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

The Ute

Well-known member
So, I'm not a friend of diglloyd. I think I should meet him one day to sort this out. But, as far as I know, he kinda trashed the Quattro and IMHO, he is right.

When you own or test a lot of different gear, seriously, you can trash the Quattro. Ok, is good at 100 ISO but DR wise ??? ... little problems wise ???... I do not put me in danger to say that the Quattro is not that optimal even at base ISO. Your lightening should be optimal but the camera is not.

Like every manufacturers, SIGMA is not proofed toward errors and I think the Quattro is an error. When it was announced, I was excited like all SIGMA announcements.

At the end, it just bring some more TECHNICAL comfort like battery and all... but not real improvements on the IQ. It turned different in the bad way, IMHO. So what ?? 3MP more ?? Is that an improvement ?? A new sensor raping the original foveon 1-1-1 concept ?? Is that an improvement ?? No way.

I use SIGMA gear since the first DP1. Back in the days, it was just awesome for its price. Then the DP2, DP2s, DP2x ... just awesome little good camera priced correctly for what it does compared to concurrence.

Then >> Merrill legacy ... wow !!!! what a jump. Ok it was different but damn !! What a visual blast !! I never ever experienced a visual blast that strong.

Now SIGMA tend to sell this product as an evolution, insanely priced at 1k, like it is a major jump over the Merrill ... >>> It is not. It is a joke for anyone who have basis in PP, really. I tested it and returned it to Japan asap without any regret, disappointed.

It is a joke for every sigma lovers, like the Nikkor 58f1.4 is a joke for every lens lovers. It is an error and diglloyd, like many of us, would have wanted something more ... serious ? tangible ?

The Quattro should be priced at 500 US$. No more.
My brand new DP3M arrives today.

Can you offer a few best practices for achieving maximal image quality ?

Thanks in advance.

:)
 

tray271

New member
I have to agree with hulyss ..what a joke sigma..what wear you thinking...the dp1,dp2 and dp3 have that image quality that says wowo wow ..not the q its not the same ...I want better I don't want worse ...really disappointed myself ..I think people who have got the q who already had the merrils I can understand them maybe changing for better battery life usability etc,,but for fine detail the old merrills rule ..plain and simple ..totally priced wrong sigma
 

biglouis

Well-known member
My brand new DP3M arrives today.

Can you offer a few best practices for achieving maximal image quality ?

Thanks in advance.

:)
The DP3M is in terms of ergonomics the most disappointing camera compared to the DP2M (and I assume the DP1M).

The size of the lens on a compact is a bit odd. The focussing speed is abysmal. You will spend most of your time hunting back and forth if you are trying to use it for macro work. The macro distance itself is not nearly close enough.

But my, oh my! The images it can produce are drop dead gorgeous. Especially at f3.2 which I think is the sweet spot of the lens.

LouisB
 

The Ute

Well-known member
The DP3M is in terms of ergonomics the most disappointing camera compared to the DP2M (and I assume the DP1M).

The size of the lens on a compact is a bit odd. The focussing speed is abysmal. You will spend most of your time hunting back and forth if you are trying to use it for macro work. The macro distance itself is not nearly close enough.

But my, oh my! The images it can produce are drop dead gorgeous. Especially at f3.2 which I think is the sweet spot of the lens.

LouisB
Do you have any particular tips such as SPP settings, Camera settings, etc. ?

I tried the Fuji X series and returned it because I realized that the image quality would never measure up to a Merrill.

And I am spoiled by it.

The 3 was the only one I did not have.

And at a little over $500 I could not resist.

This completes my current set.
 
Last edited:

G43

New member
Of course I am curious too Louis...

It kind of fresh air to hear the DPM's mentioned again with enthusiasm.

Congrats UTE with the DP2M
 

scho

Well-known member
Just to bring this thread back on topic. :) Here are 3 shots taken today with the Q on a local gorge walk. It was heavily overcast and dark in the gorge (good for this type of shooting) so all images taken on a small tripod. Processed with SPP 6.05 and saved in S-High mode. Original link will take you to Flickr page where the S-High full size file can be downloaded.


Original



Original



Original
 

G43

New member
Yes.. back to the topic..

Carl... this is some of the better processed (and very nice images BTW) Q files I've seen yet.

At 100% pixel level it looks odd... but we should not pixel peep on a monitor when the images only prove by printing IMO.
 

scho

Well-known member
Yes.. back to the topic..

Carl... this is some of the better processed (and very nice images BTW) Q files I've seen yet.

At 100% pixel level it looks odd... but we should not pixel peep on a monitor when the images only prove by printing IMO.
Thank you G43. Yes, S-High at 100% is not perfect. As Quentin noted in one of his earlier posts upsizing with PhotozoomPro5 can eek out a slightly better image at 100%. Although, S-High is still good enough for a large print.
Superb Scho.
Thank you TheUte.
 

G43

New member
Prints is a completely different kettle of fish vs monitor peeping.
I am sure your wonderful images will look tremendously good on prints.
Since film dia-positive slides vanished more at less, the alternative natural way to look at pictures is prints in an album or on the wall.
 

rjp85

Member
There's no need to process a S-HI. It's just not good, not good at all.

Even if you're making a big print, an original size that is sharp and uprezzed in PhotoZoom Pro will always be better.

I tested a downsized S-HI compared to an original, and the original is sharper than the downsized S-HI! S-HI is just useless, and has more artifacts and weird edges. SPP does a horrible job with interpolation, IMO.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Do you have any particular tips such as SPP settings, Camera settings, etc. ?
I mainly use the camera in A mode and sometimes stray into manual focussing. I mainly use manual focussing on a tripod for macro type work.

As to SPP and this may also apply to the DP2Q, I am now tending to leave the RAW capture as is unless I really think that is requires significant highlight recovery or fill light.

Of course I am curious too Louis...

It kind of fresh air to hear the DPM's mentioned again with enthusiasm.

Congrats UTE with the DP2M
You can see many examples by myself, Huyliss and others in the DP3M thread.

I don't want to troll but I keep reading very poor reviews of the DP2Q. So much so that I am not about to risk GBP899 on one. This is disappointing because if like me a lot of Sigma enthusiasts reject the product then I am not sure Sigma will give us the next generation of compacts which might be ergonomically or IQ-wise the improvements we all seek.

LouisB
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Just to bring this thread back on topic. :) Here are 3 shots taken today with the Q on a local gorge walk. It was heavily overcast and dark in the gorge (good for this type of shooting) so all images taken on a small tripod. Processed with SPP 6.05 and saved in S-High mode. Original link will take you to Flickr page where the S-High full size file can be downloaded.
Scho, thanks for taking the time to post these and to provide links to the originals in Flickr. Much appreciated.

Again, I don't want to appear to be trolling but I am surprised, very much so, at what appears to be colour noise in the shadow areas, especially as the EXIF says the iso was 100.

A number of commentators on the web have highlighted the unacceptable noise above iso 400 and I have tended to dismiss the allegations as a lack of capability on their part, especially as I was assuming they were maybe taking JPEGs. Now I am beginning to wonder if they are indeed correct.

I have made very usable exposures at iso400, 640 and even 800 with my DP2M and DP3M. I have always been able to mitigate noise in post processing.

Puzzled and not too sure what to think!

Is it an SPP/firmware issue and do you think the processing will improve over time?

LouisB
 

scho

Well-known member
Scho, thanks for taking the time to post these and to provide links to the originals in Flickr. Much appreciated.

Again, I don't want to appear to be trolling but I am surprised, very much so, at what appears to be colour noise in the shadow areas, especially as the EXIF says the iso was 100.

A number of commentators on the web have highlighted the unacceptable noise above iso 400 and I have tended to dismiss the allegations as a lack of capability on their part, especially as I was assuming they were maybe taking JPEGs. Now I am beginning to wonder if they are indeed correct.

I have made very usable exposures at iso400, 640 and even 800 with my DP2M and DP3M. I have always been able to mitigate noise in post processing.

Puzzled and not too sure what to think!

Is it an SPP/firmware issue and do you think the processing will improve over time?

LouisB
Louis,

I had noise reduction turned off (both sliders at minimum setting) when processing in spp 6.05 and I made no attempt in post to remove shadow noise. There was an extreme range in lighting in the gorge, from bright, fast moving water to deep dark shadows. I tried to expose for the highlights and just let the shadows go.
 
Top