Re: Not scientific, very casual Quattro vs. Merrill test
1
Tom Schum wrote:
Sam Goetz wrote:
Merrill 06 - Wide
Quattro 06 - Wide
Merrill 06 - Detail
Quattro 06 - Detail
Based on the test images I've already seen I was deeply concerned that Sigma threw the baby out with the bath water with the Quattro - that the new sensor (although very nice in a vacuum) did not have the qualities that I fell in love with in the Merrill.
Unfortunately, I'd have to say that this test 100% confirmed those fears for me. I'm going to shoot some more tests this weekend (specifically I'd love to see how it does with portraits), but I've seen enough to know that the Quattro makes some deadly compromises in terms of color and detail that simply ruin the whole camera for me.
It just looks like the acutance has been toned down in the Quattro. It looks to me like all the detail is still there.
To me, the Quattro images have a softer feel to them without compromising detail, and this ought to appeal to CFA sensor users more than the radical Merrill hyper-reality that we all love (I have a DP3M).
I'm guessing a little sharpness tweaking will give the Quattro a more Merrill-like feel. Maybe "sharpness tweaking" is not the right term here. Something to increase the acutance but not give the characteristic haloes that come with increases to sharpness... Not sure how to do this, but it keeps looking like this to me.
From what I saw with the Merrill sensor in the DPM series, the camera was great for non-people street images, for some types of still life images, and for landscapes, but not so good for general image making. For such general use, it's not impossible to use the M, it's just a challenge, sometimes. The DPM series has an odd level of micro-contrast and detail, more than the D800, considering that the D800 has a sensor twice the size. Meanwhile, the camera was somewhat slow in use, caused in part by what even Sigma referred to as "file bloat." And Sigma had to know that the images themselves presented a somewhat odd, and un-human, view of the world. It was much more than people could see, and that was distracting in some images.
The images from the quattro have an equivalent, if not greater, level of detail, presented with more subtlety, and it may be more accurate, in terms of how people see things.
For me, in the posted images, which I consider a reasonable guide to how a normal person might use the camera in a city, the detail is more than sufficient, and the color is excellent. And someone so inclined could probably get to about 80% of the micro-contrast of the Merrill sensor.
What strikes me is that the q is a much more versatile camera, one which someone could actually use at a wedding or other "event" and get superb images without a struggle. Or which could be used as a travel camera. And most importantly, it will provide excellent images of people. In addition, the images look to me like images that I would expect from an updated SD10 or SD15 but with a huge amount of additional detail. It does not have a blurring filter, and it does not interpolate data, and it does not have to be massively sharpened to get a decent image. Those are the benefits of a Foveon sensor.
On a related issue, the q seems much better in terms of "DR," in the sense of avoiding or minimizing low light "noise," which presents itself as odd colors in the image. The result is at least one stop (and maybe two) better performance, which is big. That odd colored noise is a huge issue (or worse) to many people who would otherwise buy and use the M camera. Avoiding or minimizing the noise is a big step forward. But we have to figure that people using the camera will push the performance envelope until noise becomes an issue, and then complain about it.
I plan on buying one.
Richard