papillon_65
Forum Pro
You've been a cheerleader for the Quattro since it arrived, which is better is determined by the owner, for me and plenty of others the Merrills are better.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Merrill vs Quattro
- Thread starter Matzara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sigma dp1 quattro
Joris1632
Senior Member
M
maceoQ
Guest
Interesting, in my opinion both Merrill shots are superior. Ok, the bird was better focussed (the eye) with the Merrill, so its hard to compare, but there is less noise in the Merrill shot and for some reason it seems to have greater DOF which makes the image look more 3D.
In the landscape shot, i think the Merrill did a better job also. There is this "yellow-cast" again all over the image from the Quattro (remember dpreview's test image of the Quattro with the yellow faces?) I think this is a similar situation/problem.
Also in this image, all the vegetation seems to be yellow, while the Merrill can separate nuances of green/yellow better:
left side: Merrill
In the landscape shot, i think the Merrill did a better job also. There is this "yellow-cast" again all over the image from the Quattro (remember dpreview's test image of the Quattro with the yellow faces?) I think this is a similar situation/problem.
Also in this image, all the vegetation seems to be yellow, while the Merrill can separate nuances of green/yellow better:
left side: Merrill
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Not disagreeing with your assessment but it is difficult to conclude that the cause is some fundamental characteristic of the sensor when so much depends on software, settings etc. I think you would need some kind of very careful lab set up sort of experiments to conclude anything reliably.
--
"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
Interesting, in my opinion both Merrill shots are superior. Ok, the bird was better focussed (the eye) with the Merrill, so its hard to compare, but there is less noise in the Merrill shot and for some reason it seems to have greater DOF which makes the image look more 3D.
In the landscape shot, i think the Merrill did a better job also. There is this "yellow-cast" again all over the image from the Quattro (remember dpreview's test image of the Quattro with the yellow faces?) I think this is a similar situation/problem.
Also in this image, all the vegetation seems to be yellow, while the Merrill can separate nuances of green/yellow better:
left side: Merrill
--
"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
The Quattro image has lots of more resolution and sharpness. Are you sure the Merrill is focused correctly? Look at the tiles on the copper roof! There is something seriously wrong with the left image.Embedded JPEGs extracted in FastStone Viewer:
Some pretty horrible artifacts in the Quattro clock face :-(
--
/Roland
Kalpanika X3F tools:
GitHub - Kalpanika/x3f: Tools for manipulating X3F files from Sigma cameras
Tools for manipulating X3F files from Sigma cameras - Kalpanika/x3f
github.com
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
Ted likes RAW digger
But - the Quattro RAW digger result is not all that useful to present.
Ask maceoQ, they're his images.The Quattro image has lots of more resolution and sharpness. Are you sure the Merrill is focused correctly? Look at the tiles on the copper roof! There is something seriously wrong with the left image.Embedded JPEGs extracted in FastStone Viewer:
Some pretty horrible artifacts in the Quattro clock face :-(
--
Ted
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
OK - hereby asked him
But, you do see it? That the difference in resolution is much more than can be explained by the difference between 16 and 20 MP?
The Quattro image is tack sharp and the Merrill image is soft. Can't say anything about artifacts then.
If you can't figure out why, please ignore my post ;-)
There must be a contest in this sub-thread: how many ways to mis-spell and mis-capitalize RawDigger correctly, ho ho.Ted likes RAW digger
How about the layer comparisons for noise? Were they useful or not?
--
Ted
Last edited:
M
maceoQ
Guest
This is a crop from the "Embedded JPG" (not really Merrills strength, look also at the blown highlights)The Quattro image has lots of more resolution and sharpness. Are you sure the Merrill is focused correctly? Look at the tiles on the copper roof! There is something seriously wrong with the left image.Embedded JPEGs extracted in FastStone Viewer:
Some pretty horrible artifacts in the Quattro clock face :-(
The RAW is sharp as hell
better?
Last edited:
I think that's plenty for a wide angle lens.
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
CamelCaseInParticularIfYouIncludeRAWIsRatherHardToGetRight.
It could be RAWDigger
RAW is often spelled with upper case, even if it is no acronym.Did not look at this. Ill be back with a comment.
But, if one image is sharp and the other not, I assume it might be a bit dubious.
Tom Schum
Forum Pro
Here's a link to one of my dp0q images in my DPR gallery:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1438043515/photos/3320900/dp0q1477_s63ps?inalbum=dp0q
It printed nicely at 24"x36".
Notice it was shot on a perfect day. I'm not particularly worried that my dp0q has a F4 lens but I'm not shooting at night either.
I also have a DP3 Merrill. The two cameras are different; one is not necessarily better than the other but I prefer my Quattro.
EDIT: I considered buying a Fuji 14mm F2.8 lens for my X-E1 but went with the dp0q instead.
--
Tom Schum
Celebrate mediocrity (in moderation)
Last edited:
Johan Borg
Senior Member
I did side by side comparisons between my DP2M and DP2Q before selling the Merrill and found the exact opposite. In fact, even the OOC JPEGs of the Quattro compare favorably to RAW files from Merrill.
There are good reasons to prefer Merrill over Quattro, but desaturation of shadows is an issue that started with the Merrill generation and was improved with Quattro (which is only to be expected when you quadruple the size of lower layers in order to reduce color noise).
I prefer Quattro to a large extent because of the exceptional JPEGs and the in-camera RAW engine. Whether the next Foveon generation is 4:1:1 or 1:1:1, I sure hope they can replicate the delicate yet detailed JPEGs of Quattro, because few if any cameras can compete with it.
Very funny, Roland. You obviously do not know that is a well-respected trade name:
How about if one image is seriously over-sharpened then?It could be RAWDigger
Did not look at this. Ill be back with a comment.
But, if one image is sharp and the other not, I assume it might be a bit dubious.
Feel free to mark it up with damning evidence in the left pane ;-)
We could go round and round for ever but what I see in the right hand pane is no better than a Bayer shot viewed close.
Quattro - a camera for the punters, not to be taken seriously by those who care about their image detail, especially at high contrast edges.
--
Ted
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
No, in camera JPEG is not M strength.This is a crop from the "Embedded JPG" (not really Merrills strength, look also at the blown highlights)
The RAW is sharp as hell
Yes, but still. Look at the Quattro. It has lots of extremely sharp stair casing. It is actually very high resolution.
The Merrill, from the RAW, still is soft. No sharp edges and no stair casing. I would guess it can do better and is not properly focused.
Tom Schum
Forum Pro
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
Possible. SPP makes much sharper Quattro images than Kalpanika does. Actually, the images often looks sharper than the blue layer. And that without any halos.
This is not easy stuff. Personally, I think it would be otimal to have a 1000 MP sensor (Bayer or Foveon) if you only could make one that can handle the noise. Then you would have an image that is as sharp as the lens and do not need any tricks for making it sharp.
M
maceoQ
Guest
Sorry, it is nearly impossible to "miss focus" a DP2m at F8 in good light. You're the first one telling me, that this shot is not properly focussed.No, in camera JPEG is not M strength.This is a crop from the "Embedded JPG" (not really Merrills strength, look also at the blown highlights)
The RAW is sharp as hell
Yes, but still. Look at the Quattro. It has lots of extremely sharp stair casing. It is actually very high resolution.
The Merrill, from the RAW, still is soft. No sharp edges and no stair casing. I would guess it can do better and is not properly focused.
You're drifting off my point, which was:
The embedded image (not from SPP) you liked so much for it's superior detail, etc., has been shown to be well over-sharpened and to be suffering from 4:1:1 artifacts, QED.
Similar threads
- For sale
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum