm). The average camera is 119 mm wide.
    161 mm vs 119 mm
  • 110.5 g heavier
    This camera is heavier than the average camera (500 g vs 389.5 g). The average camera weighs 389.5 g.
    500 g vs 389.5 g
  • Lacks HDR mode
    This camera does not support HDR mode, the average camera does. 55% of cameras include HDR mode.
  • No AF tracking
    This camera does not support AF tracking, the average camera does. 87.4% of cameras support it.
  • 14 fewer focus points
    This camera has a lower focus-point count than the average camera (9 vs 23). The average camera has a count of 23.
    9 vs 23
  • 1.6 fps slower mechanical burst
    This camera has a slower mechanical burst than the average camera (4 fps vs 5.6 fps). The average camera reaches 5.6 fps.
    4 fps vs 5.6 fps
  • 26.3 fps slower electronic shooting
    This camera shoots slower than the average camera (3.7 fps vs 30 fps). The average camera shoots at 30 fps.
    3.7 fps vs 30 fps
  • 84.6% less optical zoom
    This camera offers less optical zoom than the average camera (1 x vs 6.5 x). The average camera offers 6.5 x.
    1 x vs 6.5 x
  • 2 fewer microphones
    This camera has fewer microphones than the average camera (0 vs 2). The average camera has a microphone count of 2.
    0 vs 2
  • No continuous video AF
    This camera does not support continuous autofocus in video, the average camera does.
  • 130 shots shorter battery life
    This camera lasts shorter per charge than the average camera (200 shots vs 330 shots). The average camera lasts for 330 shots.
    200 shots vs 330 shots
  • No HDMI output
    This camera does not support HDMI output, the average camera does. 77.7% of cameras support HDMI output.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Benno Schmidt
≈ estimated
17/01/2016
Hands-on review · three months of use · image quality tests
Verdict
Sigma DP0 Quattro has excellent sharpness and almost no distortion for an ultra-wide compact, a very good overall result.
8.0
The Bokeh
≈ estimated
24/01/2026
Travel test · trip use in Iceland and South Korea
Verdict
Sigma DP0 Quattro is pretty good for travel, capturing every shot you want and producing pictures preferred over another camera.
7.0
pete photography and Snakes
≈ estimated
23/12/2022
Unboxing · purchase story and series history
Verdict
Sigma DP0 Quattro is well built and unusual, with excellent image quality, though it is slow and niche.
9.0
Skyler King
≈ estimated
26/01/2020
Hands-on review · mountain field test and results
Verdict
Sigma DP0 Quattro gives excellent detail and color, especially in black and white, though bright light and portraits need care.
Hands-on video, no verdict
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
photographyblog.com
✓ explicit
16/07/2015
Full review · Ultra-wide compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro suits landscape shooting, with excellent RAW detail up to ISO 1600, but it is slow and its JPEGs get noisy above ISO 400.
7.0
amateurphotographer.com
✓ explicit
07/11/2015
Full review · Unusual wide-angle compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro produces very detailed images at low ISO, but its low-light autofocus, weak high-ISO results and odd grip make it a niche landscape camera.
9.0
wimarys.com
≈ estimated
28/07/2015
Hands-on review · Landscape camera
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro suits landscape and architecture shooting, with a sharp 14mm lens and clean images up to ISO 800, but it needs a tripod.
7.0
ephotozine.com
✓ explicit
31/07/2015
Speed-tested review · Ultra-wide compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro produces strong images with its 21mm-equivalent lens, but slow writing and a short battery suit careful, deliberate shooting.
8.0
mirrorlessons.com
≈ estimated
18/09/2015
Hands-on test · Niche ultra-wide compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro is a niche camera whose 14mm lens and detail suit landscape and studio work, but its usable ISO tops out at 400 and it has no video.
6.0
reviewed.com
≈ estimated
27/02/2015
Hands-on test · Ultra-wide compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro is a quirky, sharp ultra-wide camera for landscapes and tripod work, but slow autofocus and poor battery life hold it back.
7.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
04/03/2016
Review · Ultra-wide compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro suits landscape and architecture shooters who use a tripod, delivering detailed ultra-wide images, but it is slow and has no video.
8.0
connect-living.de
≈ estimated
21/08/2014
Lab test · Minimalist compact
Verdict
The Sigma DP0 Quattro is a stripped-down camera whose ISO 100 RAW images rival 36-megapixel full-frame models, but it suits patient shooters who avoid high ISO.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sigma DP0 Quattro

  • The 29 MP sensor records enough detail for large prints.
  • 14-bit RAW files leave room for later edits.
  • Lossless compressed RAW saves card space without losing quality.
  • A 30 s longest shutter suits night and long-exposure shots.
  • The hot shoe lets you add an external flash.
  • At 500 g it is light enough for a day out.

What customers don't like about Sigma DP0 Quattro

  • 200 shots per charge means a spare battery is needed.
  • 4 fps mechanical is slow for moving subjects.
  • There is no built-in flash.
  • No zoom, so framing depends on where you stand.
  • No continuous autofocus for video, so moving subjects can drift out of focus.

Verdict

Picture quality is the reason to look at the Sigma DP0 Quattro. Its 29 MP APS-C sensor records 14-bit RAW files, and its lossless compressed RAW saves card space. The camera has no zoom, so you move your feet and frame with care. It can make a 30 s exposure for night scenes, and a hot shoe lets you add a flash, although the body has no built-in one. Shooting is slow, with 4 fps mechanical, which is fine for a street scene but poor for a race. The battery is the bigger annoyance, at 200 shots by the CIPA test, so a spare belongs in the bag. At 500 g it is easy to carry for a day. It suits a photographer who shoots landscapes, streets or portraits and does not chase fast action.

Compare Sigma DP0 Quattro with other products in the Cameras category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Sigma DP0 Quattro and other products in the Cameras category

No results found