The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

First real review of the DPQ2

mezzoduomo

New member
Has anyone seen anything anywhere that indicates and documents a consistent and distinct advantage to the Quattro over the Merrill? I have not seen it.
 

G43

New member
Is it only me who sees the haze or shall we call it fine dust layer over the files? It is like a mated coating separates the viewer from the scene.
I don't see this phenomenon with DPM images that I think shows ultra transparency.
 

G43

New member
Diglloyd and Ming Thein published a conversation on gear today.

Here's what they meant about the DPQ.

You may see the whole conversation here: Discussions: MT x Lloyd Chambers on the Pentax 645Z and Nikon D810

________________________________________

Lloyd:
That DP2 Quattro… disappointed. Smearing. Ends the Merrill line. Maybe it’s software though (faint hope).
Ming Thein:
I was told from an inside source that new SW and DPP are coming in the next week that should fix it.
Lloyd:
I have not been successful in processing even one image on my Mac Pro with SPP 6. Every edit window pops up off screen.
Ming Thein:
Played with one last couple of days – my printmaster here works with Sigma for various things – I was surprised by how slow it was and how noisy it was, too. Not much improvement over the Merrills that I can see, other than blue color accuracy.
Lloyd:
I have some nice martian rocks for you.
Ming Thein:
Now I’ve lost you.
Lloyd:
SPP 6 leaves developer hooks in… sleep system… hang with password dialog to debug… shoddy work.
Ming Thein:
Is it just me, or do you feel like the first round of consumers are increasingly becoming beta testers these days?
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Diglloyd and Ming Thein published a conversation on gear today.

Here's what they meant about the DPQ.

You may see the whole conversation here: Discussions: MT x Lloyd Chambers on the Pentax 645Z and Nikon D810

________________________________________

Lloyd:
That DP2 Quattro… disappointed. Smearing. Ends the Merrill line. Maybe it’s software though (faint hope).
Ming Thein:
I was told from an inside source that new SW and DPP are coming in the next week that should fix it.
Lloyd:
I have not been successful in processing even one image on my Mac Pro with SPP 6. Every edit window pops up off screen.
Ming Thein:
Played with one last couple of days – my printmaster here works with Sigma for various things – I was surprised by how slow it was and how noisy it was, too. Not much improvement over the Merrills that I can see, other than blue color accuracy.
Lloyd:
I have some nice martian rocks for you.
Ming Thein:
Now I’ve lost you.
Lloyd:
SPP 6 leaves developer hooks in… sleep system… hang with password dialog to debug… shoddy work.
Ming Thein:
Is it just me, or do you feel like the first round of consumers are increasingly becoming beta testers these days?
Ye, exactly my first thought. He said it in a more diplomatic way than me :)
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Is it only me who sees the haze or shall we call it fine dust layer over the files? It is like a mated coating separates the viewer from the scene.
I don't see this phenomenon with DPM images that I think shows ultra transparency.
I sort of see it in some of the color shots. Basically it's "one step towards AA Bayer."

- Ricardo
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I don't see any haze. I do see a different treatment of shadow areas which, left uncorrected, might look like haze. In Photoshop I apply a highlights and shadows correction of around 12-15, and auto levels if necessary (find dark and light tones) and I have a "normal" contrast range at the end. As for advantages, the Quattro has a resolution advantage that is noticeable to me and no greenish tinge to images. If as suggested the next iteration of SPP changes anything, will probably have to begin experimenting again....:confused:
 

G43

New member
Thanks Quentin

I'll download the SPP 6 and try to develop a Quattro RAW file, then see what I can do in PS.
Where do you set the global contrast? In SPP or in PS by using curves? Using curves in PS normally alters the color balance, at least for Beyer sensor files, which then has to be corrected in a Hue and Color saturation layer. I don't know how this sensor reacts to those corrections in PS?
 

raist3d

Well-known member
I don't see any haze. I do see a different treatment of shadow areas which, left uncorrected, might look like haze. In Photoshop I apply a highlights and shadows correction of around 12-15, and auto levels if necessary (find dark and light tones) and I have a "normal" contrast range at the end. As for advantages, the Quattro has a resolution advantage that is noticeable to me and no greenish tinge to images. If as suggested the next iteration of SPP changes anything, will probably have to begin experimenting again....:confused:
Well to me what I meant at least is that there's a bit of softness with the whole thing. That doesn't make it bad per se- but it makes it one step away from Foveon.

Something has to give with 1/4th the resolution in two layers, however good the end result still looks like.

For the record, I think at the lowest ISO the color images have better color than the Merrill, but somehow lose some of the "3d ness" of it. But I would be the first to agree that it seems Merrill shots from SPP come out what seems to be over sharpened.

- Ricardo
 

Malina DZ

Member
Has anyone seen anything anywhere that indicates and documents a consistent and distinct advantage to the Quattro over the Merrill? I have not seen it.
mezzoduomo, You don't trust your eyes any more?
There's an advantage in the image processing speed, battery life, and live-view quality. IQ wise, I don't see it. I'm not resolution hungry.
Intricate, delicate details that my eyes don't notice during the shoot, are at my disposal at 100% magnification. This is what made me get DP M. You rediscover the image you've captured either on a screen or a print. DP Q doesn't do it for me.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
As a quick example

first horse image, as developed by SPP 6.04



Same horse head image re-developed in SPP, reduced exposure and highlights slightly in SPP6.04, in Photoshop, Image > Adjust > Shadow / Highlights, Amount +12, then Levels, Find light and Dark Colours. Auto; and minor curves tweak.




This is not intended to be a definitive example - its just a 10 minute quick demo - , but it is one possible starting point. More and better can be done, according to taste and desired end result.

It's my wife's beautiful Spanish horse, by the way, eating our hedge ;)
 

raist3d

Well-known member
If the horse is to illustrate "Foveones" honestly I am not seeing it. It doesn't look bad and being resized down there's quite a few AAless cameras that can do a result like that.

Someone else posted a DP3M shot... and the colors with the detail just jump. But also I think the Quattro overall has better color.

- Ricardo
 

Kyndel

Member
mezzoduomo, You don't trust your eyes any more?
There's an advantage in the image processing speed, battery life, and live-view quality. IQ wise, I don't see it. I'm not resolution hungry.
Intricate, delicate details that my eyes don't notice during the shoot, are at my disposal at 100% magnification. This is what made me get DP M. You rediscover the image you've captured either on a screen or a print. DP Q doesn't do it for me.
I agree, I bought all 3 and now I am thinking about buying one more DP2M, just in case :( (perhaps the Merrills end as cult, and think about it ....if I lost one of them:mad:............:)

I think I can print as huge as with a Nikon D800/E/810.

And I do not think - for the time being - you can make a Foveon-sensor faster in handling or better iso-performance as the Bayer-sensors, it will take years, and years, so I am OK with that.

I would have been so happy if they just had made a real eyefinder, I miss that, mostly shooting DSLRs. I have tryed to buy 2 substitutes/optional, but it is not the same as a real eye-finder, no dioptri in the optional, and the other solution, HoodLoupe can work, but...it got no use, it is too "wobly" and add to much to the size), ....and I would have bought it at once, even this was the only change.
 
Top