Review - The Sigma dp3 Quattro - For the color connoisseur

xpatUSA wrote:

Lobbamobba wrote:

I like what I get from my Sigma cameras. Modern once like this as well as my old dp1 classic. The colors and tones are just where I want them.

The reason to get specifically the dp3q was the focal length and the super crisp images that the Quattro sensor produces.

The colors are so nice. I just add some contrast, no filters or presets.

Pushed shadows and highlights brought back.

Excellent-looking colors. It was a pleasure to view full-size and thereby see on those billboards where the photo was taken . . . and just look at that bird in the sky, almost invisible in the thread image !!

OT, but I'm coming to an opinion, similar to Dave Millier's, that all of this forum's Q vs M vs Others threads are a waste of hot air and our time and only occasionally entertaining.

Ted

It's not really OT, it's sort of the meta-topic...

But Dave's point is usually that he (and many/most users) is only going to print 8x10 at most, so it limits what details will be visible to a viewer, etc. And in any event it's only at larger print sizes that one can see any difference. Etc.

It's a reasonable contention on a superficial level, and it suits his image style and purpose, but I think not entirely correct in the most general sense, for at least two reasons. First, on a gross scale the equipment and images produced influence your subject matter. The inability (real or imagined) of the Sigma to be  an easy camera to use sort of takes out the grandmother (and maybe even the enthusiast)  making pictures of the grandchildren, and maybe sports. Second, the "medium is the message:" The Sigma cameras, with what amounts to a very hi-res sensor, make for a very detailed image which influences not only the choice of subject matter, but how the subject/image is perceived by the viewer and image maker.

And the detail in the Sigma images is fun. Interesting to look at. Etc: Being able to see a single leaf, well resolved, at fifty yards is simply not what human vision does. A Sigma camera can do that, but then what?

Is it art? And/or wonderful? Not without something more.

My view is that the "M" series cameras produce (in my view) somewhat grating micro-contrast and somewhat inaccurate, although vibrant, color. The DPM3 still seems like a superb camera. The Q series seems to me to have more accurate/"natural" color and a more natural (smoother) appearance. In a word, my word, better.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Dave also has a great concern with aliasing and jpg artifacts, and those concerns greatly influence his perception of images. Not everyone shares that sensitivity.

But over-all, it is a topic in and of itself. The comparisons themselves can be somewhat tedious and annoying, particularly the excessive emotion sometimes involved, but among the sensitive and strong minded artists using the various cameras we should expect such emotions and strong feelings...

Richard