Samsung SL620 vs Sigma SD9: A Tale of Two Cameras from Different Worlds

When comparing cameras that couldn’t be more different in design, intent, and era, it’s tempting to throw up your hands and say, “Why even bother?” But therein lies the fun. The Samsung SL620, an ultracompact from 2009, and the Sigma SD9, an Advanced DSLR launched way back in 2002, are a fascinating study of how camera technology and user expectations evolved in a mere handful of years and across wildly different market segments. I’ve had the strange privilege of using both extensively in their prime, and in this article, I’m going to walk you through a detailed comparison of these two cameras - a Leica-sized point-and-shoot contender versus a chunky professional DSLR alternative.

Ready to dive into the technical depths, real-world usability, and artistic implications? Let’s start by sizing them up - quite literally.

How Big Are We Talking? Size and Ergonomics in Real Life

First impressions matter, and the Samsung SL620’s petite footprint is pretty charming. This ultracompact measures a svelte 92 x 61 x 23 mm and weighs just under 170 grams - light enough to toss in a jacket pocket and forget about. The fixed 35-175mm equivalent lens tucked in there makes it versatile enough for casual portraits and snapshots. Ergonomically, this simplicity translates into minimal controls but maximum portability.

By contrast, the Sigma SD9 is a hefty beast, tipping the scales at about 950 grams with dimensions around 152 x 120 x 79 mm - not exactly what you'd call pocket-friendly. It’s a mid-size SLR body with that unmistakable solid grip, commanding a presence that feels serious and professional. With Sigma’s SA lens mount and a vast lens ecosystem beyond 70 primes and zooms, it’s designed to be a workhorse for dedicated photographers.

From my hands-on testing, the SL620 feels like a trusty sidekick - quick to deploy, fuss-free, and minimally invasive when street-shooting or traveling light. The SD9, on the other hand, feels like a careful partner, requiring deliberate setup, focus, and weight. Neither is “better,” per se, but each serves a vastly different user mentality.

The Design Dance: Controls and User Interface

Samsung’s SL620, staying true to its ultracompact category, sports a barebones control layout. There’s no manual focus, no exposure compensation, and no exposure modes beyond auto adjustments and custom white balance. The 2.7-inch fixed LCD (230k dots) is functional but not stellar - adequate for framing and review but definitely not a touch-screen experience.

The Sigma SD9 presents a very different story. It offers shutter priority, aperture priority, manual exposure modes, and exposure compensation, which - trust me - you'll appreciate if you love getting your hands dirty with settings. Its smaller 1.8-inch LCD at 130k dots might feel quaint by today’s standards but is typical for early-2000s DSLRs. Of course, it relies on an optical pentaprism viewfinder with 98% coverage and 0.77x magnification - much more immersive if you want a classic SLR experience.

In practice, I found the simple controls of the SL620 to be a double-edged sword: great for rapid shooting and no-fuss capturing, but frustrating if you want creative control or manual tweaks. The SD9’s flexibility is excellent - but be prepared for an older autofocus experience and slower responsiveness compared to modern standards.

Sensor Technologies and Image Quality: The Heart of the Matter

Here we head into the rabbit hole. The Samsung SL620 sports a 1/2.3"-type CCD sensor with 12 megapixels, measuring roughly 6.08 x 4.56 mm. The sensor size and technology put a natural ceiling on image quality - one that’s reached mostly in good light, at low ISO. It includes an antialiasing filter (AA filter), which helps reduce moiré but softens fine detail slightly. Noise at ISO 1600 is noticeable but manageable if you’re careful.

The Sigma SD9 turns the tables with its APS-C size CMOS sensor measuring 20.7 x 13.8 mm and featuring the unique Foveon X3 technology. This sensor eschews the standard Bayer pattern and captures color information in three layers, potentially leading to sharper, more color-accurate images. However, its effective resolution is about 3 megapixels (at 2268x1512 pixels), although with higher “perceived” detail due to the layered sensor design and lack of AA filter.

From countless tests in studio and real-world scenarios, I can state the Samsung’s sensor offers punchy images with more pixels and versatility for typical social and travel shooting, but lacks dynamic range and holds up poorly in dimmer environments. The Sigma’s Foveon sensor produces stunning colors and impressive sharpness, superior for print and portraiture with careful lighting - but struggles with low sensitivity (max ISO 400) and a relatively low pixel count for large enlargements.

If I had to sum it up: the SL620’s sensor is “functional and fun” for everyday snapshots, while the SD9’s sensor is a “niche masterpiece,” catering to photographers who prioritize color fidelity and sharpness over raw pixel count or speed.

Screens and Interfaces: Framing Your View

Keeping the viewing experience in mind, the SL620’s larger 2.7-inch LCD excels in portability but feels a bit cramped and dim in bright sunlight. No touch capability means all navigation is via buttons.

The Sigma SD9 offers only a tiny 1.8-inch, low-resolution screen, which is a pain if you want on-the-go review but makes sense considering the camera’s era and DSLR category. Instead, you’ll rely heavily on the bright and large optical viewfinder for precise manual framing.

In candid shooting, the SL620’s screen feels more user-friendly and approachable; the Sigma’s LCD barely suffices. If you prioritize live preview or instant image review outdoors, the Samsung has the edge here - but notably sacrificing direct control.

Snapshots and Sample Shots: Image Quality in the Real World

Enough specs; how do they perform where it counts - actual photography?

In my side-by-side testing across various lighting conditions and genres, the Samsung SL620 delivers punchy colors and respectable sharpness for an ultracompact. Portraits exhibit smooth skin tones thanks to a soft bokeh from the 5x zoom lens with a maximum aperture starting at f/2.8, but careful photographers will notice limited depth-of-field control and some softness in telephoto range.

The Sigma SD9, as expected, truly shines in portraits and controlled lighting. Its color depth produces subtly detailed skin tones with tonal richness that reveals itself in print. Landscape shots show remarkable gradation without the typical Bayer digital artifacts or excessive noise, especially in the shadows.

Samsung SL620 front Samsung SL620 screen back Sigma SD9 front Sigma SD9 screen back

A quibble: The Sigma’s lower pixel count means you might need to lean on medium-sized prints, but the legendary sharpness compensates somewhat. The Samsung, with its higher megapixel count, gives you more cropping flexibility but less nuance.

Burst Shooting and Autofocus: Catching the Moment

If speed is your game - wildlife, sports, or any fast action - the SD9 and SL620 show their age in different ways. Neither camera is fast by modern standards. The SL620 lacks continuous burst shooting and offers only contrast detection autofocus with a center-point AF area and rudimentary face detection. This makes wildlife or fast-moving sports shots a challenge - often resulting in missed focus or frustrating hunting.

The Sigma SD9, meanwhile, has a manual focus system with contrast-detection autofocus assist, which can be slow and ill-suited to tracking fast subjects. Its maximum shutter speed of 1/6000 sec is respectable for stop-action, but the lack of burst modes and an autofocus motor inside the body hampers rapid shooting. Sigma relied on optimized lenses for AF drive, but focusing speed is generally sluggish.

Given these facts, I can’t recommend either of these for sports or wildlife photographers aiming for peak speed. But if you’re content with slow, deliberate shooting - say, portrait, still life, or landscapes - you’re covered.

Weather Resistance and Durability

Both cameras lack environmental sealing or rugged features. Neither is waterproof, dustproof, shockproof, or freeze-proof. The SL620’s compact plastic construction feels less robust, while the Sigma SD9’s metal body gives it a more substantial, serviceable feel.

If you’re photographing in challenging outdoor environments, neither camera offers protection you can bank on - miniature film cameras or modern rugged compacts perform better in this arena.

Macro and Close-Up Capabilities

The Samsung SL620 impresses in this department, offering a macro focus down to 5 cm - much closer than many compacts in the era. This makes the SL620 surprisingly versatile for budding macro photographers or those who just like a close-up shot of nature or small subjects on the go.

The Sigma SD9, with its interchangeable lenses, depends entirely on the macro lens you attach. Given Sigma’s wide SA mount selection, you can acquire dedicated macro optics with stabilization for precision work, but the camera itself has no inherent macro ability.

For casual macro fun, SL620 is the easier, more handy choice. For serious macro shooters who want reproducible results and high resolution, the SD9 with suitable lenses is superior overall.

Video: An Uneven Playing Field

Video on the Samsung SL620 is very limited: maximum resolution of 640x480 at 30fps in Motion JPEG format. Forget HD or any fancy stabilization - the SL620’s video is reminiscent of early digital camcorders, best suited for short clips or proof of concept.

The Sigma SD9 lacks any video recording capability - typical for DSLRs from its era. So if video is essential, neither camera really fits the bill.

Battery Life and Storage Options

Battery specs for both cameras rely on proprietary models, with no officially published ratings. The SL620 uses a small lithium-ion battery that’s decent for casual day shooting, given its modest screen and processing demands.

The SD9 is bulkier and uses a higher capacity battery - essential for powering an advanced DSLR’s optical viewfinder, brighter AF systems, and slightly more demanding sensor. Storage-wise, SL620 uses SD/SDHC cards, convenient and future-proof, while the SD9 relies on CompactFlash Type I or II cards - larger and soon obsolete but once industry standard for pro photographers.

Connectivity and Wireless Features

Neither camera sports Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, GPS, or modern connectivity features. The SL620 carries USB 2.0, allowing simple transfers to a PC - nothing fancy. The SD9’s USB 1.0 port is painfully slow by today’s measures, and both cameras require wired transfers and tethered shooting setups.

These limitations underscore the era’s prevailing design choices but mean neither camera offers conveniences like smartphone control or wireless uploading.

Price and Value: What Are You Investing In?

Here’s where the rubber meets the road. At launch, the Samsung SL620 retailed for around $200, making it an affordable ultracompact for casual photography. You could buy one today on the used market very cheaply - great for beginners or as a lightweight backup.

The Sigma SD9 retailed for approximately $3,000 at launch - no minor chunk of change. It aimed at professionals and serious enthusiasts willing to experiment with Foveon’s unique sensor technology for exceptional color fidelity and sharpness. Today, it’s mostly of interest to collectors or niche digital artists who prize its color science and don’t mind its technical limitations.

How They Fare Across Photography Genres

Because specs only tell part of the story, here’s my evaluation across genres:

Final Performance Ratings: An Objective (and Subjective) Snapshot

Bringing all factors together, here is how I rate the two cameras on a general scale (10 being excellent):

So, Which One Should You Buy?

If you found yourself nodding along with the ultracompact style - traveling light, needing quick snapshots, or wanting a small camera easily slipped in your pocket - the Samsung SL620 remains a reasonable, low-cost option. It’s a simple companion for everyday users who value portability over pro-level control.

But if image quality, creative manual control, and color fidelity take priority - and you can stomach the bulk, slower operation, and era-specific slowdowns - the Sigma SD9 offers a rare, almost artisanal approach to digital imaging. It’s best suited for studio work, landscapes with controlled conditions, or enthusiasts who appreciate the Foveon sensor’s unique qualities.

Parting Thoughts: Lessons From Hands-On Experience

Testing these two cameras side by side was a reminder that a camera’s value is not just technical specs or megapixels. It’s the synergy of user interface, sensor technology, lens options, and how each tool matches your shooting style. I’ve used the SL620 for quick family gatherings and urban strolls; it never fussed, just took decent pictures.

Meanwhile, the SD9 demanded more patience, more settings exploration, and more post-processing love - but rewarded with stunning color depth and detail when approached correctly.

So, rather than pit them head-to-head as competitors, think of them as different chapters in digital camera history and different tools for different photographers. Your choice depends wholly on what you want to do behind the lens.

If you’ve enjoyed this in-depth comparison or want to dive deeper into specific performance insights, feel free to reach out - I love geeking out about cameras old and new!

Happy shooting!