HBowman: Please, stop comparing those cameras with the D800 or 645Z. It come nowhere near in every IQ therm. It might lure the spectator sometimes, on rez only (and after extensive PP), but that's all.
Those are special cameras. Comparing it with any other brand (especially FF and MF) is just wrong (either for the ones defending it and for SIGMA, who just passively endorse it).
May I suggest that you download Sigma Quattro raw files from Imaging Rersource and PhotographyBlog and extract them with Sigma Pro Photo 6.2.
Don't simply go with a comment on forum somewhere, use the files and the software--possibly get you own Quattro files.
pascal b: Waow, from what I know, the first brand who has the audacity to propose a 6:7 aspect ratio! (even if just in JPEG).
Do you have a link, a webseach turns up rumors and comment boards from year ago?
I'm not seeing anything concrete.
Paul Verhoeven: Can somebody explain to me what is the point in Sigma now, after they got rid of full-color pixels and their color data in the pixels is interpolated just like everybody else's? And even worse than everybody else's in their fake 39mpix files? The real resolution of the sensor in Quattro cameras is about the same as Samsung's 28mpix sensor, which is not bad at all but no Merrills and 645z either.
So you still haven't bothered to do the extraction of the ISO 100 studio files from IR.
Wrong, blue is not resolved better with the Quattro, it's easy to see that red and yellow and green resolve better.
Why do you think I make claims without having looked at the files? Well there's an obvious answer--because that's what you've done.
vscd: PLEASE REVIEW THEM! It would be the first real review since the SD1. Give Sigma the fair chance to compete in the Resolution-Charts.
I like my DP3M and the DP0 is seriously a great camera, but there is no real Review available until now. At least not in your quality ;)
Just to be clear I'm writing about the Quattros, and they sell for about 1000usd.
Without a lens the 645Z sells for about 8500usd, so more like 9 times the price of a Quattro, and the Pentax has good AF and can easily shoot at ISO 3200.
The Pentax 645Z will resolve better than the 14MP older DP cameras.
I really don't care that you clicked on both, you NEED to DOWNLOAD the files, and download the Sigma software and EXTRACT those files.
Stop quoting charts and numbers, the fact remains that all of the fabric, save blue, resolves better with the Sigma.
What makes you think what you just posted is an acceptable test, when I clearly wrote "download and extract"?
You need to drop this BS misdirection, via "misunderstandings."
You're wrong about the low ISO resolution power of the Sigma Quattro v the 645Z, and actual files prove the point real well.
dougster1979: Sigma have shown they can Kick ass in the lens world, it`s time they applied the same logic to their cameras. Art series body eagerly awaited!
Foveon files are always going to be extra large, so slow down buffers, and the cameras will not win higher ISO competitions.
Extraction software takes a lot of work, so that's why only Sigma has an universal program for Sigma files.
So except battery life, and faster AF, what would you change about Sigma cameras?
Within limits, they're already excellent cameras.
Imaging Resource has raws from both the Pentax 645Z and Quattro. That's studio raws of the same shot with the same lighting.
There's an hyphen between Imaging and Resource in the web address.
So I rechecked the Sigma and 645Z ISO 100 raws, and the Sigma resolves blue a tiny bit less well than the Pentax.
Meaning: There's something that made Sigma use so many more blue sensors.
I didn't say there's no interpolation, try not putting words into my statements.
Yet again, instead of making claims I suggest you get raws from the Pentax 645Z and the Quattro and compare.
At low ISOs the Quattro wins for resolution.
Regarding your colour theories, colour rules aren't as well understood as you think. And Sigma seems to know something you don't.
JapanAntoine: They should have stuck to the Merrill models and improve their low light performance (and a bit the body design, without going that far). That could have been a serious competitor to the X100T, but this quattro is not even close...
As for a 14mm prime lens, f2.8 would be normal, no?
Have you looked at Quattro raws?
You're overstating the interpolation claim, it's there but nothing like a conventional Bayer filter. Again you can check the raws yourself.
Regarding the 50MP point, specifically the Pentax 645Z, check before making claims. There are raws to download and the Sigma software is free.
What makes you think I've not actually checked the results from actual photo processing not simply counting MPs?
It's more like Apple putting not great sound cards in laptops, discontinuing the iPod that had good sound, and not being serious about fixing the sound quality of the iTunes software--no matter the file type.
Retina screens are still 8 bit, and Apple has decided that the subtlety of lighting shown in these M246 raws isn't something Apple wants to handle.
Also most Macs use SSDs internally now.
I was skipping iOS devices.
As computers I think they're kind of a joke. (As readers they're fine.)
It's preposterous how many steps it takes to clear Safari's history on an iOS device. Not so with other smartphones. iOS devices don't allow you to download files iOS can't immediately read, so no using the machine to store data for later reading/use on a real computer.
It's not just like every other sensor. There's a lot less interpolation than you think.
At low ISOs: The Quattro competes well with 50MP Bayer sensored cameras--meaning specifically the Pentax 645Z. You can do the tests yourself, instead of making claims about a Samsung, and I'm real familiar with that Samsung.
Did you download and extract the raws from both the Quattro and the 645Z?
You can read IR's apology about their handling of the Sigma Quattro jpegs.
I opened the ISO 100 Imaging Resouce raws from the Quattro 30mm and the Pentax 654Z, and I'm having a hard time seeing much difference in the fabric detail.
Now that I've done the extraction to tiff, the Sigma wins by a bit. It's not way out in front for detail and sharpness, but it's there.
HowaboutRAW: The much less expensive Nikon D5500 has better high ISO performance, very good AF, good HD video in normal format and many more lens options.
And Samsung has very good lenses.
Um, except my deep shadow raws from both the Nikon and the Samsung back me up. And those, mine, were shot in much more challenging lighting on purpose.
The NX1 really shouldn't be pushed beyond ISO 6400, while the D5500 can be pushed to about ISO 10000 without much trouble. So close, but the Nikon is better.
No, you can not open Sigma Quattro raws in Adobe Camera Raw, which is the LR raw extraction software.
For Quattro raws, Sigma Pro Photo 6.2 is the only extraction software so far. It's free to download from Sigma (under "support").
This 21mm Sigma lens doesn't appear to be as sharp as other Sigma Quattros.
justmeMN: "Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason" - Jerry Seinfeld
No agenda, that's you reading something there that's not.
You can look at the same Pentax and Sigma Q raws that I have. I used 645Z raws from PhotographyBlog and Imaging Resource. (I won't be sharing my Nikon D800 and D700 Otus raws.)
Pretty much, but with a few caveats, the Sigma is better than the Nikon for resolution, but with an Otus, the Nikon will likely beat the Sigma for colour subtly.
Few Pentax 645 lenses have very good color and also very good sharpness. The resolution race between the Sigma Quattro and the Pentax 645 would be close--the Sigma would likely win.
Now above base ISO the Nikon and Pentax start to lead.
Remember, I have raws from all three. Albeit no raws from the Nikon with an Otus, only tried an Otus on a D800.
Look at Foveon Quattro files, specifically the green tomato shot at Imaging Resource, you'll need the Sigma extraction software too--you can output to a 2X tiff and still see hair on the stem. That Brooklyn Bridge photo is also amazing. And no, the 2X output trick doesn't blur things or create artifacts.
Every 645Z raw I've extracted wouldn't see that kind of detail. Much better at higher ISOs though.
xeriwthe: most logical elegant design ever conceived by man
There are ways around that problem and you know that.