Sigma SD1 Merrill vs Sony A65

This morning I finally went out and shot the SD1 Merrill I just got, and at the same time I decided to compare my Sony A65 image quality against what I was getting with the SD1 Merrill. I have to confess that at first I was appalled at the low quality I thought I was getting with the SD1 Merrill, based on zooming into photos on screen. Here are some samples that tell the story:

Believe it or not, the Sony was set to a higher shutter speed.

100% view

SD1 OOC jpeg from comparison above

A65 OOC jpeg from comparison above

A65 on left, shot at 1/500 sec. f6.3 ISO 200 - SD1 on right, shot at 1/400 sec. f5.6 ISO 200

100% view

A65 OOC jpeg from comparison above

SD1 OOC jpeg from comparison above

The scary thing about the last pair is that I used a good, f2.8, prime lens on the Sigma, with it mounted on a tripod and shot with 10 second self-timer mode, while the Sony shot was taken hand-held (with IBIS turned on), with a zoom lens.

Are both of these cameras old? Yes. One is an old Sony 24 MP camera with an old Minolta 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 zoom. I use a tripod to shoot the Sigma SD1 Merrill with good quality lenses (but not Art series primes).

Here are two last shots, which I think tell the story pretty well:

A65 shot at 55mm 1/500 sec. f6.3 ISO 200 - SD1 shot at 70mm 1/500 sec. f5.6 ISO 200

100% view

A65 OOC jpeg from comparison above

SD1 OOC jpeg from comparison above

If you look at the fence on the right (just right of middle), you can see that the definition of the vertical slats are just as visible in the Sony shot as in the Sigma shot. The only thing is the Sony shot is from a wider point of view (55mm), shot with a 4x zoom lens, hand-held (but with IBIS turned on and a high shutter speed of 1/500 sec.). To me this is an indicator that I should be disappointed with the SD1 Merrill, because if I can't get better resolution with it than with my Sony gear, what is the point? The Sony has an articulating tilt screen, EVF with continuous live view, fast review abilities, GPS, and video shooting capability. Those are a lot of advantages in a camera that I can replace for less than $400. I could buy Sony A77 bodies, to have weather seals, for about $500 all day long, and they have all the same advantages over the Sigma SD1 Merrill. Add to that the fact that with the Sony cameras I can shoot at ISO 1600 with no major issues, and I am beginning to wonder if I haven't made a mistake thinking that a new Sigma camera could provide a better quality image, which would make my big prints look better, when people inspect them close-up.

Maybe I should just take my three Sony cameras across America, and shoot like crazy, because the Sony stuff is "good enough."

This morning has been a bit of a revelation. Maybe after I work on the raw files for a while I will change my mind back toward shooting with Sigma cameras. After-all, the SD1 isn't known for making great OOC jpegs. Certainly if I get a 50mm f1.4 Art there will be more difference. Maybe not though.

Hmmm . . .

So here is that last shot processed in SPP 6.4.0:

Raw photo from above processed in SPP 6.4.0 - (luminance noise reduction on lowest setting)

O.K. This should look better. I processed the raw file from the last comparison above, using no noise reduction. This was exported to sRGB jpeg with a level 10 compression, so good quality, but not quite the best. Not bad. I guess I'll have to get a 70mm f2.8 Macro for the Sony cameras, and compare the two cameras with shots taken from a concrete wall or bench. The biggest problem for the Sigma will be getting focus right. I found that many times I was unable to get a sharp photo, due to my inability to focus properly, and I could not always tell by reviewing the photo on the camera's screen. This will be resolved though, when I get the SD Quattro H.