"Objective" comparison pic sets sd1 sdQ

Here are 3 downloadable sets of images taken under identical circumstances for each camera. Other than clocktime and camera body everything was constant between images from each comparative set. The lens has its own collar so once focused and the set shot on one camera the body was changed for the other body and a the comparative set of images taken with no changes made.

Note the calendar is off by years in the SD1 I don't try to keep up with it as everytime I take the camera out the date info has been lost. All the pictures were taken this afternoon.

The sets consist of images taken at full stops from f2.8 to f11 on each camera.

Some of the jpgs for the SD1 have been altered up by 1.2 stops to better match those from the sdQ in the jpg downloadable sets. Despite metering and exposure bias being set the same for some reason the sd1 is 1+ stops darker.

The raws are ooc with no changes to sharpening, noise or detail settings. You will have to process them yourself to compare them with your favored settings.

The downloadable sets are here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4fkcsupknb3dmmc/AABfIS5pzDTwV5voTFXMjvfDa?dl=0

If there are permission problems let me know but they should all be downloadable. The subset names should be self-explanatory.

Here are f5.6 samples from each set for both cameras. The quality has been reduced to reduce the file size for downloaders with limited bandwidth.


Far f5.6 sdQ focus is on the top part of the redwood tree in the back center


Far f5.6 sd1 focus is on the top part of the redwood tree in the back center


near f5.6 sdQ focus is on the center bottom foliage in the front


near f5.6 sd1 focus is on the center bottom foliage in the front


shade f5.6 sdQ focus is on the center fern fronds


shade f5.6 sdQ focus is on the center fern fronds

Enjoy!

Mike



--
"For me, photography is only an artistic language. The camera is my pencil. -- Charly Ho
"At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past."
Maurice Maeterlinck

Mike-

I downloaded the zip file. You probably should have warned folks that it is 917 MB. I only opened one shade jpg comparison (f/5.6). M on left, 400%



After lightening the M image and inspecting it, I see the usual - the Q is noisier than the M.

I guess it was Hobson's choice - let the cameras meter and get different exposure times, or go fully manual and be criticized for that. But from the samples shown, the M consistently used a shorter exposure.

So thanks for this comparison, but I don't think it will change anyone's opinion.

David

Hi David,

You should be able to drill down into the zip there are several sub directories. Maybe I need to post links for each directory.

I't not intended to prove anything or change anyone's mind it's just there for people who would like to see them compared.

Thanks for your comments,

Mike

DavidWright2010 said:

Mike-

I downloaded the zip file. You probably should have warned folks that it is 917 MB. I only opened one shade jpg comparison (f/5.6). M on left, 400%



After lightening the M image and inspecting it, I see the usual - the Q is noisier than the M.

I guess it was Hobson's choice - let the cameras meter and get different exposure times, or go fully manual and be criticized for that. But from the samples shown, the M consistently used a shorter exposure.

So thanks for this comparison, but I don't think it will change anyone's opinion.

David

Click to expand...

--
"For me, photography is only an artistic language. The camera is my pencil. -- Charly Ho
"At every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past."
Maurice Maeterlinck

Inside the earlier link are 6 directories of full sets of jpgs and raws. Here are the links:

far test jpgs 263MB : https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o2gtbfk3v1imbz9/AACpWOS8rJ49hMMpFEp-NDDNa?dl=0

far test raws 640MB: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4sar4cq9ytfywve/AAA9l8eE94krxqMtT7TUVCAva?dl=0

near test jpgs 300MB: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bprobwh2y7radu4/AABGtdbBAitXPSA-EYZcl_Mea?dl=0

near test raws 661MB: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z6j5k1f44seyfjk/AADQbbRSisEtOL92U2upcRg2a?dl=0

Shade test jpgs 197MB: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/led8kf1z5jmdj0y/AAAFgcXM54Ydy7QKuFuDftoYa?dl=0

Shade test raws 593MB: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/myc7r0l124eepox/AAA9A0y2omDTZFKJ9krgmy9xa?dl=0

Mike

DavidWright2010 said:

Mike-

I downloaded the zip file. You probably should have warned folks that it is 917 MB. I only opened one shade jpg comparison (f/5.6). M on left, 400%



After lightening the M image and inspecting it, I see the usual - the Q is noisier than the M.

I guess it was Hobson's choice - let the cameras meter and get different exposure times, or go fully manual and be criticized for that. But from the samples shown, the M consistently used a shorter exposure.

So thanks for this comparison, but I don't think it will change anyone's opinion.

David

Click to expand...

I tend to like the Q images better. Lots of people shoot excellent images using the Q camera. (What can that mean??) Most of the noise issues can be resolved with good "post-processing," assuming some skill with all that. Invest in Raw Therapee....Just kidding, of course... It's free.

And as far as I am concerned, I think "noise" is seriously over-rated as an issue. It's just one factor. I tire of these comparisons, well done, and well-meant as they may be. Go out and use the camera.

Or use another one.

As for the different exposures, maybe the difference is "designed in" by Sigma? For a reason???





--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox

richard stone said:

As for the different exposures, maybe the difference is "designed in" by Sigma? For a reason???

Click to expand...

Exposure 101: The ISO for a camera can be determined by Sigma by one of several different methods - each giving a different result. On top of that, the manufacturer has to pick the standard number e.g. 100 from a range of results e.g. 80-115, say. This is called "latitude". So, the difference between two models can be up to half a stop or more. Nothing wrong with either camera.

With digital cameras, they should have labeled the ISO knob "NOISE" ... :-D

DavidWright2010 said:

After lightening the M image and inspecting it, I see the usual - the Q is noisier than the M.

Click to expand...

Yes, and this even though the Merrill could probably handle about one stop more exposure (in the first scene) and is also slightly underexposed compared to the Quattro.
Cheers
B.

I extracted the top layers with Kalpanika of both camera (shade test raws sd1 sdQ / shade f2.8 SDIM3411.X3F & shade f2.8 SDQ_2993.X3F) and made an animated gif from a dark section, brightened, enlarged, aligned. 1 megabyte, click on the original to show the animation:

bizi clop said:

I extracted the top layers with Kalpanika of both camera (shade test raws sd1 sdQ / shade f2.8 SDIM3411.X3F & shade f2.8 SDQ_2993.X3F) and made an animated gif from a dark section, brightened, enlarged, aligned.

Click to expand...

Well done.

I had forgotten about those Merrill top layer "brighter" pixels, - and I see some darker ones too!

We don't see them in SPP because there is a "bad pixel" list in the X3F ...