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 sd Quattro H

capital

New member
I was hoping in that review he would directly compare the new dng format to a x3f file of the same scene to see what if anything is lost. Or better yet, an in camera DNG, X3F and also a Kalpanika converted DNG, as I was looking for a more rigorous review of this model.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Well the good news is that if he has one to review I would hope Sean Reid has one as well and for him to present a much more detailed review at some point.

He has always been a pretty strong Sigma supporter.

And so have The Camera Store, which would be good if they could do a review of it as well.

Let's hope!

LouisB
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
I come back from an another forum where things escalate quickly. An old Sigma moderator waked up recently, was very surprised to see how drifted the Sigma community and IQ, expressed his opinion especially about the Quattro and ... got removed from moderation. USA !!

You know who you are and you are welcome on getDPI.

Anyway,

Some facts, some more proof by picture that Quattro tech is just... just ... (I wanted to say it is just a Tata motor engine inside a Ferrari shell but ...) just a Tata motor engine inside a first gen Star Trek spaceship shell.

Here we speak about SD Quattro H vs SD1 Merrill with the best Sigma lenses available : the 50 and the 85 f1.4 Art.

SD1 vs sd Quattro?2017/01/22: maro????

SD1 vs sd Quattro?????2017/01/26: maro????

SD1 vs sd Quattro???????2017/01/28: maro????

RUN !! no ... FLY buying the last real men Sigma camera available : The SD1, even if it do not have live view and 1984 EVF, it is a cult collector camera with better DR than Quattro, better rendering than Quattro, less heavy files than Quattro, who can compete against a D810 in landscape and who love ART lenses.

PS: and it is far more sexy than quattro and the AF, even if not optimal, will perform better than quattro.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hulyss

I have my ups and downs with the DP0Q - at present I am in the up-mood because for some reason I can't quite fathom it is turning out some good photographs - but I am not exactly an enthusiastic supporter - more a grudging supporter when it works.

However, I do find it hard to work out what is so wrong with the samples in the links you've provided. I'm not trying to talk myself into buying one (I can't afford an expensive disappointment - if I wanted one of those I'd save up for a new M10, ha-ha!) but for a Quattro sensor I have to say grudgingly that the samples look pretty good.

I judge Sigma by the way it resolves patterns, which imho is superior to other sensors. Here are a couple of crops of an area of the two photos SD1 vs SDQH from what I assume is the 85mm art samples. I have concentrated on the white brick siding of the building in the crops.



Click through for full size (about 2MB).

Obviously, these are the original jpegs, cropped to a 1:1 area. The SD1 file is smaller than the SDQH file and I had to resize the SDQH file to the same dimensions as the SD1 crop, 1276x1276 in order to make a side by side comparison. I then saved and uploaded the resulting file which you can click through to (and created a smaller sized one for display here in the forum).

In the samples there is one thing which is obvious. The micro-contrast of the SD1 appears to be superior to that of the SDQH. The white bricks on the SD1 shot, indeed a lot of detail is more definite because of the stronger contrast. However, is that a function of the sensor? The sensor and the lens? Or the settings in the camera of the photographer? It is difficult to say. If we accept that the SD1 sensor handles contrast better then other than that I find that the IQ of the images is close enough to be the same. And either sensor produces more detail than I have seen in all but one Bayer-sensor camera I have ever owned.

The 'all-but-one' is my Leica Q which produce damn fine detail on a par with my Merrill DPxMs. This was not the case, for example with my Sony A7R and A7S bodies, or my current Panasonic GX8 and GX80 bodies - nor would you expect it from a m43rds sensor but you might have expected it from the Sony FF sensors. So, well done Leica. Even so, in a shoot out with my DP3M vs the Leica Q I have found the DP3M to be as good and better which is a pretty good result for a camera which costs 4.5 times less than a Leica Q!.

But back to the SDQH, I don't think these results show the SDQH to be radically poorer than the SD1. There are issues with micro-contrast which my DP0Q also struggles with on an indeterminate basis (in other words I can't work out why sometimes the results are perfect and other times they are not).

Are the results here are not influenced by the camera settings rather than the sensors? Is my comparison valid? What do others think?

LouisB

PS Please do not re-post my example as it would not be fair to the original photographer.
 

Stoneage

Member
At first these two samples look kind of similar, but there is something in the Merrill image that is more appealing.
If you read the comments on dpreview, everybody prefers the Merrill shot.
The shortcomings of Quattro are less present in highly detailed (busy) images but are more pronounced in out of focus areas or surfaces and textures.
And they become even more visible if you have to work on the RAW (lifting shadows, recovering highlights)

These are 200% crops to make my point more visible:




This is not the kind of pixel quality that makes me want to buy a Foveon based camera again. The Merrill sensor was already kind of a stretch after the previous, super clean and vivid 4.7mp sensor. But it was a good compromise and advantage over all.
Quattro is more like one step forward and two steps backwards.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Those are interesting crops. One other thing which is noticeable is the difference in colouring between the two sensors.

The SD1 colour is darker than the SDQ-H. Again, is this the sensor or the camera settings? I am assuming it is the sensor.

LouisB
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Well, maro is very well known in Sigma camera testing since sigma digital camera exist. For me and my good eyes, since I use sigma digital cameras (almost 10 years ...!), the SD1 trounce the Quattro and not only in IQ.

The DpQ are heresies compared to the previous DP. First, Ergonomic : No way as pocketable as previous DP. We already lose flash on the Merrill but it was ok since the DPm are compact and the sensor is awesome. With the Dpq you need more than a pocket and... WHO the hell want a camera that protect his memory card with a simple rubber cover ??? At nearly 1K$ ...What the hell ??? Just for this little thing, those DP are design and marketing jokes.

Of course IQ is good only because of the lens and THEN, the AFE kill the DR hence the Merrill files have far better dynamic. Simple Sigma fact: never buy a Sigma with AFE otherwise you'll have to deal with blown highlights and/or colours. Well known with previous generations. (None of the Merrill's have AFE but SD15, DP2X, DP1X was equipped with it and was kind of crap).

Those problem are the same on the SD quattro, H or not. That + the utter lack of Chrominance because of this heretic sensor.

Trust my experience : SIGMA CAMERA + AFE = FRAUD.

:angel: What can I say for this composition : SIGMA CAMERA + AFE + QUATTRO =

Fell free to fill the blank.

EDIT: I say that again because on other forums some late "specialists" :)sleep:) just say that Maro is biased toward Merrill ... NO Maro isn't biased at all and never was. Period.

Stop insulting people who have skills and experience when you have none.
 
Last edited:

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Hulyss, I may be misinterpreting this statement but I am going to assume it is not aimed at people in this thread.

LouisB
ho no don't worry :) Just aimed at some ppl on other forums (where I can't participate because I'm a bully...). Those guys just like to teach other people about a brand even if they do not own any camera of this brand ... and they like saying "things" on other ppl (like "Maro is biased"...) when themselves are not specially known for any work or specially known at all.

But this is internet. Not photography.
 

Stoneage

Member
Just aimed at some ppl on other forums (where I can't participate because I'm a bully...). Those guys just like to teach other people about a brand even if they do not own any camera of this brand ... and they like saying "things" on other ppl (like "Maro is biased"...) when themselves are not specially known for any work or specially known at all.
There are the biased Sigma/Foveon veterans over there who defend everything coming from Sigma. Every new Sigma camera has "better colors" and "better ISO" performance and "better everything" in their eyes.
Maybe they would even praise a bayer matrix sensor if Sigma would announce it.
Unfortunately these people seem to be the "connection/voice" between the american users and the Sigma company. Together with the very polite and uncritical Japanese user base, we can't expect much progress from this relationship.
Then there are the new, unexperienced fanboys with only one Quattro camera who believe in the Sigma marketing speech, ignoring obvious facts about the shortcomings of the new sensor.
Their "proof" is always the "better resolution" of Quattro, especially after a highly complex processing/sharpening/noise reduction treatment of one particular user. Or the "better color" which is mostly just more saturation and warmer white balance. Ignoring the flat, lifeless rendering and the lack of 3D pop and soul, because they never experienced true Foveon from the old days, the SD10, DP1 etc. and even the Merrill.

Sigma, just put the Merrill sensor in new, compact DP (digital compact!) bodies with faster processors and state of the art components. Do the same with the SD1 and add live view, hire 2-3 qualified programmers to rewrite Sigma Photo Pro and i would slowly replace my whole Sigma gear even if the sensor is the same.
 

Malina DZ

Member
the AFE kill the DR hence the Merrill files have far better dynamic...
Hulyss, could you point me to a scientific explanation of AFE (Analog Front End) reducing image sensor DR? Is not the whole point of AFE to improve SNR?

Personally, I don't care about SD Q & H, but do wonder what potential Quattro technology has for a future generation of DP H models. It's the DP H lens quality and aperture size that may spike my interest and GAS in spite of inherited Quattro shortcomings.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Sigma - great company, doing wonders with 35mm lenses, had a marvellous line of cameras with the Merrill series, breathtaking image quality. So good in my opinion that in late 2012 I risked a short photographic vacation to Morroco armed just with the DP1M and DP2M ( a Sony for backup) and despite poor high ISO perfomance, I had an absolutely superb time and captured some great images. Then they took a wrong turn with the Quattro cameras, and instead of rowing back and accepting they had made a disatrous mistake, they carried on. The SD and H quattros are the sad result.

But they are just cameras and Sigma have got a lot right with the lenses, even if the Quattro range is, as many think, an unmitigated disaster. I wonder if their reps still visit these forums? I suspect not...
 

xpatUSA

Member
Or the "better color" which is mostly just more saturation and warmer white balance.
I have no idea what is meant by "better" but recently I tested the color accuracy of my 4 Sigma cameras and one gentleman (TN Args) contributed a dp0 Quattro shot.

The Quattro was the most accurate when comparing the Lab colors listed for the Xrite color checker card with the resulting Lab picker results in RawTherapee.

So, in your view, what is meant by "better"?
 

Stoneage

Member
So, in your view, what is meant by "better"?
I was referring to claims from users that Quattro has "better colors" when comparing shots from Merrill and Quattro. In most of these samples, the Quattro simply has a warmer white balance (Merrill auto WB is mostly too cool) and the Quattro seems to saturate colors more. So these two factors seem to be the reason for such claims.
Maybe the Quattro is also more accurate, as you said, but this is not something that you can examine without a scientific test setup.
The other question is then: how do colors react with strong illumination/sunlight, or in shadow areas when exposure has to be liftet, how "stable" are the colors?
Test setups are mostly perfectly and even lit.

In my personal opinion, "good" color should not only be accurate but "stable" so that i can work with it, shifting or boosting it to my taste without getting posterisation or lots of noise.
Quattro seems to have noisy reds and yellows. So, if these colors are "accurate", they are still not good in my opinion. Even if the color picker says they are accurate.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Hulyss, could you point me to a scientific explanation of AFE (Analog Front End) reducing image sensor DR? Is not the whole point of AFE to improve SNR?
There is a difference between what say Sigma and the reality, always. The AFE is probably, theoretically, a good idea but they NEVER managed to implement it right, either at a hardware level but more probably at a software level. I struggled for years with the SD15, I struggled immediately with the Quattro (and his false histogram). Same **** different day. And yes, I know how to expose a camera since my minox back in the days. The headroom is much more limited than Merrill in the same way that it is much more limited between a DP2X and a DP2S or a SD14 and a SD15.

History always repeat itself... and ppl have an EXTREMELY short memory (or age bring selective memory I do not know...).


To answer about the colours, yes it have a lot to do about the white balance as Stoneage said. But most pros (the guys who work pictures for a living) do not care about the marginal lab results one software might output. They know how to obtain colour reproduction since film age so... Quattro or not this isn't an interesting argument/point, at all.
 

Paul Monaghan

New member
There is a difference between what say Sigma and the reality, always. The AFE is probably, theoretically, a good idea but they NEVER managed to implement it right, either at a hardware level but more probably at a software level. I struggled for years with the SD15, I struggled immediately with the Quattro (and his false histogram). Same **** different day. And yes, I know how to expose a camera since my minox back in the days. The headroom is much more limited than Merrill in the same way that it is much more limited between a DP2X and a DP2S or a SD14 and a SD15.

History always repeat itself... and ppl have an EXTREMELY short memory (or age bring selective memory I do not know...).


To answer about the colours, yes it have a lot to do about the white balance as Stoneage said. But most pros (the guys who work pictures for a living) do not care about the marginal lab results one software might output. They know how to obtain colour reproduction since film age so... Quattro or not this isn't an interesting argument/point, at all.
Hi Hulyss.

You where one of the reasons I bought my first Sigma camera, the dp3M and I still love it and my dp1M to this day. Sadly I have never used any of the older Sigma cameras but I do use the newer Quattro cameras and I am also enjoying them.

I know the rendering of the Q is different, some of that micro-contrast is gone as is the 3d rendering it gave to some objects but overall I rather enjoy the rendering and wonder why you seem so angry?

Would we all love a 35mm (or larger) true x3 sensor? YES but at the same time I'm sure there are a lot of lessons to learn about the Q sensor good or bad which will get put into any future chip design.

The sdQ is a great camera to use, much easier than the sd1M imho and I can easily nail focus wide open with lens such as the 18-35mm f1.8 which I had a lot of trouble with on the sd1M, even manual focus is easy due to the focus peaking and zooming ability, add that to live view tethering on the sdQH and there is a lot to love about the new camera and I for one am enjoying using the sdQ to create while the sd1M is gathering some dust.

I couldn't sell my Merrill camera's as they are pretty special but the Quattro isn't that bad imho, not as bad as people seem to make it out to be and still able to deliver incredible images.

SDIM0009SPP.jpg
 

retow

Member
Sigma - great company, doing wonders with 35mm lenses, had a marvellous line of cameras with the Merrill series, breathtaking image quality. So good in my opinion that in late 2012 I risked a short photographic vacation to Morroco armed just with the DP1M and DP2M ( a Sony for backup) and despite poor high ISO perfomance, I had an absolutely superb time and captured some great images. Then they took a wrong turn with the Quattro cameras, and instead of rowing back and accepting they had made a disatrous mistake, they carried on. The SD and H quattros are the sad result.

But they are just cameras and Sigma have got a lot right with the lenses, even if the Quattro range is, as many think, an unmitigated disaster. I wonder if their reps still visit these forums? I suspect not...
Maybe the quattros are not what some hoped they would or should be. But what I observe on this forum is endless ranting (not you, I know) of a very small number of individuals who seem to be obsessively frustrated with a tool they neither own nor use on a regular basis. Not enough for a company to reconsider its product strategy, I would think. I remember the days when the Sigma section of this forum was a great place for sharing pictures, exchange experiences and learn from one another. I still enjoy my DP Merrills and a Quattro 0 but mostly stay away from the Sigma posts in this forum as life simply is too short to be wasted with such negativity.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
Hi Hulyss.

You where one of the reasons I bought my first Sigma camera, the dp3M and I still love it and my dp1M to this day. Sadly I have never used any of the older Sigma cameras but I do use the newer Quattro cameras and I am also enjoying them.

I know the rendering of the Q is different, some of that micro-contrast is gone as is the 3d rendering it gave to some objects but overall I rather enjoy the rendering and wonder why you seem so angry?

Would we all love a 35mm (or larger) true x3 sensor? YES but at the same time I'm sure there are a lot of lessons to learn about the Q sensor good or bad which will get put into any future chip design.

The sdQ is a great camera to use, much easier than the sd1M imho and I can easily nail focus wide open with lens such as the 18-35mm f1.8 which I had a lot of trouble with on the sd1M, even manual focus is easy due to the focus peaking and zooming ability, add that to live view tethering on the sdQH and there is a lot to love about the new camera and I for one am enjoying using the sdQ to create while the sd1M is gathering some dust.

I couldn't sell my Merrill camera's as they are pretty special but the Quattro isn't that bad imho, not as bad as people seem to make it out to be and still able to deliver incredible images.
I get your point Paul and understand it but I won't again explain why I'm angry toward Sigma. I already made numerous explicit posts about it. Continue your good work :)

Maybe the quattros are not what some hoped they would or should be. But what I observe on this forum is endless ranting (not you, I know) of a very small number of individuals who seem to be obsessively frustrated with a tool they neither own nor use on a regular basis. Not enough for a company to reconsider its product strategy, I would think. I remember the days when the Sigma section of this forum was a great place for sharing pictures, exchange experiences and learn from one another. I still enjoy my DP Merrills and a Quattro 0 but mostly stay away from the Sigma posts in this forum as life simply is too short to be wasted with such negativity.
Life is too short yes. Since I have all my life front to me I prefer fighting to see Sigma repair what they have broken : Faith, uniqueness, trust ... yadiyada
 

Stoneage

Member
I still enjoy my DP Merrills and a Quattro 0 but mostly stay away from the Sigma posts in this forum as life simply is too short to be wasted with such negativity.
Nothing wrong with that. But if you had, like me, lenses for the Sigma DSLR system that is worth somewhere around 7k €, then you might understand the frustration that they just stopped producing the kind of image quality that made me invest so much money. Sigma can make their Quattro stuff, that's ok for me, but please update the SD1 to modern standards.
 
Top