First real review of the DPQ2

[foveon]

I am struggling with the loss and lack of Foveon look from the original DP2 moving up to my Merrills even....

Me too, I miss the magic light rendered in DP2 pics.

 

[biglouis]

I would really like to get my hands on one of those Xitek EVF's for the Merrills but they site is written in Chinese and I can't figure out how to order one.

Ute - you must explain! Can you post a link?
EDITED: after a bit of searching the web found this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3679661

A dream come true!

The Quattros seem to my eyes to be something different again in look. For me I prefer the colour look of what the Sony A7 series can do. Its not that the Quattros are bad, just... different and maybe not for me.

Tim, I totally agree about the A7. I bought a DP2M and then shortly afterwards I bought a Sony RX1. It was obvious to me from day one that although the DP2M outresolved the RX1 the actually 'look' of the RX1 images was superior. Because of the quality of the RX1 look I then invested in the A7. I actually hope that the next version of the A7 is one with the OLP removed like the RX1R. However, when it comes to printing - the DP2M is the one which can easily go to 30x20 without any fuss.

Do they look at it as a print or on the computer screen? When it's the screen you are talking about 100% views, arent you? I cant really tell a difference in downsized files, cause there is a lot of approximation going on, by downsizing an image.

Printing is key. I bet the DP2Q will still print extraordinary detail at large sizes.

LouisB

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Much as I love the Merrill's, they are niche market cameras. This limits their sales potential. That is not good for Sigma. The Quattros are I am sure intended to expand the appeal to a wider audience and increase sales, and thus profits. Seems like a sensible business proposition. When Sigma looked ahead, they would have wanted a technology that could more eqsily be developed for future cameras.

I think the sensor is the Quatto's is a very clever and innovative hybrid design that gives you the resolution of a Foveon sensor with the more familiar look and feel of a mosaic sensor. It is a better business propostion for Sigma.

 

[Malina DZ]

The Quattros are I am sure intended to expand the appeal to a wider audience and increase sales, and thus profits.

As much as I enjoy DP2M files and applaud Sigma for bringing Foveon to the masses, I doubt Quattro is going to compete well with MLCs from Sony, Fuji & Olympus that offer way more shooting flexibility (in-camera EVF/OVF, wider ISO range, faster lenses, stabilization, responsiveness, AF accuracy, and ergonomics are just a few to name) and lens selection/adaptability.
It's a pity Sigma abandoned further Foveon improvement developments. But I wish them best of luck and success, and hope they surprise photographers with amazing products in future.

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

I both agree with Quentin (somehow) and Malina.

I started photography with a DP1 and DP2 (the firsts). By this time SIGMA camera was so confidential that I got almost a monopole in IQ around me. A sort of unique design, like if the camera was made for me.

Then things have changed. SIGMA want to grow and they start to be "standard". Being standard and easier kill this niche big time.

So, Quentin, I do not care about business propositions for SIGMA. The only one who might appeal me is if Fuji buy the quattro sensor for next X cameras. Quattro sensor + fuji colors and lenses = Major win.

For Malina, I used SONY A7r (my mother have it) and I got my hands on the XT-1 ... Blimey ... the XT-1, while APS-C, is a marvel especially the EVF. Resolution wise, it is not a Merrill BUT it is close. Fuji and SIGMA need to merge, this is my wish for the future, really.

And come the A7s ... The A7s is my next FF for a very good reason : rendering.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

So, Quentin, I do not care about business propositions for SIGMA.

Neither do I, but Sigma do, and that is the point.

Quentin

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

Neither do I, but Sigma do, and that is the point.

Quentin

I hope you are right in your feeling and that the proposition will come from a clever brand then

 

[4711]

Do they look at it as a print or on the computer screen? When it's the screen you are talking about 100% views, arent you? I cant really tell a difference in downsized files, cause there is a lot of approximation going on, by downsizing an image.

Hi,

in print and on screens in various sizes (Flickr etc.). I am not a pixel peeper. I do not care about 100% view or massive resolution.

I do care about the impression a photo gives me. This clarity was already there with the Sigma SD10, SD14, SD15 and all these cameras have a very low resolution in today standards

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

At native file size, the Merrills looked different and better than a higher resolution camera files when reduced to that size. There is something extraordinary about them, and it is a shame if that has been lost with the Quattros. I also owned a DP2 but great thought files were, they were just a bit too low on ultimate resolution for my purposes. Still, the technology is proven and perhaps we might see a "pure" Foveon in another camera in the future. in the meantime I will buy and try a DP2 Quattro which has the same edge to edge sharpness as the DP2M and might represent a brilliant high resolution travel camera, even if it has lost most of that special Merrill look.

 

[biglouis]

Mind you, this ain't exactly a shabby photo from a DP2Q:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/94720786@N04/14359504480/in/pool-sigmarumors

It's kinda funny. Reading through this thread I suddenly remembered when and why I became disaffected with MF film photography. It was after my purchase of a DP2M. Not just the IQ but the unique rendering which I felt was closer to film than any other digital camera yet.

LouisB

 

[G43]

What a nice Image LouisB. The rendering is dream like But the clarity is gone.

I must admit I've been pretty frustrated by learning how the DPQS performs. I have so innerly hoped it was an improvement over the DPM's. I can't come over it. Like a dream that broke.
Being through the whole arsenal of film MF cameras back in time into the digital era with lots of cameras behind me... I am now a 43 shooter. The 16 MP MFT sensors of today are quite good, but noisy even at basic ISO. Neither MFT camera can be said famous for their rendering, but rather for their convenience.
My wish printing larger is pressing a door into a rather turmoiled period seeking the best opt. to the MFT for larger printing and better rendering. And certainly the rendering is of very high priority and it is not making the choice of camera or sensor any easier.
Sony A7S is sort of showing us that's it's not merely a question of MPs, but rather how fat those pixels are. This is of course no news. The same reason made my choice of Canon 6D which pixels are quite fat. The 6D were deselected due to troubles lugging around with 5 fat primes in my age.

So what is left to chose from if both high resolution, rendering and compactness has priority. We are more or less back with the DPMs with all their unique fiddles and quirks.

I am tempted with the Pentax 645Z. It pulls away from the rest with its phenomenal tonal capabilities. But we are back with big bulky gear again.
I am also tempted by the Sony A7S due to its extremely clean low ISO files. But not exactly a file size for large prints. (> 20" x 30").

I am now holding my breath and money until something shows up. Maybe at Photokina?

 

[tray271]

I think at the moment the merrills are the best bang for buck you can get for pure image quality ..with photokina I personally think canon will surprise everyone and have a layered sensor...ok the camera will be big and bulky but that is good in a way because I also believe sony have a layered sensor waitin and that will be similar size to a7r etc ..I got sick of lugging lenses and dslr around ...its goin to be very interesting in the next fiew months ...but the q I will pass on for the time being ...what is the point in stepping back in image quality ,doesn't make sense to me ,but I am a fine artist so I look for that detail maybe more than most....

 

[The Ute]

I'm w those who thought that Sigma should have just "refined" what they already had.

i.e. they should have kept the sensor the same and maybe added an EVF, etc.

Instead it looks like they have created a Frankenstein monster which loses the best of what they had w/o significant benefit.

That said, I am getting one of those try-before-you-buy ones so I can truly judge for myself w a head-to-head comparison.

I'll withhold final judgment till then.

 

[G43]

I am not a *forumer* and I am only here and very short time actually. This site is very sympathetic due to the kind and serious tone among the members.
I wonder how other forums have received the DPQs? Likely like most does here.

I've just agreed with my photo pusher to have a DP3M on trial. I have to after all this

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

I am not a *forumer* and I am only here and very short time actually. This site is very sympathetic due to the kind and serious tone among the members.
I wonder how other forums have received the DPQs? Likely like most does here.

I've just agreed with my photo pusher to have a DP3M on trial. I have to after all this

Ha ! I've got burned on public place on Dpreview because I dared to say that the Q was not what the SIGMA marketing tend to sale. I defend SIGMA products since ages now and this how you are welcome after all those years of fight.

Now, even some Japanese fan boyz testers start to find some bizarre things in the files.

The Quatro is a bulky camera. I have a bag with my DP3m and the Quattro do not enter in at all. The glossy look of the lens is too glossy... to my taste. Overall the camera feel less serious than the Merrill and the files are 2/3 bayer.

Yes you see it correctly, 2/3 bayer.

14.62 Million Pixels are guestimated by the processor on each sub colour channel. So 14.62 + 14.62 = 29.24 Million pixels are guestimated ala bayer.

The SIGMA communication was shady and smoky around the foveon, with their equivalence ... only made for ppl who never shot ever a Medium Format camera. It is for impressing ppl. Now with the Quattro they enter the era of magic. This is beyond absurd.

PS: And I agree, GetDPI is the most educated forum I never encountered over the net, in photography.

ANGRY P.S : And the software ... O' my God... SPP 6 is the most ridiculous piece of dung I ever used. The most funny is that they "tried" to fix some things in it with two update in 8 days. The more the updates the more the soft is broken. This is ... bad, very bad. How on heart you can judge SIGMA as a serious camera manufacturer after those EPIC magic fantastic fails ?

 

[Dryce]

I'm w those who thought that Sigma should have just "refined" what they already had.

i.e. they should have kept the sensor the same and maybe added an EVF, etc.

I agree.

I'd also love an articulated LCD with better contrast on a DPM.

An inbuilt simple optical VF would have been nice to have if no EVF available.

 

[biglouis]

What a nice Image LouisB. The rendering is dream like But the clarity is gone.

Sony A7S is sort of showing us that's it's not merely a question of MPs, but rather how fat those pixels are. This is of course no news. The same reason made my choice of Canon 6D which pixels are quite fat. The 6D were deselected due to troubles lugging around with 5 fat primes in my age.

Exactly my problem. Can't manage the weight of heavy MF gear any longer.

You should really check out the Sony A7 and A7R. I have built a system around the A7 and as long as you choose lenses wisely you get a small, light and very capable system. Or go for a RX1 or RX1R.

LouisB

 

[G43]

I have of course had both the A7 and A7R + the RX1's in mind.
Well the RX1r I had in hand 1/2 year ago and I shot with it for a day. Brilliant files I must say and with enough latitude to PP the files to an outstanding outcome.
It's funny because with the RX1 I find the camera too small.... yeah you read it right. Likewise I am not sure I could live with a 35 mm lens only. Would need then a 28mm a 50mm and a 85mm with macro at least

For the A7 and A7R I was warned about eventual shooting pleasure vs. the EM1, but this is very subjective I would guess.
I have indeed the A7R in mind, but I do not like to read the articles dealing with the shutter shake even though a tripod annuls the phenomenon, almost.
At last I am awaiting more native Sony/Zeiss lenses to show up. I am not a big fan of adapters I have to say.
At time we will likely see an A7R something with electronic shutter or at least first curtain electronic shutter. Then we are talking

At last about the Sonys... the rendering. The perfect rendering for the A7 and R is not quite there as with the A7S. The fat pixel thing.
Of course a lot can be done to it in ACR choosing the WB eyedropper tool and set the temperature. But some of the rendering lies in the embedded camera profiles.

__________________________________________________

Now back to the DP2Q. Diglloyd have just uploaded his Mosaic aperture series and we may compare the following:

DP2M
DP2Q
Sony A7R
Pentax 645Z

I just did. Wow to all of them.

In these recordings there's not much to criticize the DPQ2 for regarding resolution (pretty equal to A7R). The A7R is a tad harsher in the looks vs the DP2Q, but the DP2Q stands out regarding noise or rather the total lack of noise.
The DP2Q lens is stunning.. wow.

There is a prof at Lloyds site that the DP2Q is very sensitive to flare and the optional lens hood is worthless or in other words not working at all.
Shade the lens with a more proper lens hood or a hand and the file stands out.

I am taken away by the lack of noise in the DPQ, but still think the DPM contrast is gone and there's a kind of milky shade to the images. Maybe something PP can solve?

 

[G43]

No guys... I am back with my interest in the DPQ series.

Given a longer time studying the Aperture Mosaic series from Lloyd of the OOC files leaves me with very little to criticize. This is a flagship per pixel count camera.
The corner to corner sharpness is unmatched by any camera.

There must be a way around regaining the contrast even so it cannot be a DPM like contrast.
But then comparing to i.e. A7R the lack of inherent noise the DPQ shows perhaps leads to a more milky look. The A7R images seems quite harsher and gritty.

The Lloyd series also tells me that many of the image samples we have seen on the net is simply miserable recorded.

 

[Kyndel]

Sony A7S is sort of showing us that's it's not merely a question of MPs, but rather how fat those pixels are.

I think you nailed something here. I tryed the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 on Nikon D700, and there was really a certain touch about clarity and special rendering, but I could never get it quite as good with another camera - Nikon D3x or Nikon D7100.