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
- Thread starter G43
- Start date
So I now have had the Quattro for a few days. I remain astounded at the sharpness and resolution of the camera. Color has been more of a problem than my initial shots led me to believe. I have not used Sigma software before, so I expect more skill on my part would be helpful. The crops below from a 645D using a 67 55mm at f/11 and the Quattro, also at f/11, indicate a more serious problem of color bleed (I believe that's the correct term). The marigold is red and yellow as it appears in the 645D shot. Is this a problem addressable in software?
Tom
Tom
Last edited:
DOF?
The Ute
Well-known member
Update your firmware and go to the latest version of SPP.So I now have had the Quattro for a few days. I remain astounded at the sharpness and resolution of the camera. Color has been more of a problem than my initial shots led me to believe. I have not used Sigma software before, so I expect more skill on my part would be helpful. The crops below from a 645D using a 67 55mm at f/11 and the Quattro, also at f/11, indicate a more serious problem of color bleed (I believe that's the correct term). The marigold is red and yellow as it appears in the 645D shot. Is this a problem addressable in software?
Tom
Both should help w problems like this.
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm using 6.0.5 and I just received the camera from Sigma 5 days ago, so I assume it's the latest firmware. Using the neutral (vs. standard) setting restored some of the yellows, but not much. It's an amazing sensor, but I am having problems with the color; I'll take Darr's advice and try a Merrill before considering the Quattro.
Darr,
I see you love the Merrills, but you can still post in the MF forum sometimes too.
Tom
PS foveon, f/11 to minimize focus errors; I'm not testing the lens, I can see it's fabulous.
Darr,
I see you love the Merrills, but you can still post in the MF forum sometimes too.
Tom
PS foveon, f/11 to minimize focus errors; I'm not testing the lens, I can see it's fabulous.
The Ute
Well-known member
I wouldn't assume that. Check the firmware.
darr
Well-known member
Honestly Tom, I have not shot MF in a couple of months. Last week I packed-up some gear including the ALPA kit to head out for a shoot and then the weather turned bad quickly. Unfortunately, Florida is like this in the summer and what I wanted to shoot with the ALPA and Merrills (comparison testing), I could not, so I continue on without any MF results, but I feel no disappointment. The smaller size of the Merrills are making my photographic journeys much easier these days and I find this to be more satisfying because I am getting more work done. Recently I acquired a SD1 Merrill for studio macro work and if I can get it to do what I need it to do, I may be heading out of MF. IMO, the Sigma 70mm macro lens is not as precise as the SK 120 M lens, but for fine art work, it has been showing great promise in my testing. My photography started to take a new direction about 18 months ago. The Merrills were tested to be part of the new direction and they have satisfied me so far and have brought up my productivity level.
It truly is a great time to be in photography with all the new technology.
PS: I shoot 99% of my DPM work at f/8 on a tripod with ND/polarizer; to me they are mini field cameras!
Last edited:
True enough, but in some ways easier when big developments in equipment were years apart, e.g. a new film.................
It truly is a great time to be in photography with all the new technology.
..........................
I returned the DP2Q to Sigma today. It has opened my eyes to the potential of Sigma sensors. I must say the ergonomics of the Q didn't work for me - the grip was most comfortable in my hand when held upside down and pointing at me - great for selfies, but not much else! I intend to try a Merrill as you suggested. Enjoy your new found cameras.
Tom
Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
Perhaps Digiloyd should read this review. Remind me again why some people pay to read that guy's site?
The views expressed in this review by Steve Huff are much closer to my own. I have spent long enough now with the DP2Q to validate Huff's image quality findings with a few caveats mentioned earlier in this thread. There is not much wrong with a $1,000 camera that produces almost flawless medium format like prints at sizes larger than my Epson 7900 can achieve.
The views expressed in this review by Steve Huff are much closer to my own. I have spent long enough now with the DP2Q to validate Huff's image quality findings with a few caveats mentioned earlier in this thread. There is not much wrong with a $1,000 camera that produces almost flawless medium format like prints at sizes larger than my Epson 7900 can achieve.
The Ute
Well-known member
octagone
New member
Anyway, I made many interpolation tests with merrill DP2, and quattro (but with merrill), and 36 Mpix - 39 Mpix quattro shows details more finesse that merrill.
With merrill I got good Results, but worse than the quattro and apply until 36 Mpix. Even at 30 Mpix, the results were not as good as the quattro 36-39 Mpix.
A native defintion, the merrill seem to show more detail, because those are more contrasted and accentuated.
I think Quentin did a lot of testing also, interpolation, plus prints, to get a good idea on the issue.
I remember at the beginning of the discussion dedicated to Merrill, he wrote that the DP2 Merrill had a similar definition to a 28 megapixel, more or less depending on the subjects photographed.
With merrill I got good Results, but worse than the quattro and apply until 36 Mpix. Even at 30 Mpix, the results were not as good as the quattro 36-39 Mpix.
A native defintion, the merrill seem to show more detail, because those are more contrasted and accentuated.
I think Quentin did a lot of testing also, interpolation, plus prints, to get a good idea on the issue.
I remember at the beginning of the discussion dedicated to Merrill, he wrote that the DP2 Merrill had a similar definition to a 28 megapixel, more or less depending on the subjects photographed.
Quentin_Bargate
Well-known member
I did. In a print, the DP2Q is closer to around something like 35-38mp with a carefully uprezzed shot. A subjective view but based on very large prints even bigger than that.
Quentin
The Ute
Well-known member
I read the Huff review.
And I have also done my own real world testing of the Q vs. the M.
And I have posted the results here before.
My conclusion is that the Q is not superior in quality to the M.
And the photos I posted here earlier in the thread show that to be the case.
And the Merrill is about half the price.
It really is a matter of taste.
IMO Huff panned the Merrill way more than I would have.
His criticisms are mostly not valid.
For example, he stated that the AF of the Q is superior to the M.
I have not found that to be the case.
The autofocus on the M is just as good as on the Q.
I never noticed any difference in my comparison testing.
And the only review that should really matter is your own.
So my advice is to try both before you plunk down an extra $500.
You can just about purchase 2 M's for the price of just one Q.
Anyway, whichever one you decide to use happy shooting.
And I have also done my own real world testing of the Q vs. the M.
And I have posted the results here before.
My conclusion is that the Q is not superior in quality to the M.
And the photos I posted here earlier in the thread show that to be the case.
And the Merrill is about half the price.
It really is a matter of taste.
IMO Huff panned the Merrill way more than I would have.
His criticisms are mostly not valid.
For example, he stated that the AF of the Q is superior to the M.
I have not found that to be the case.
The autofocus on the M is just as good as on the Q.
I never noticed any difference in my comparison testing.
And the only review that should really matter is your own.
So my advice is to try both before you plunk down an extra $500.
You can just about purchase 2 M's for the price of just one Q.
Anyway, whichever one you decide to use happy shooting.
Last edited: