After reading through a lot of the threads, I have a slightly alternative thought...
If you shoot DNG with the Quattro you could just use Photoshop. Most people here convert to TIFF in Sigma Photo Pro them move to Photoshop (or whatever) for editing.
It depends on where I am and what I am doing, a ton of what I do is not tripod based. Especially with the DP cameras.
From looking at your Landscapes section, I think you would really like a DP0Q.
--
Quite a bit, yes. SPP now allows you to adjust microcontrast (at expense of noise/artifacts, use with care) and the JPEGs have higher microcontrast except in Portrait color mode.
They have indeed improved the processing, but I believe they could improve it even more. I don't know if they will though, becuase they are most likely working on image processing for the new camera, which will not be a Quattro design. You will probably want to upgrade to the new, full-frame camera, when you see that image quality and it's ability to shoot reasonably good quality images at ISO 400, 800, and probably even 1600. The resolution will be about the same (in total pixels per picture height, not on a per mm basis). No doubt the new camera will probably offer a step up in dynamic range too. We all have to wait and see what happens.
Which "SPP files"? X3F, JPEG, or TIFF ... and "more detail" compared to what?
A little too vague for me to answer meaningfully, sorry.
Just so you're aware, there is virtually no difference I could tell betwen the images and giant prints I made from the DP1 Merrill and the DP1 Quattro (of the same scene, shot at the same time), so I doubt there was much difference in the newer lens design. Apparently they did some tiny tweaks with all the lenses when changing from Merrill to Quattro, but you're unlikely to see any significant difference. It's the DP0 that really stands out, because that lens never existed before that camera, and it is a stellar quality lens for its size and price . . . and you get a camera with it, of course.
They're virtuatlly identical, so it should be other considerations that make your decision, such as size, battery life, speed of operation. The Merrills are a lot smaller in width, but the Quattros are faster and have much longer battery life. The Quattros offer SFD mode, for making slightly improved images with much less noise, though they require a tripod or some other method of holding the camera perfectly still to do it (it's a little like pixel-shift mode, though does not improve the resolution significantly, like pixel-shift mode does). The Quattros can record in DNG too, so if you want that capability you won't want a Merrill camera. There are many other advantages to the Quattros, but the DP Merrills can shoot video, though it is pretty bad quality video. No other cameras that Sigma has ever made with a Foveon sensor can shoot video. Believe me though, that video quality is so bad that you probably won't end up using it.
I think he's asking about the details in photos from SPP vs OOC Ted. Ultimately the answer depends on your settings, of course. If you're using a lot of noise reduction in camera, then using SPP with a little less noise reduction, because you have found a happy medium of noise reduction and sharpening, which works well for you in SPP, then there can be significantly more detail in your images out of SPP than OOC. On the other hand, if you're like me, and you turn down the sharpness all the way anyway, so you can sharpen your images in some other program, like I so with GIMP, then you probably won't notice much difference in your images, if you stick with ISO 100 most of the time.
When he says "blended exposure" I'm thinking he might bean SFD mode photos. Smoother transitions might be related to SPP processing to jpegs vs OOC jpegs. Here again I think it depends on your in-camera settings. If you turn up the sharpness, I think the SPP photos will probaly look better, but I don't have a lot of experience with that, since I'm used to turning down the sharpness all the way most of the time, and then sharpening in a program that I think works better (i.e. allows me to sharpen just the parts of the photo that I want to be sharper - I don't want a blurry, out-of-focus area to be sharpened, because that just intorduces noise with no actual improvement in detil in that part of the photo).
Yes, the corners are a bit soft, and with its 28mm equivalent view, it's not that much different from the DP0, with its 21mm equivalent view. I would just get the DP0 Quattro and be done with it, for wide-angle stuff. Eventually, if you find you love that camera, you could end up with an ILC, with the new 14-24mm zoom lens and a 24-70mm lens, replacing the DP0 Quattro AND your Sony, and giving you the ability to shoot pretty much anything you might want. Then again, that would be quite a heavy kit, and you'd need to change lenses from time to time, so maybe you wouldn't do that (especially if you use the video capability of your Sony sometimes).Thanks again for the replies. I have looked over a lot of old threads on here and other sites. Seems to be the choice slightly more detail (seems very slight) and a more classic render in a more (if you can call it this) traditional body Vs battery life, more modern system, neutral colours and a quirky design.
Battery life to me is important, while 70 shots wouldn’t bother me too much it’s a little annoying to have to add several batteries to the kit. Takes away from the compactness a little.
One thing that puts me off the DP0 and DP3 is the size, but they seem optically the best two.
Bit of a tough choice. Considering I have the rx1 it’s probably wide I go for either the 0 or 3, being that the 1 has the worst lens.
Is the DP1 (either Merrill or Quattro) worth considering or shall I just discount? From the images I have seen the corners are a bit soft but nothing that your ILC users would notice
With that shot it almost seems like certain levels of local exposure such as the far wavelets produce green or magenta or no color-toning dependent upon the level. I wonder what a gray card with graduated lighting would look like? Would it be "blotchy" or would gradated shades of green and magenta appear?<>
It is my opinion that if you want to shoot at higher ISO settings you will prefer the Merrill cameras. Quattro cameras just can't do ISO 400 or above very well at all, though I have seen some amazing improvements made by some people through processing. Here is an OOC jpeg I shot this morning at ISO 400, as an example:
Blotchy colors of the Quattro at ISO 400
I normally shoot at ISO 100, and I really try to avoid ISO 200, because of this color blotching issue of the Quattros.
Do you mean this one?Saw one review on YouTube with 35 shots on the Merrill in cold weatherWow. Back to film 🎞
