First real review of the DPQ2

[4711]

I would advise you to wait and see

wait and see because there is still hope that the quattro sensor can have this Sigma clarity in his images or wait and see because there might be new products from Sigma on the horizont for those of us, who prefer to trade in resolution to be able to keep the well known Sigma clarity in the images?

I do not need high resolution. I have other cameras for this. I bought into the Sigma cameras only because of this clarity in the images. :thumbup:

If this is gone, I will invest my money in other brands in the future.

This clarity is the unique selling point of Sigma/Foveon sensors since the inception of the Sigma SD9. I tolerated the quirks of SPP, I was willing to accept noise in high ISO, no support from Adobe etc. (sounds crazy, right? :facesmack

All that just to get this Sigma effect. If this USP is gone, why would you buy a Sigma instead of brand xy with same resolution? What can the quattro do, what other cameras with same resolution can not do and additional do it easier with better high ISO, Adobe support etc. ... you name it...?

So what do you mean with wait and see..?

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

^^^^ Hulyss ^^^^

Your evaluation is disappointing and as a staunch supporter of the DPxM line also worrying.

I must admit I have not used my Merrils much in recent months, especially since buying the Ricoh GR.

I also decided to invest in a Sony A7 system. I must say, having a proper viewfinder is extremely refreshing after making do with clip on viewfinders or just the LCD back.

What a shame that Sigma did not at least add a clip on EVF to this system. I'm not trolling just reacting to the fact that it now seems de rigeur for compacts to have this as an option - and Sony's new RX100MkIII completely ups the game as far as EVFs and compacts are concerned.

I do wonder if my DP2M and DP3M will actually become 'collectors' items in a few years if Sigma have indeed abandoned the purity and quirkiness of Foveon as you suggest.

LouisB

Hello Louis !

Yes it is disappointing, even for me. We are in 2014 ... and other brands are working well. I have the DP3m witch is a gem, the Quattro is returning Monday. It do not worth the money. It look like this camera have been made only for people who know nothing about foveon and that SIGMA do not care about old users.

I also invested in an another system, the XT-1 and some good glass and I'm pretty happy. It is a real system and it capture very good pictures. Ok, it is not a Merrill but I quickly PPed a photo to show the potential. Fixed lens can get very boring finally. The design of the Quattro just sucks after all, too big and not practical. Next in the bag is the A7s because 12 Mp are enought for me and I need video.

So yes, DP2m and DP3m are already collector. I hear somewhere that the production is ended and that shops sell there stocks actually.

We are in 2014 and I agree with all your points. Remember my brickma ??

SIGMA SP specifications: Code name "Brickma"

- New Merrill+ "dragon" Foveon sensor , ISO range 100-6400 (pushed 50-8000). 18Mp x 3 = 54 Mp.

- 800 ISO shoots as clean as 100 ISO shoots.

- New processor TRUE III engine for faster processing and video.

- Video H264 - 30fps / 60fps

- Batteries life up to 600 frames.

- First grade aluminium body and magnesium chassis, a bigger DP merrill (same shape)

- Extensively weather-sealed, all joins and ports featuring protective lips and bungs.

- 3" TFT LCD monitor with brightness/color adjustment and AR coating - 921,000 dots.

- Double SDXC card slot.

- New 3Focus feature : AF, MF by the lens or MF by a custom wheel on the back (à la DP2s). Continuous Focus for video and sport action.

- It is a screw focus, that mean no motor in the lenses, no focus by wire.

- Customisable back wheel.

- Swappable IR filter.

- Electronic level.

- Wifi remote control + tethering options (remote not included).

- Electronic finder (same as fuji) - orientable 2.4m dot OLED display pluggable on the hotshoe (not included).

- AF assist lamp.

- No curtain, no mirror, no mechanical pieces for an extra long life.


SIGMA SX lens line specifications:

- The world first Leaf shutter compact lenses.

- For now, 3 lenses available - 19mm f2.8 - 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2

- Electronic leaf shutter 30 sec to 1/8000 + bulb mode possible.

- First grade aluminium.

- Extensively weather-sealed


Hoo and I forgot to mention the SD card door of the quattro : Utter crap !

So the DP3m is for me like the D700 is for Nikon users.

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

wait and see because there is still hope that the quattro sensor can have this Sigma clarity in his images or wait and see because there might be new products from Sigma on the horizont for those of us, who prefer to trade in resolution to be able to keep the well known Sigma clarity in the images?

I do not need high resolution. I have other cameras for this. I bought into the Sigma cameras only because of this clarity in the images. :thumbup:

If this is gone, I will invest my money in other brands in the future.

This clarity is the unique selling point of Sigma/Foveon sensors since the inception of the Sigma SD9. I tolerated the quirks of SPP, I was willing to accept noise in high ISO, no support from Adobe etc. (sounds crazy, right? :facesmack

All that just to get this Sigma effect. If this USP is gone, why would you buy a Sigma instead of brand xy with same resolution? What can the quattro do, what other cameras with same resolution can not do and additional do it easier with better high ISO, Adobe support etc. ... you name it...?

So what do you mean with wait and see..?

Wait and see 2015, use your actual gear, buy a DP3 Merrill. Other brands are working hard and have more money to churn out some useful products. They know there is a niche with the SIGMA trick. Once they find it rentable, they will provide us some good alternatives for sure My eyes are on Fuji actually.

The Actual Xtrans II sensor resolve at least 80%, if not more, of what a Merrill do. The X-trans is old. A new fuji sensor might pop up any-time soon.

 

[tray271]

I would wait and see what canon have at photokina ..hopefully a layered sensor would be great...maybe not..as for the Quattro to me its a total disappointment ....if your goin to follow in the footsteps of the dp2 and dp3 Merrill image quality you need that wow factor ..to me the q hasn't got that..i think sigma have compromised the sensor maybe for cost who knows...I don't want bayer sensor quality cant stand it reason I sold all my zeiss and other cameras...ive used the dp1 dp2 and dp3 with amazing results and they have payed for themselves a hundred times over.....I was looking forward to that foveon pop but q not for me

 

[Hulyss Bowman]

I would wait and see what canon have at photokina ..hopefully a layered sensor would be great...maybe not..as for the Quattro to me its a total disappointment ....if your goin to follow in the footsteps of the dp2 and dp3 Merrill image quality you need that wow factor ..to me the q hasn't got that..i think sigma have compromised the sensor maybe for cost who knows...I don't want bayer sensor quality cant stand it reason I sold all my zeiss and other cameras...ive used the dp1 dp2 and dp3 with amazing results and they have payed for themselves a hundred times over.....I was looking forward to that foveon pop but q not for me

Fully agree.

I was using DP2s and SD15 when they came with the Merrill. Trust me, this day, my wife and me was just stuck to the screen. We were amazed. My big disappointment was the SD1 because the Merrill inside do not work like the DPm, nor expose the same : A crippled DSLR and no lenses to resolve it.

Then I seen the problem with the DP2m >>> too much time to circumnavigate the colors fixing >> sold it without any regrets.

Then I bought the DP3m and I'm a happy man.

So yea, quattro is just mhe, at best and flat, very flat. What is the necessity of good resolution if the foveon magic is gone ?

My little finger said me that the actual CEO of SIGMA corp want to "kill the father" to carve his own way ...

 

[G43]

Sigma dp2 Quattro - zdj

 

[Kofronj]

I haven't picked up a DP2Q yet, but I'm going to give my 'opinions' on what I'm seeing...

First off—it appears that the software has been rushed out early. I believe that this has more of an impact than you might imagine, because a lot of the 'foveon' goodness comes from the processing of the raw images. With the DP2Q, you have a different pixel pitch, a different sensor structure, and likely different noise characteristics involved. And all those aspects means that the first camera out can be a bit more problematic in the early going.

The images that Hulyss has pointed out being bad (color bleeding) show to me that the chroma noise is different, and that they're working it out. The 'interpolation' that everyone is concerned about will not cause major color artifacts at the edges (it's actually fairly easy to simulate this with an original Merrill image---subsample, 'interpolate' and reconstruct the image). The interpolation will reduce the 'micro contrast' a bit, which has been a difference that people are observing. Whether this can be solved in part by adding to the image processing in SPP remains to be seen.

My guess is that the quality of the images will get better with interations of the software. As mentioned, the DP3M is an easier camera to use than the DP3M or DP1M—my guess is that part of that has to do with the fact that they learned along the way (the DP3M was the last released camera in the series), and the DP3M lens is more telecentric—and I think the sensor is pretty sensitive to off-axis light.

And as far as other manufactures 'three layer' designs, I've lived through rumors of those since I bought my SD10. When someone has a product out---I'll believe it. In fact, the best competition for the Foveon chip is a nice scanning back...

Enjoy the Merrills for what they are (and the DP3M is stunning). But I wouldn't be too quick to write off the DP Quattro series yet.

Jim

 

[biglouis]

Kyndel: yes I have the DP2M and the DP3M. I really should have bought the DP1M as well but in fact I thought I'd hang on and see what the DP1Q is like.

The DP3M is a bizarre camera. I would liken it to my now disposed of Hasselblad SWC, in that it is built for one purpose only and you should just treat it like a lens with a sensor attached. In other word, "I need use a mid range telephoto for this, now which lens shall I use... Oh, yes, the DP3M, of course".

The DP2M is the zenith of compact technology. A bit like a Hasselblad 500CM with the bog-standard 80 Planar. For 99% of all uses it may be the only body/lens you need.

I don't lament the DP2Q yet. It shows that Sigma is committed to compacts - I'm happy to keep shooting with the DP2/3M into the future. I am sure Sigma must one day create a compact with a clip-on or integrated viewfinder and they do seem to be a company that listens to their customers.

So I'll skip this generation and hope that the next will be improved.

LouisB

 

[rjp85]

Hi, I'm new here.

I was about to sell everything and buy the Merrills, then the Quattro was announced and I decided to wait. Now I'm still on the sidelines, leaning toward buying all the Merrills, or at least the 2M and 3M, after examining as many Quattro Raw files as I could. I think I've gone crazy pixel peeping these files.

One thing is for sure... Every well shot, in-focus Merrill image makes me say "Wow" when I examine the plane of focus. No Quattro image so far has made me say "Wow." They also don't seem to enlarge as easily as Merrill images (in PhotoZoom Pro).

That doesn't mean Quattro is bad. If Merrill never existed, Quattro would seem pretty good. Quattro reminds me of Bayer Medium Format Digital, but without the moire and color artifacts, and maybe even more fine detail resolved.

Remember how terrible 22MP digital backs are with moire on fabric and clothing. The Quattro is free of that problem.

I agree that we need to see if future SPP versions will increase the quality. Another reason to stick with Sigma in the future, is that their lenses, both DP and SLR, are becoming world class.

 

[tray271]

to sum it up you could buy all 3 Merrill cameras for the price of the q....and the image quality of the q wont get better with improved software...I think its a bit of a cost cutting thing...people bought the Merrill cameras for one reason the foveon look..with the q it isn't there...the dp1 ,dp2 and dp3 are bargain prices at the moment ..if the q had the same image quality as the merrills I wouldn't hesitate to buy one purely for battery life and a bit better usability...I just prey canon bring something special out and really prey its not like a fugi trans..nothing against fugi but the image quality is still bayerish ..I want foveon type quality with the wide choice of lenses canon have

 

[adsf]

"people bought the Merrill cameras for one reason the foveon look"

No. I bought it for the sharpness/resolution. For me there is nothing like a "foveon look". Ok, there is. Its the green blotches all over the picture

 

[Future]

"people bought the Merrill cameras for one reason the foveon look"

No. I bought it for the sharpness/resolution. For me there is nothing like a "foveon look". Ok, there is. Its the green blotches all over the picture

+1
same here.

PS: never heard of fugi before, must be even more niche than the sigma foveon.

 

[octagone]

Hi, I'm new here.

I was about to sell everything and buy the Merrills, then the Quattro was announced and I decided to wait. Now I'm still on the sidelines, leaning toward buying all the Merrills, or at least the 2M and 3M, after examining as many Quattro Raw files as I could. I think I've gone crazy pixel peeping these files.

One thing is for sure... Every well shot, in-focus Merrill image makes me say "Wow" when I examine the plane of focus. No Quattro image so far has made me say "Wow." They also don't seem to enlarge as easily as Merrill images (in PhotoZoom Pro).

That doesn't mean Quattro is bad. If Merrill never existed, Quattro would seem pretty good. Quattro reminds me of Bayer Medium Format Digital, but without the moire and color artifacts, and maybe even more fine detail resolved.

Remember how terrible 22MP digital backs are with moire on fabric and clothing. The Quattro is free of that problem.

I agree that we need to see if future SPP versions will increase the quality. Another reason to stick with Sigma in the future, is that their lenses, both DP and SLR, are becoming world class.

I did a lot of testing interpolation 36 Mpix, with photos of Merrill and the results that good.
But the results obtained with 36 Mpix quattro are well above what I get with merrill 36 Mpix.



https://flic.kr/p/od4xZa



Crop 19Mpix:



Crop 36 Mpix:

 

[4711]

"people bought the Merrill cameras for one reason the foveon look"

No. I bought it for the sharpness/resolution. For me there is nothing like a "foveon look". Ok, there is. Its the green blotches all over the picture

+1
same here.

Show me one image from a Bayer sensor that has the same clarity as a Sigma Merrill image. Everytime I show images I get comments like "it does not look like a photo, it looks like I am standing myself there"

Please show me this with a Bayer image and I switch immediately.

 

[tray271]

bayer is old tech and its about time other companys gave us the image quality we want ..I love fine detail its what I see with my own eyes so why not have a camera that also has it ...canon need to bring something good out at photokina ...now if sigma read all these forums they need to know we don't want a downgrade in quality we want better quality ...release a full frame foveon and give us what we really want ...

 

[Malina DZ]

Raw and jpg download:
SIGMA dp2 Quattro:

My take on DP2Q based on these RAW files.
Higher resolution sensor benefits from 30/2.8 that is out-resolving Merrill sensor. Lens' merit in this combo is far greater than the sensor's.
Quattro's green and red channels carry less detail than Merrill's, hence lost micro-contrast on subjects that have those color tones.
No more banding noise for Quattro, and no slider to remove it in SPP. SPP takes care of it really well since version 5.5.2 for Merrill sensor by default.
No real advantage from 14-bit vs 12-bit. Hightlight recovery is still average. Shadows in Quattro files don't carry more color information than Merril's do.
RAW files are averaging from 48-60 MB for both sensors. I assume lower resolution Merrils (15MPx) carry more information than Quattros do per pixel.
Indeed, no "WOW" factor for me when looking at Q files. And that's a pity as I had high hopes for a future DSLR with a Quattro sensor.

 

[The Ute]

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.

 

[Tim]

I am struggling with the loss and lack of Foveon look from the original DP2 moving up to my Merrills even. I feel I get some back if I shoot MED (quality) on the DP2M. Its still substantially higher res than the DP2 but I have some Foveon look improved and I always have the HIGH option for super detailed images. Most of my print sizes are fine in MED.

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.

I think the A7s proves that less pixels can lead to better image. IMO a true FF Foveon will less pixels than the Merrill may have yielded a better image with less processing power needed. Water seal it, great lens and basic operation and we are happy.

I am still curious as to how MED and LOW are done on the Merrills. Pixel binning I assume. Perhaps a discussion in another thread.

 

[rjp85]

I did a lot of testing interpolation 36 Mpix, with photos of Merrill and the results that good.
But the results obtained with 36 Mpix quattro are well above what I get with merrill 36 Mpix.

Here's my thoughts on this:

The Quattro captures a lot of fine detail, especially in the distance. Could it be a better landscape camera than the Merrill? Maybe.

But Merrill files are "thick." It's hard to explain what that really means, but if you know what I mean, then you know what I mean. The Quattro files are not "thick" IMO.

So when I enlarge Quattro images, to me, they turn Bayer-ish and painterly. I just don't like what happens compared to a Merrill image.

Sure you can make big prints from Quattro, maybe bigger than Merrill, depending on subject matter, but the image quality is completely different. I'm sure that's obvious by now.

Don't get me wrong. I like what I see from Quattro, but I am definitely disappointed. I wanted the Merrill punch and detail, and I'm just not seeing it.

I was ready to buy all three Quattros without hesitation. No questions asked. It wouldn't make sense for me to change my mind for nothing. I really do see a big difference between the old and new cameras.

Just IMO.

 

[adsf]

Show me one image from a Bayer sensor that has the same clarity as a Sigma Merrill image. Everytime I show images I get comments like "it does not look like a photo, it looks like I am standing myself there"

Please show me this with a Bayer image and I switch immediately.

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.