Menu
What's new
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!

Sigma DP2 Quattro Shots

Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
A couple of years ago, I started a thread on the then new Sigma DP2 Merrill camera. I was very impressed by the image quality.

Today, I took delivery of its successor, the DP2 Quattro, and, as with the DP2M, I decided to take a few casual shots over lunch to form a first view of the image quality, although this time, using less poat processing than with the Merrill shots.

The following are links (shrunk to fit this forum) to full size jpeg conversions from raw (right click and magnify to see the originals), using Sigma Photo Pro 6.03.









All are -1 sharpening, 1 point reduced NR, ISO 100, except for the bottle shot, which was IS0 200.

My (possibly controversial) very preliminary conclusions so far are that this camera is a winner.

The colors look good, the Merrill mono shadow issue is largely gone, but the sharpness and fine details remain.

given the reservations expressed elsewhere, I am pleasantly surprised.

More thoughts to follow.
 
Last edited:
Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
A few more thoughts

Like the Merrill, this is a low ISO camera. extra noise is apparent as early as ISO 200.

It is also sensitive (again, like the Merrills) to camera shake. Some shots I took at 1/100 sec show low level camera shake, despite my best efforts to keep things still. Best bet is to shoot a 1/160 or faster, or use a tripod.
 
F

foveon

Member
oh man, in the UK they sell oranges as apples from austria.^^

Thanks for the pics, I am real curious about side by side shots with a merrill.
 
K

Kofronj

New member
Hi Quentin,

I don't think this is going to be that controversial. Colors are beautiful. I think that the 'loss in microcontrast' is mostly (not entirely) a 'perceived loss in microcontrast'. The camera is only going to get better with software improvements (and possible firmware improvements)---and it gets better in the operator's hands with some time to become familiar....

The thing I hate about these cameras is how they expose weaknesses in my handholding capabilities! The jump from the SD15 to the DPM series was pretty dramatic...
 
Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Yes, the microcontrast is there, its just some of the grittiness has been reduced. It is a more truthful rendering, in my view.
 
Michiel Schierbeek

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Quentin, how do you like the (wide) shape of the camera in your hands?
Does it make you tremble more because it does not look like a one hand shooting camera, despite its weight.
 
G

G43

New member
Quentin

I can't say what it is....?
Files looks clean. Very clean. It reminds me somehow om how X-TRANS files looks. Not color wise, the pastel color look, but similar feel and look. Your recordings neither looks quite like Bayer files. They have their own look. Warmer and lusher.
I am positive towards the Q's. I was all the time, but seeing the captures on DL turned me away.
But I must say I miss a bit of soul here. The look has a touch of clinical 2 dimensional flat rendering no matter the resolution and perceived sharpness.
That said, surely updates of both the SPP and FW in the future will change things a bit in one direction or another.

Your post is most appreciated.
 
Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Michael

Odd, but I quite like it. I don't use the camera one-handed. I have a theory it might be meant to appeal to mobile phone users (perish the though) because it felt a bit like that :cool:

These particular shots were decoded from raw straight to sRGB jpegs in SPP 6.03.

Early days....
 
Rand47

Rand47

Well-known member
Quentin - Based on your early sense of things, I'm getting more excited by the Quattro's capabilities! They are not currently available where I am, but I've already ordered the lens hood and remote release from Sigma! LOL I guess I'm "in"...

I thought this might be an OK place to interject something into the Quattro discussion in general. I queried Really Right Stuff via email about whether they will be considering making an L-plate for the Quattro that will allow use of the Sigma remote release easily.... I had praised their Merrill L-plate and told them that I thought the Quattro might end up being a very popular landscape camera and a decent market for L-plates.

Here's the response I received from them just now:

"Hi Rand,

I honestly don't know for sure if we plan to make custom plates for the Quattro - yours is the first inquiry I've seen for that camera. I'll certainly bring the camera up with Joe and the design team and make note of your interest.

If you know of anyone else who would like to see custom plates made for this model, please make sure they let us know.

Thanks!
Jim Weise
Customer Service
Really Right Stuff, Inc."

So, fellow potential Quattro purchasers - send RRS an email expressing your interest. Email to: [email protected]

Best regards,
Rand
 
peterb

peterb

Active member
Hi Quentin,

Thanks for providing your initial observations on the new Quattro. I'm curious, though, on the Digilloyd review site Lloyd felt one of the casualties of the new sensor design was a lack of the famous Foveon 3D pop (possibly due to the lower levels having fewer photo sites than the top layer).

What's your take?

Peter
 
R

rjp85

Member
I already tested the Quattro at double size out of SPP, vs. normal size enlarged with PhotoZoom Pro.

PhotoZoom wins! Don't use double size, it's terrible.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
I think the first photo of the peaches has a nice 3D rendering... on my screen, there is a pretty noticeable sense of depth inside the box and the fruit are (again, IMO) quite "round". I'll be excited to see how the camera does as people become more acquainted with the post processing.
 
Tim

Tim

Active member
My take on this is, these are fine images from Quentin - thank you for posting. The DP2Q yields a nice detailed image that would be enough IQ and detail for most of my needs and enlargement size (maybe yours as well?). I have a DP2M/3M already which, while has a different look is more than I currently need.

So while yes i can agree it has a different look, most viewers (my audience) will be engaged with either image and probably would not be able to tell them apart. I'm happy with what my Merrills do. Having said this, I have seen a couple of richly detailed, smooth but sharp BW images from the Quattro that left me wondering if its BW is somewhat better than the Merrill.

So its likely for me unless my DP2M dies or is lost I will just keep on with it. Should my Merrills go and Quattro is the only option, I'd still likely buy one.

To add, like a few others I really do miss the original DP2 rendering. The "foveon pop" is gone. I keep my DP2 for the odd image. The DP2M occasionally manages this, the DP3M a bit more often, i think with the Quattro's sensor we won't see this much at all.

What I would like is to see the DP2 sensor (or say a 8Mpixel sensor) in a Ricoh GR body or Nikon A body. But this is very unlikely to happen.
 
Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
peterb said:
Hi Quentin,

Thanks for providing your initial observations on the new Quattro. I'm curious, though, on the Digilloyd review site Lloyd felt one of the casualties of the new sensor design was a lack of the famous Foveon 3D pop (possibly due to the lower levels having fewer photo sites than the top layer).

What's your take?

Peter
Click to expand...
Peter

Less pop, but still some crackle

I mean that the micro contrast now looks more like any other camera, but the pixel level sharpness is still high.

I have been playing around with the most recent Thames trial image, and decoded double size direct from SPP using the settings illustrated, with a tad more sharpening in Photoshop provides an image that looks very good at 80mp.

This is bearing in mind the fact I am using SPP on my business laptop, where I don't have the more advanced processing options I have available on my main imaging PC, such as PhotoZoom Pro to upscale, Neat Image NR, or various sharpening tools. These conversions (and the conclusions I am drawing from them) are thus very much interim and probably capable of improvement.

I'm not sure about the tree foliage or the slight blurring of the "Marriot" sign (in red, above the arch, centre-right) but then I have not completely wound down the NR in SPP. On the other hand, most of the remainder of the detail is exceptional and on a par with the Merrills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top