Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Started Jul 23, 2014 | Discussions
mypic Regular Member • Posts: 140
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Think the same thing.

 mypic's gear list:mypic's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony Alpha 7R II Sony FE 35mm F2.8
xpatUSA
xpatUSA Forum Pro • Posts: 10,528
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

PRISCILLA TURNER wrote:

Too much loose talk? And writing?

My mnemonic is "If you regularly loose your dog in the wilderness, you are likely to lose him."

The affect of your post has effected my mind 

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma DP2s Sigma DP2 Merrill Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Sigma SD10 Sigma SD14 +10 more
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,228
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?
1

PrebenR wrote:

The Bayer look people talk about I don't get. That means all other Sigma cameras apart from Merrill also have the Bayer look.

Actually, I do not get that either. I know how my Bayer look up front, and it aint like Quattro.

My assumption is that it looks smoother than Merrill. And so do Bayer.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,228
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?
1

DMillier wrote:

My SD14, SD9 and DP1 original are fully supported in Lightroom, it's just the newer cameras that are not. Someone is clearly responsible for that.

Probably Adobe decided that it was not worth it. Companies do that - take (faulty or not) decisions to not support certain things.

Or ... you could adhere to a conspiracy theory - maybe the Bayer Mafia pays Adobe handsomely to not support newer Sigma cameras.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Lord metroid
Lord metroid Regular Member • Posts: 475
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Roland Karlsson wrote:

DMillier wrote:

My SD14, SD9 and DP1 original are fully supported in Lightroom, it's just the newer cameras that are not. Someone is clearly responsible for that.

Probably Adobe decided that it was not worth it. Companies do that - take (faulty or not) decisions to not support certain things.

Or ... you could adhere to a conspiracy theory - maybe the Bayer Mafia pays Adobe handsomely to not support newer Sigma cameras.

I thought the free and open software called Dark table was implementing Foveon support based upon your library Roland. However, I never got Dark table to load the raw files I made using my SIGMA DP2s.

 Lord metroid's gear list:Lord metroid's gear list
Sigma DP2s Sigma dp2 Quattro
superevolvedfish Forum Member • Posts: 51
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

that gold car photo has a 3D look of epic proportions!   but then it was shot in low-res 1:1:1 mode.

It looks more 3d than anything a Merrill could produce.

But standard Q high-res mode 1:1:4 is not so 3d as a M, so Q has more and less 3D than M depending on which mode.

Hopefully the Q low-res mode is a taste of things to come in the future, we just need that quality in a 15MegaPixel file to please everyone 

 superevolvedfish's gear list:superevolvedfish's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE EX 1500 Zoom Minolta DiMAGE EX 1500 Wide Canon PowerShot G1 X Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill +1 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

papillon_65 wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

papillon_65 wrote:

I think it depends on what you shoot, I shoot mostly landscapes and some of the results I've seen from the Q look quite horrible for that type of work (garish colours and smudged detail in the distance). However, I've seen some very nice portrait stuff from it. It may well depend on who's shooting and processing with it, but for landscape shots there is no doubt that to my eyes so far the Merrill is superior in what it can produce.

Yes, it all depends. And, as usual, everything gets exaggerated when doing side by side comparisons. Then you can see the difference in very small details. Things you normally may not care about.

It is true that the Merrill (out of the box) gives more texture and more visible detail in e.g. far away parts of a landscape. This gives it an extra punch. It looks sharp and exciting.

But, it is also true that (at least for me) when doing the side by side comparisons the Merrill looks manipulated. It looks like some special effect has been added in the post processing. Very impressive, but not real IMHO.

Often when post processing images I add some sharpening and some S-curve (i.e. contrast) and some color saturation etc. Things that add that extra. The image will then look better, but slightly overdone it will look unreal. I think the Merrill often do that - add slightly more than it should.

I think the thing for me is that you can tone down what the Merrill does in post, but you can never really replicate it coming the other way. I've seen plenty try but never quite manage it, that's why the three Merrills are unique cameras IMHO and why I'll shoot with them until Sigma reproduce what they can do in faster, newer, bodies, which may be never. I get what the Quattro can do, and I can see the appeal for some, it's just not the same for me.

-- hide signature --

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.”
Mikhail Gorbachev
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

I can see Sigma making a 58.8 (19.6 x 3) MP DP2x Merrill (followed by DP1x Merrill and DP3x Merrill) in the future . . . in the same form factor (body) as the Quattro. The pixel density of the top layer in the Quattro sensor works just fine, so I think there would be very little difference in a new Merrill with the same pixel density. The processor speed is fast enough to process the extra data, and they might be able to increase it a little, so the Merrill version of the camera works just as well/quickly as the Quattro. If this indeed happens, I think it will make a lot of Merrill die-hards happy, because they will get the best of both worlds . . . a new, longer-lasting, faster-shooting Merrill camera, with a slight improvement in image quality, and "true" Foveon performance. Sigma might be able to command a $100 premium for such a camera too. This would let them replace the SD1 Merrill with an SD1 Quattro and an SD1x Merrill. Then they could concentrate on making a couple of full-frame sensors too . . . a 58.5 MP full-frame Quattro, with a 39 MP top layer, and a 117 MP (39 x 3) full-frame Merrill ($500 premium). Wouldn't it be great if Sigma would make a full-frame Quattro that costs $2,995? The Merrill version could sell for $3,495. At the same time they could drop the price of the cameras that have the smaller sensors to $1,995 and $1,795 . . . and if the original SD1 Merrill is still on the market at that time, they could still sell it for $1,295. What a range of cameras they would have!

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
joe173 Regular Member • Posts: 206
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?
1

DMillier wrote:

I think you're right - which is why I find my DP2M useful. I can use better cameras for most things and when I have the inclination to go texture hunting I can use the DP2m and put up with its frustrations.

What I couldn't do is use a Sigma camera all the time because.... well, there's no nice way of saying this... they are universally awful compared to....anything.

I don't believe that Sigma executives can enjoy hearing such criticisms (or of SPP) but they don't seem to have the inclination (or ability) to do anything about it which is a great pity. I really feel there could be a long term future for the sensor but not in Sigma bodies.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

If you read the interviews with company execs you'd understand the processors today limit the camera speed and usability.  Given that sigma is a small company, given that sigma is a lean company even for a small company, given that it cannot reuse mainstream knowledge, given that the chips are designed for bayer, given that battery life still needs to improve, it can do great work.

Scottelly
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?
2

DMillier wrote:

Agreed.

I see nothing to obviously worry about from the quattro images I've seen so far. They look like they will stand comparion with any bayer shots. The Merrill is just freaky, it does things to textures that probably aren't correct but look good. I like that.

I guess the biggest argument against the Quattro has to be that if it produces results like high resolution bayer cameras, what is the point, given the know drawbacks of the sensor and the cameras it comes in.

What is the point? How about price?!?

A DP2 Quattro is more than $1,200 less than any competitor in the ultra-high resolution niche. THAT is the point. For your money ($999) you get a slow, basic camera that has an excellent f2.8 lens on it, but the camera is incredibly capable when it comes to capturing amazingly fine detail. This makes it a dream camera for many photographers (especially students and fine-art print photographers). There are many people out there who just like the "normal" focal length lens, and they use that exclusively, whether those photographers are documentary photographers, street photographers, landscape photographers, or whatever. Some like a wide-angle lens. I came across a photographer's Web site years ago. He was shooting exclusively with a Canon 5 D and the Canon 24mm f1.4 L. That was his only lens, and he was a very good portrait photographer. Such a photographer might love the DP1 Quattro.

Anyway, some people would not call the simplicity of the DP series a drawback. Would they say there are drawbacks of the Foveon sensors? Some would, but some, who normally only shoot at ISO 100, even at night, would probably not. There will always be those quick shooters or people who just HAVE to have video capability, who will say there are drawbacks. So be it.

The Merrills at least have something different to attract buyers.

The Quattro has something different t attract buyers. If you don't know what that is . . . you need to take another look at the camera:

It's a bit of a marketing problem that could be solved by Sigma putting the sensor in fully competitive bodies that stand with the best.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
richard stone Senior Member • Posts: 2,166
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

I don't think Sigma can do all that, but surely there would be a "market" for two different DSLRs and sensors based on the q, one full frame and one APS-c? The full frame DSLR at low res would be fast and easy to use, with delicious color, and with the capacity of astounding detail when desired. The low res setting on the SD10 produces superb color with only some minor loss of detail. And obviously much smaller files.

I really think the q is a winner, once people come to grips with the idea that the M is somewhat limited, and one reason it is limited is the "file bloat" from so many pixels contributing, in the end, so little to the image. It's not that they don't contribute at all, but is the cost worth the benefit? Effectively using both big and small pixels on one sensor is a breakthrough, in terms of imaging in general. But at 10MPx3, as it would be on a FF q at low res, that would be a superb image, with a file half the size of the M. And probably quite capable of ISO 1600 and above: a much more versatile camera.

I can see the attraction of the M, and it works great for certain images, but surely Sigma must be tired of hearing how people have to buy an additional camera for more general use and for high ISO images. In addition, the idea that the M IS the Foveon look, and that such a look has to be "pure" to be valid and "true," tends toward religious and magical thinking, which I find disturbing, for several reasons.

Richard

-- hide signature --
 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma sd Quattro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
OP Erational Regular Member • Posts: 184
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?
1

superevolvedfish wrote:

But standard Q high-res mode 1:1:4 is not so 3d as a M, so Q has more and less 3D than M depending on which mode.

Yours is one of the FIRST post to actually touch on the subject of my initial post. Thank-you superevolvedfish.

Was desiring that posters try and roughly quantify the subtle 3-D effect retained in the Q model. One early poster even postulated that the cameras have no 3-D-live effect whatsoever-as if so many of us are under some mass illusion.

Was hoping to skip the other facets of the Q vs. M debate in this tread and just focus on the relative attributes of 3-d-ness each model does/does not embody. NO SUCH LUCK. That's the thing with starting a post- you never know what direction your post will diverge. Silly me thinking people were tired of seeing the same debates hashed-out, when obviously people are just getting started about the Q/M Schism.  I'm not psychic, but I foresee future unpleasant comments between posters over the Q vs. M debate.

Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 26,228
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Lord metroid wrote:

I thought the free and open software called Dark table was implementing Foveon support based upon your library Roland. However, I never got Dark table to load the raw files I made using my SIGMA DP2s.

As far as I understand, they have zero support for Foveon sensors.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

DMillier wrote:

I think you're right - which is why I find my DP2M useful. I can use better cameras for most things and when I have the inclination to go texture hunting I can use the DP2m and put up with its frustrations.

What I couldn't do is use a Sigma camera all the time because.... well, there's no nice way of saying this... they are universally awful compared to....anything.

I don't believe that Sigma executives can enjoy hearing such criticisms (or of SPP) but they don't seem to have the inclination (or ability) to do anything about it which is a great pity. I really feel there could be a long term future for the sensor but not in Sigma bodies.

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

I can't figure out why you would say, ". . . they are universally awful compared to....anything." I definitely do not have the same feeling as you. I have shot with a Sigma SD14 for some time, including model photo shoots, landscapes, product shoots, macro work, and more . . . and it worked fine. I did not have to wait so long for photos to write to the cars that I was forced to buy a faster memory card (though that would have meant that I would have rarely needed to wait for photos to write to my memory card). If I had a 16 GB 800x CF card and an image stabilized lens on an SD15, I would have been happy as Larry . . . except that sometimes I would want for the SD1, because I would prefer the detail and the ability to shoot at ISO 400 late in the afternoon, deep in the woods. Why an SD15? Because the review screen on that camera is far superior to the screen on the SD14 . . . and there is a HUGE buffer for repeatedly shooting raw photos one after the other, continuously. The image quality from the SD14 was quite acceptable, equivalent to my previous main camera, the Canon 5 D, which is quite acceptable, even today. An SD15 would be a superior camera to the Canon 5 D.

I'm not saying the Sigma cameras respond quite as fast as a Nikon D800 or a Sony A7r, but for their price and image quality, the Sigma cameras are a good value and quite usable for a wide variety of shooting, including portraits, landscapes, many types of macro shooting (such as shooting flowers in bright sunlight or shooting flowers or insects with a strobe), and almost every type of studio shooting involving strobes or hot lights. Are they sport cameras? No. But I don't see ANY sports shots in your gallery. In fact, almost all the shots I saw in your gallery were shot at ISO 200 or below. (There was one that was over that - 1600 ISO - this one: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/286305481/photos/877556/img_7777 ) What gives David?

As far as Sigma executives . . . I think they're used to hearing criticism, and they have probably become almost deaf to it, considering the fact that most of the criticisms are based on misunderstanding. For example, your own statement about Sigma camera bodies appears to be a TOTAL misunderstanding. Many professionals have commented about how good the SD1 body is . . . how comfortable it is, how well built it is. It is a weather sealed body, like a Nikon or Canon professional body. Who could ask for more? (I'm not talking about when it was priced at $6,700 - the criticisms at that time of the body not being as good as the Canon EOS 1D or Nikon D3 bodies, though the price asked was at their level, were certainly valid.) The new DP Quattro series is a very well-made, solid body. It's not weather sealed, but neither are the bodies its closest competitors. Even the $2,700 Sony A7r is not weather-sealed. Yes, the Nikon D800 series is weather sealed . . . but would anyone really consider that a competitor to a small, inexpensive camera like the DP series?

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

richard stone wrote:

I don't think Sigma can do all that, but surely there would be a "market" for two different DSLRs and sensors based on the q, one full frame and one APS-c? The full frame DSLR at low res would be fast and easy to use, with delicious color, and with the capacity of astounding detail when desired. The low res setting on the SD10 produces superb color with only some minor loss of detail. And obviously much smaller files.

I really think the q is a winner, once people come to grips with the idea that the M is somewhat limited, and one reason it is limited is the "file bloat" from so many pixels contributing, in the end, so little to the image. It's not that they don't contribute at all, but is the cost worth the benefit? Effectively using both big and small pixels on one sensor is a breakthrough, in terms of imaging in general. But at 10MPx3, as it would be on a FF q at low res, that would be a superb image, with a file half the size of the M. And probably quite capable of ISO 1600 and above: a much more versatile camera.

I can see the attraction of the M, and it works great for certain images, but surely Sigma must be tired of hearing how people have to buy an additional camera for more general use and for high ISO images. In addition, the idea that the M IS the Foveon look, and that such a look has to be "pure" to be valid and "true," tends toward religious and magical thinking, which I find disturbing, for several reasons.

Richard

-- hide signature --

But the marketing of two camera lines, even though they really would only incorporate one new camera body (the SD1 Quattro and SD1x Merrill could use the SD1 body), would be a marketing triumph. It would be like Sigma would have four new cameras instead of two. It would not take a lot to make a second new model . . . in the same body . . . with a new, higher-res Merrill sensor. It would be a different sensor and a badge, and the design of the sensor would not have to change much from the old Merrill sensor . . . just bump up the density of the pixels a little. There would likely be very little extra work involved. Maybe a doubling of the buffer memory and a slight change in the processor (a tweak, like maybe 50% more cache in the processor core or an increase in the speed, like 3 GHz vs. 2 GHz . . . but that's something the processor maker would need to do, at Sigma's request of course).

The religious attitude some people have toward the original Foveon design is exactly why it makes sense for Sigma to make cameras with two lines of sensors (Quattro and Merrill). It gives them the ability to have a bunch of different cameras, without having to design a completely different camera for each model. THAT is a marketing triumph . . . much better than what Pentax did with all their different color schemes . . . though that was a smart marketing move too, in my opinion. Nikon even followed suit with their red and bronze models of the Nikon D3200 and D5200 bodies.

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
jennyrae Senior Member • Posts: 2,690
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

personally the Bayer-ish look I am referring about Quattro is more on positive side or benefits of Bayer like tonality and dynamic range. did not say it is Bayer per-se but Bayer-ish that does not mean Bayer. hard to describe but I mention, looks Bayer but not Bayer.

to explain further, if we refer to classic Foveon, I believe Quattro has more headroom with dynamic range and noise handling which is advantage of Bayer. because classic Foveon have issues with handling noise and on the mid end of dynamic range. still the Quattro still retain it's positive foveon features like color, resolution and detail difference over Bayer.

also, one of possible reasons why people say Quattro appear more Bayer is possibly of previous pictures shown with NR or unprocessed pictures which do look or resemble of Bayer flatness.

I think Quattro results will improve as support for handling Quattro files in SPP also improve.

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 19,866
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

I had a Canon 5D for several years.  It was far, far, far better than the SD14 in every way operationally and the image quality was noticeably better.

Looking through my files, what is striking is that I have not done anything with the SD14 that is really worth keeping. Too much trouble locking up all the time, too long to review files, too noisy, strange green casts on most images, just too much trouble. I have more keepers in one day with the DP2 Merrill than with the SD14 in years...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 19,866
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

The trouble with Sigma cameras is that they just don't stack up as cameras for every day use. The DP range can produce excellent results but they are tripod cameras like a medium format. Like a medium format you can use them handheld but it's difficult and no fun. Imagine if the Merrill or the Quattro were like a Fuji X100 type camera and you have an idea of the direction I would like them to go in...

ps

I hear you with your comment about the detail for the money but resolution doesn't really impress me any more. Once digital cameras got to 12MPm, they had all he resolution I need, so ever increasing res is nice but not that exciting. Excellent performing 24MP sensors have been around for a while at low prices but I've not been tempted to upgrade my 16MP cams. When I get new stuff these days it's for the form factor not res...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

Scottelly
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

DMillier wrote:

I had a Canon 5D for several years. It was far, far, far better than the SD14 in every way operationally and the image quality was noticeably better.

Looking through my files, what is striking is that I have not done anything with the SD14 that is really worth keeping. Too much trouble locking up all the time, too long to review files, too noisy, strange green casts on most images, just too much trouble. I have more keepers in one day with the DP2 Merrill than with the SD14 in years...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

It's funny that you make these statements too, because it's definitely not just me. One of the main reasons I got my SD14 was a friend of mine was using the 5 D, and he told me the SD14, which he also had, produced better image quality. He eventually got a second SD14 and sold the 5 D. My experience with the SD14 has not led me to believe it is inferior to the 5 D except for the amount of raw files it holds in the buffer, the operational speed, and the high-ISO capabilities. All of those would lead most photographers to believe the 5 D is a superior camera, and for most situations it definitely is, but I still prefer the SD14, because the detail the SD14 captures is equivalent at ISO 100, where I shoot the vast majority of my photos, and the dynamic range of the Sigma is superior to all Canon cameras. I don't shoot at high-ISO normally, but when I do there was my Sony A55, until I sold that. I plan to get a Sony A65 for a variety of reasons, so I'll use that for high-ISO situations. (The A65 is not as good as the Canon full-frame cameras in dark situations, but I can down-scale photos to 6 MP and get pretty good results with the Sony at ISO 1600 and even higher. This will eliminate the need for noise reduction, and I suspect I'll get very good quality 6 MP images from the A65 at high ISO settings.)

I do not have trouble with my SD14 locking up, so either you never learned to slow down your shooting pace, or there was a problem with your SD14. The SD15 is the cure for that situation anyway.

As far as taking too long to review files, I think it's o.k. on my SD14, and with a faster memory card and an SD15 I can't imagine it would be too slow for most people, even people who have been spoiled by brand new, fast DSLR cameras. Was there a noticeable difference between my Sony A55 and my Sigma? Sure. But it is not a big deal. I just had to wait a few seconds. That's NOTHING compared to shooting with a large format camera, which I have done on occasion too. Maybe it's a perspective thing.

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
Scottelly
Scottelly Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

DMillier wrote:

The trouble with this line of argument is intellectual honesty.

For years we have heard people on this forum championing the Merrill "better than the D800e" entirely on the basis of its fierce micro-contrast compared to Bayer based cameras.

Now we have a new Foveon that doesn't seem to have that intense micro-contrast and the fans are championing it because it is more natural and realistic.

You see the problem, it all starts to sound like "we'll champion anything if it has Sigma on the front" and the reasons why start to sound like apologetics...

-- hide signature --

"...while I am tempted to bludgeon you, I would rather have you come away with an improved understanding of how these sensors work" ---- Eric Fossum
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/

I see where you're coming from, but when the images from the Quattro look better than the images from the Merrill, and they hold slightly more detail, but slightly less micro-contrast, why is it wrong for people to champion it? Some people think it's better and some don't. It seems to capture at least as much detail as the D800E. The SD1 captures as much detail as the D800, but more micro-contrast than the D800E. It makes sense for people to champion the Quattro, when you consider that the Quattro captures at least as much micro-contrast and detail as the D800E and the SD1 captures more micro-contrast than either of the two cameras, but slightly less detail . . . maybe. It could be that the Quattro captures more micro-contrast than the D800E too, so it actually produces superior image quality, because while it matches the detail captured, it captures more micro-contrast, even though it captures less micro-contrast than the SD1. This makes me think even more that Sigma has really made a great decision to not step up very far in resolution with the Quattro sensor. It indicates they may intend to split their line into two camps . . . the Merrill and the Quattro. I hope so, because I think that would be a great idea. It would likely generate a lot of media attention, with comparisons and such . . . just as we see happening now between the DP Merrill and DP Quattro cameras. Even if only 30% of customers prefer the Merrill, it will pay to have two lines. I would guess that a new, slightly higher-resolution Merrill sensor would be another good introduction, especially with a new True-IV processor . . . after the introduction of the SD1 Quattro, with dual True-III processors. Then Sigma can make the full-frame Quattro, with dual True-IV processors!

 Scottelly's gear list:Scottelly's gear list
Olympus TG-860 Sony SLT-A65 Sigma SD1 Merrill Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +14 more
PRISCILLA TURNER
PRISCILLA TURNER Senior Member • Posts: 1,319
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

xpatUSA wrote:

PRISCILLA TURNER wrote:

Too much loose talk? And writing?

My mnemonic is "If you regularly loose your dog in the wilderness, you are likely to lose him."

The affect of your post has effected my mind

-- hide signature --

A  man after my own hart.

-- hide signature --

'To see, not with, but through the eye.' [William Blake]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22905474@N06/

 PRISCILLA TURNER's gear list:PRISCILLA TURNER's gear list
Sigma DP1 Pentax K-3 II Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads