Not scientific, very casual Quattro vs. Merrill test

Sam- Thanks for these!

I've reprocessed a couple of the images (my but SPP is slow) with the following settings:

• Color mode Standard
• Everything set to 0
• Highlight Control set to 0 (neutralize)
• Noise Reduction set to 0 (less)

Except for the Quattro I set Sharpness to 1, and for the Merrill I set Sharpness to 0.

A few people have said that the Quattro has all the detail of the Merrill and could be sharpened to show that detail, so I've decided to put that to the test.

There's no point in saying we can increase sharpness in photoshop, as we can do that with any photo from any camera, not just Foveons.

Saved as 8 bit TIFFs and opened in Lightroom to do a side-by-side comparison.

At the start of this, I'm on the fence about Quattro. Smoother than Merrill sounds good for portraits and I love the 50mm field of view, but why not go for the Sony a7 with a sharp 50 instead - I'll get more versatility, video, low light capability, etc. etc.

Merrill is on the left, Quattro is on the right.

It really looks like the microcontrast from the Merrill is simply not there with the Quattro.

Except when it is. The Quattro traffic light has more detail, but the sign behind it has more detail in the Merrill.

Quattro has more noise in the sky and the Merrill has more detail in the buildings - they have individual bricks whereas the Quattro has just flat walls.

Neither treats the red Amalgamated Bank sign well (I wish you got the parking sign in both the Merrill and Quattro) but the Quattro desaturates the red in the shadow less than the Merrill.

But again, you lose the texture in the gray areas above the sign, the Quttro washes detail that the Merrill picks up.

Straight lines pop more - look at the one way sign and the metal bands holding the sign & the stop light up. They pop more in the Quattro.

But look at the reflection of the building - the Merrill has bricks where the Quattro doesn't.

It seems to me that the Quattro is its own camera, distinct from the Merrill. Crisp lines, but without the grit. There is no way simply sharpening a Quattro image will give you the detail of the Merrill - look at the bricks, there is no detail there to sharpen.

What I want to see is how the Quattro handles people in two specific areas.

1. Given how important red is for skin tone & how it's the blue/green channels that have all the nasty bits we try to eliminate, will the reduced red and green channel acutance make people look that much better, or will the overall Quattro smoothing that we see even in gray pavement make people's skin look shinier/smoother.
2. Given the lack of detail I'm seeing in bricks, how will the Quattro handle hair? Will we be able to see each individual strand as we do with the Merrill or will they blend together, especially if someone has red hair (especially artificially colored red hair which will have a narrower frequency response than natural red hair).

But realistically, without infinite funds, I think the Sony A7 with a fast sharp 50 makes more sense to me than a Quattro, because the Quattro won't do high ISO, video or shallow depth of field, and I'd rather have those as options than the smooth crisp look of the Quattro. (and maybe pick up a cheap Merrill for when I want that super detailed look, but since I already have one - why do I need another?).

My guess is also that it is Quattro and the CFA cameras that have it right and the higher micro contrast in Merrill is a special effect.

It`s called "Foveon-ness" and the original DPs as well as the SD9-14 have even more of it . Not counting the SD9 (which is probably too weird for the newbie Sigma fans here) the DP1 & 2 originals are the kings of this . Sigma cameras output looks more and more like bayer on each generation . looks like the colours are getting more "normal" with each generation too.

Mark, try a combination of ACR Clarity (100%-200%) coupled with large radius sharpening. You can never get the Q to ever truly equal the M, but this combo helps.

MarkWW wrote:

Sam- Thanks for these!

I've reprocessed a couple of the images (my but SPP is slow) with the following settings:

• Color mode Standard
• Everything set to 0
• Highlight Control set to 0 (neutralize)
• Noise Reduction set to 0 (less)

Except for the Quattro I set Sharpness to 1, and for the Merrill I set Sharpness to 0.

A few people have said that the Quattro has all the detail of the Merrill and could be sharpened to show that detail, so I've decided to put that to the test.

There's no point in saying we can increase sharpness in photoshop, as we can do that with any photo from any camera, not just Foveons.

Saved as 8 bit TIFFs and opened in Lightroom to do a side-by-side comparison.

At the start of this, I'm on the fence about Quattro. Smoother than Merrill sounds good for portraits and I love the 50mm field of view, but why not go for the Sony a7 with a sharp 50 instead - I'll get more versatility, video, low light capability, etc. etc.

Merrill is on the left, Quattro is on the right.

It really looks like the microcontrast from the Merrill is simply not there with the Quattro.

Except when it is. The Quattro traffic light has more detail, but the sign behind it has more detail in the Merrill.

Quattro has more noise in the sky and the Merrill has more detail in the buildings - they have individual bricks whereas the Quattro has just flat walls.

Neither treats the red Amalgamated Bank sign well (I wish you got the parking sign in both the Merrill and Quattro) but the Quattro desaturates the red in the shadow less than the Merrill.

But again, you lose the texture in the gray areas above the sign, the Quttro washes detail that the Merrill picks up.

Straight lines pop more - look at the one way sign and the metal bands holding the sign & the stop light up. They pop more in the Quattro.

But look at the reflection of the building - the Merrill has bricks where the Quattro doesn't.

It seems to me that the Quattro is its own camera, distinct from the Merrill. Crisp lines, but without the grit. There is no way simply sharpening a Quattro image will give you the detail of the Merrill - look at the bricks, there is no detail there to sharpen.

What I want to see is how the Quattro handles people in two specific areas.

1. Given how important red is for skin tone & how it's the blue/green channels that have all the nasty bits we try to eliminate, will the reduced red and green channel acutance make people look that much better, or will the overall Quattro smoothing that we see even in gray pavement make people's skin look shinier/smoother.
2. Given the lack of detail I'm seeing in bricks, how will the Quattro handle hair? Will we be able to see each individual strand as we do with the Merrill or will they blend together, especially if someone has red hair (especially artificially colored red hair which will have a narrower frequency response than natural red hair).

But realistically, without infinite funds, I think the Sony A7 with a fast sharp 50 makes more sense to me than a Quattro, because the Quattro won't do high ISO, video or shallow depth of field, and I'd rather have those as options than the smooth crisp look of the Quattro. (and maybe pick up a cheap Merrill for when I want that super detailed look, but since I already have one - why do I need another?).

I can't agree with that Adam. I have a SD9 and a SD14 and their rendering is more like the Quattro than the Merrill. They look "smooth toned" even though they are very sharp. The Merrill looks hard, rough, gritty in comparison. This makes is very suited to rendering interest in what would otherwise be flat surfaces. It picks out surface texture.

Gotcha, I thought the issue was high microcontrast, the fine detail reproduction from the old 4.6Mp sensor was fantastic as it was from the 3.3Mp one , you need decent microcontrast to get this . I`ve never had a Merrill, in fact found the images too NR`d compared to the old DPs if anything though the resolution increase was very noticeable

Nothing will change that fact that the DP2M is not much fun to use though.

DPs aren`t . even an SD9 is lightning compared to any of them even for wile writes

mike earussi wrote:

Mark, try a combination of ACR Clarity (100%-200%) coupled with large radius sharpening. You can never get the Q to ever truly equal the M, but this combo helps.

Like I said, any sharpening done after SPP can be done to any camera so there's no point to it for the purposes of a comparison.

Hng wrote:

Easy to see, clouds with M is 3D object, with Q no more.

You are making life a little too easy.

Our brains are marvellous image processors. So - what we see is not what is there. When taking an image you get a simplification of reality. It is just a flat object on a screen or in a print.

In order to get the feeling of reality back, artists make lots of manipulation of the image.

So, the 3D feeling you get when looking at Merrill images might be a deliberate manipulation - an enhancement not existing in real life.

DMillier wrote:

Where the DP2m really shines is in the way it renders rough surfaces. For a shot of like a Mediterranean style old villa with cracked walls, peeling paint and lots of surface texture, the rendering is amazing, it really snaps into focus without excess sharpening.

I haven't found any evidence that the older Foveons can do this, nor Bayer cameras and I'm seeing the effect on small prints so it's not simple resolution, more extremely high contrast on small details that makes the detail easier to see.

It's a special effect for sure but it provides a large format film feel to surface texture. It's essentially what I look to shoot with my DP2Q.And even though the camera itself is woefully lacking and not much fun to use it makes it worth using for me. I wouldn't say that about Foveons with a smooth, gentle rendering.

But then again, everyone has different favourite subjects and no camera is ideally suited for everything...

My main point is that this pop/wow might be an illusion - an artificial enhancement. Lots of that stuff looks very nice.

NOTE - I am not saying it is - just that it might be.

MarkWW wrote:

Like I said, any sharpening done after SPP can be done to any camera so there's no point to it for the purposes of a comparison.

Actually there is.

The claim is that Merrill has something other cameras lack. If this "something" can be added in post processing, then it is not as bad as if it cant.

+1

DMillier wrote:

I agree that the Merrill contrast is a special effect, but it's one I like. Looking at the quattro images, they don't have it, even if they are plenty detailed.

What this means to me is that there is a reason to buy a Merrill because it can do something no other can. With the Quattro it is an alternative to standard cameras that doesn't have any special tricks. So the question you then have to ask yourselves it why should I get one of these rather than a high rez bayer that can produce similar image quality in a much better camera.

It's a conundrum for sure.

May be price for one?