Review of Sigma DP2Q

Honest words.

But fun to use is not enough...

All the expectations about a NEW SENSOR from Sigma...
It s a fact that, if you want more than fun, to see the green and magenta blotching still there is not ammissible.

It s just not serious from Sigma.
I have been faithful to Sigma during these years but I am in the right to pretend an evolution, at least in those bugs that are "big as houses".

It s a fact that is hardy possible, if not inpossible, to do professional or nearly-professional low light and landscape pgotography with a bug like that.

So maybe the Q is good for fun photography or portraits, but unfortunatly that seems to be all the new sensor can give. It s a real pity.

Ceistinne wrote:

marcodadofoto wrote:

Honest words.

But fun to use is not enough...

All the expectations about a NEW SENSOR from Sigma...
It s a fact that, if you want more than fun, to see the green and magenta blotching still there is not ammissible.

It s just not serious from Sigma.
I have been faithful to Sigma during these years but I am in the right to pretend an evolution, at least in those bugs that are "big as houses".

It s a fact that is hardy possible, if not inpossible, to do professional or nearly-professional low light and landscape pgotography with a bug like that.

So maybe the Q is good for fun photography or portraits, but unfortunatly that seems to be all the new sensor can give. It s a real pity.

Marco

I think your opinion is gloomy in the extreme and also unwarranted. The Q is, in my opinion, a very good camera indeed and not in any way as prone to blotching as you indicate. I have taken many images with one and have seen no blotching. I think it's a piece of equipment that could be used to do many kinds of professional work and the quality would as good as any other. It works well, auto focus is good, colour is good, resolution is excellent, the white balance and colour modes are well up to par, the camera is easy to hold and balance, the shutter is beautifully quiet, the lens is first class as is the build quality and whatever minor flaws that might cause the odd problem in rare situations are being fixed with Firmware updates. What more could anyone ask for.

You say that you don't see the blotching but by now it's quite obvious with several people mentioning it, including the likes of Quentin.  I am not saying several aspects of what you said don't have merit or I disagree with, but this one is an obvious problem since Merrill.  I was surprised the Quattro has it too in a way that goes counter to the old DP2.

S

Thanks Ceistinne for the post, well I respect all the opinion and I have not used the camera yet, just have seen the samples and read the reviews, whith seem to indicate that Sigma has done nothing for the blotching problem. It s not a mania for me but I assure You that I have often to throw in the dustbin dusk/dawn photos just for those damns blotchins. So my disappointment becsuse I really trusted that the next evolution from Sigma could not avoid to fix the thing.

Ceistinne wrote:

The Q is, in my opinion, a very good camera indeed and not in any way as prone to blotching as you indicate. I have taken many images with one and have seen no blotching.

After studying many, many quattro images i can say, that the blotching/color noise is worse compared to the Merrills. It's often disturbing already at ISO 100.
Maybe Sigma still need to fine tune the camera and SPP, but for now i would not buy the camera for it's image quality.
Other things may be improved, but the main point to buy a Sigma camera is image quality, all other things are better anyway with probably any other serious compact camera.

But i'm sure, there will always be the people telling us that the blotching is a natural phenomenon of light reflecting in the birds feathers, in the bulls fur or that there was oil on the asphalt

There will be people explaining to you that what some see as blotching because they are looking for it is indeed not blotching but natural light. When I take the same image with multiple cameras and see the identical color whether a Sigma, a Canon, a Nikon, a Pentax, a Sony, an Olympus or a Fuji, I can pretty well be assured that this "color" is actually there. Then when I examine the scene with my own eyes and see the color I assume the lens sees what I see.

You mentioned the color in the bulls fur. I posted links to multiple images of Black Angus cattle made with multiple cameras which showed purple/blue color. Did you actually "look" at them??? Yes there are blotching issues with Sigma cameras. No, not all blue/purple/green coloration in fur, feathers or alphalt is blotching. Multiple images of the Grey Crowned Crane were also presented and many of them showed the magenta colors being blamed on a fault in the Sigma sensor.

Sometimes the blotching appearance is natural and sometimes it isn't, but if you look for it long and hard enough you may find it. If it's a big problem for you, don't use Sigma cameras - it's really quite simple. Purple fringing was very common with some model Sony cameras a few years ago. It was easily removed or ameliorated and it didn't stop photographers from making beautiful images with these cameras. It's incredibly easy to remove the blue/purple color from the fur of black animals regardless of whether it is natural or a sensor fault. If you can't live with that, then use a Canon or Nikon or other camera. Just warning though - I have over 40 digital cameras and I have to remove these assumed imperfections, if I choose to do so, from images made with every single one of them.

Best regards,

Lin

maceoQ wrote:

Ceistinne wrote:

The Q is, in my opinion, a very good camera indeed and not in any way as prone to blotching as you indicate. I have taken many images with one and have seen no blotching.

After studying many, many quattro images i can say, that the blotching/color noise is worse compared to the Merrills. It's often disturbing already at ISO 100.
Maybe Sigma still need to fine tune the camera and SPP, but for now i would not buy the camera for it's image quality.
Other things may be improved, but the main point to buy a Sigma camera is image quality, all other things are better anyway with probably any other serious compact camera.

But i'm sure, there will always be the people telling us that the blotching is a natural phenomenon of light reflecting in the birds feathers, in the bulls fur or that there was oil on the asphalt

Sounds like a very fair evaluation Roland. Thanks for the review.

Best regards,

Lin

Lin Evans wrote:

You mentioned the color in the bulls fur. I posted links to multiple images of Black Angus cattle made with multiple cameras which showed purple/blue color. Did you actually "look" at them???

The first image you showed to prove your point was an oil painting.

Sometimes the blotching appearance is natural and sometimes it isn't, but if you look for it long and hard enough you may find it. If it's a big problem for you, don't use Sigma cameras - it's really quite simple.

I use Sigma cameras because i like their general image quality and like others i spent many thousand dollars (actually francs) for Sigma cameras and lenses. The only thing i expect is an improvement of some of the weaknesses over the last generation. But the blotching is clearly getting worse

Purple fringing was very common with some model Sony cameras a few years ago. It was easily removed or ameliorated and it didn't stop photographers from making beautiful images with these cameras. It's incredibly easy to remove the blue/purple color from the fur of black animals regardless of whether it is natural or a sensor fault. Lin

Easy or not, i would get bored, removing all the blotches and strange color noise in an image like this:
a special photo

maceoQ wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

You mentioned the color in the bulls fur. I posted links to multiple images of Black Angus cattle made with multiple cameras which showed purple/blue color. Did you actually "look" at them???

The first image you showed to prove your point was an oil painting.

The first shot I showed was a photo made with film - not a painting of any kind except with light.

Lin

Sometimes the blotching appearance is natural and sometimes it isn't, but if you look for it long and hard enough you may find it. If it's a big problem for you, don't use Sigma cameras - it's really quite simple.

I use Sigma cameras because i like their general image quality and like others i spent many thousand dollars (actually francs) for Sigma cameras and lenses. The only thing i expect is an improvement of some of the weaknesses over the last generation. But the blotching is clearly getting worse

Purple fringing was very common with some model Sony cameras a few years ago. It was easily removed or ameliorated and it didn't stop photographers from making beautiful images with these cameras. It's incredibly easy to remove the blue/purple color from the fur of black animals regardless of whether it is natural or a sensor fault. Lin

Easy or not, i would get bored, removing all the blotches and strange color noise in an image like this:
a special photo

Lin Evans wrote:

The first image you showed to prove your point was an oil painting.

The first shot I showed was a photo made with film - not a painting of any kind except with light.

This image is an oil painting:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54296036

maceoQ wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

The first image you showed to prove your point was an oil painting.

The first shot I showed was a photo made with film - not a painting of any kind except with light.

The image is a film photo.

Lin

This image is an oil painting:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54296036