SDQH vs 5DSR

[JackM]

SDQH with 35/1.4 Art processed to taste in SPP, 5DSR with 50/1.8 STM processed to taste in Canon Digital Photo Professional. Tripod, 2 second timer.

5DSR

SDQH

For the above shots, I moved the Sigma forward to try to match the side-to-side coverage at mid frame, due to the Canon's 4.5mm effective advantage. 5DSR was in live-view, which is a quick way to get mirror lock-up.

5DSR

SDQH

The above two shots were taken at the same location. 5DSR without live-view.

I think the SDQH holds its own in the center of the image, but the IQ tails off towards the edges and corners. This is surprising as the 35/1.4 Art is a brand new top shelf $900 Full Frame lens. The excellence of the 5DSR and 50/1.8 extends to all but the last few pixels in the corners. In the upper pair of photos, I'd say the Sigma's bricks in the center of the frame are a bit more appealing.

Sigma fans will say the SDQH represents a greater value as the body is only $1200. However I feel that the upgrade path for any landscaper who already has a bag of Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax lenses is to those companies' top landscape bodies, not to the SDQH. The price of each of these kits is $3125 for the Canon (factory refurbished body with $125 lens) and $2100 for the Sigma. Not a huge difference when you consider how much more capability the Canon has (higher ISO, real AF, more responsive, works with all my lenses, much faster post workflow, etc). Add a couple more Sigma Art lenses and you are right up there with the cost of a 5DSR.

If the Sigma crushed the 5DSR for detail like the DP2M did to the 5D3, it would be worth keeping. But it doesn't.

 

[Gate bois]

Would it be possible to have RAW?

 

[Lukacs85]

I canot see any advantage of SDQH over the Canon at first look. And besides 5DSr has higher resolution, more detail even downsized. They are both do a great job.

My opinion is, SDQH not worth the price over SDQ. SDQ may has a bit weaker performance against 5DSR, but its $3700 against $800 body and you may stick with cheaper APSC lenses, like 8-16, 30 f1.4 Art, 17-50 f2.8.

The SDQ-H is $1200, still $2500 difference for body only, and for $2900 you can get 12-24 f4 Art and 24-70 f2.8 Art.

Of corse 5DSR has much more high iso power and speed including AF and operation.

I mostly shoot at iso 100-200, for me an SDQ is a better deal. But I see no practical advantage of the Foveon at base iso, if I can afford a high resolution bayer camera, I'd gladly go for it.

Sigma should develop an 35mm Merrill sensor if they want to deliver special low iso IQ.

 

[JackM]

I canot see any advantage of SDQH over the Canon at first look. And besides 5DSr has higher resolution, more detail even downsized. They are both do a great job.

My opinion is, SDQH not worth the price over SDQ. SDQ may has a bit weaker performance against 5DSR, but its $3700 against $800 body and you may stick with cheaper APSC lenses, like 8-16, 30 f1.4 Art, 17-50 f2.8.

The SDQ-H is $1200, still $2500 difference for body only, and for $2900 you can get 12-24 f4 Art and 24-70 f2.8 Art.

Of corse 5DSR has much more high iso power and speed including AF and operation.

I mostly shoot at iso 100-200, for me an SDQ is a better deal. But I see no practical advantage of the Foveon at base iso, if I can afford a high resolution bayer camera, I'd gladly go for it.

Sigma should develop an 35mm Merrill sensor if they want to deliver special low iso IQ.

I agree with your IQ assessment, however I would still plump for the SDQH over the SDQ. Maybe the difference is like dust under the refrigerator, but I still know it's there.

As for your cost analysis, I think it doesn't tell the whole story. My thoughts on this are in the OP.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

Today's cameras are all good. They all give images that are extremely good. Bottom line photographers have it very good today - independent if we shoot Sigma/Foveon, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc. WE should stop arguing over it and stop obsession over 200% enlargements and enjoy the camera technology available.

SDQH with 35/1.4 Art processed to taste in SPP, 5DSR with 50/1.8 STM processed to taste in Canon Digital Photo Professional. Tripod, 2 second timer.

5DSR

SDQH

For the above shots, I moved the Sigma forward to try to match the side-to-side coverage at mid frame, due to the Canon's 4.5mm effective advantage. 5DSR was in live-view, which is a quick way to get mirror lock-up.

5DSR

SDQH

The above two shots were taken at the same location. 5DSR without live-view.

I think the SDQH holds its own in the center of the image, but the IQ tails off towards the edges and corners. This is surprising as the 35/1.4 Art is a brand new top shelf $900 Full Frame lens. The excellence of the 5DSR and 50/1.8 extends to all but the last few pixels in the corners. In the upper pair of photos, I'd say the Sigma's bricks in the center of the frame are a bit more appealing.

Sigma fans will say the SDQH represents a greater value as the body is only $1200. However I feel that the upgrade path for any landscaper who already has a bag of Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax lenses is to those companies' top landscape bodies, not to the SDQH. The price of each of these kits is $3125 for the Canon (factory refurbished body with $125 lens) and $2100 for the Sigma. Not a huge difference when you consider how much more capability the Canon has (higher ISO, real AF, more responsive, works with all my lenses, much faster post workflow, etc). Add a couple more Sigma Art lenses and you are right up there with the cost of a 5DSR.

If the Sigma crushed the 5DSR for detail like the DP2M did to the 5D3, it would be worth keeping. But it doesn't.

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 

[mdavidp]

I prefer the Sigma image, although the Canon is really ok.

I came away from Bayer sensors dissatisfied the the look never came near my

slide film.

The sdq and h do it for me.

PS, I don't understand why Canon decided to include an aa filter in one and then subtract

the effect in another.

Mike P

 

[Truman Prevatt]

I prefer the Sigma image, although the Canon is really ok.

I came away from Bayer sensors dissatisfied the the look never came near my

slide film.

The sdq and h do it for me.

PS, I don't understand why Canon decided to include an aa filter in one and then subtract

the effect in another.

Mike P

That cool - you like it - other people like other things there is no best there is no winner.

Except all photographers are winners because of the choices we have.

 

[Scottelly]

So Canon gets to keep their crown.



I AM surprised how good that 50mm f1.8 is. That is one hell of a lens. Another thing about it is how small and light that little sucker is. I wonder what it would be like to mount it on a Sigma SD Quattro H. What other lenses does Canon have that are so good? Is there a small and light 35mm f1.8 (or even a 35mm f2.8) that performs that well too?

 

[docmaas]

Indeed the "Nifty fifty" was one of the favorites for canon to sigma conversion back in the day.

Mike

So Canon gets to keep their crown.



I AM surprised how good that 50mm f1.8 is. That is one hell of a lens. Another thing about it is how small and light that little sucker is. I wonder what it would be like to mount it on a Sigma SD Quattro H. What other lenses does Canon have that are so good? Is there a small and light 35mm f1.8 (or even a 35mm f2.8) that performs that well too?

 

[TN Args]

Thanks Jack for going to the effort of making such an equal and fair comparison. Same scene, same exposure, same ISO (base). Well done.

Also appreciate your decision to process to taste, since the two different sensor technologies demand different processing to establish a 'well-processed baseline'. Just throwing two raw files at us would have been unfair to both cameras for different reasons.

I will have a look at them later-- probably at home tonight. My expectation is that the Canon will have slightly more detail -- nothing significant -- and significantly better deep shadows regarding noise and colour accuracy/saturation/retention.

Your comment on off-centre sharpness is certainly unexpected and reminds me of a question I had for you: did you manually focus with magnification on the same point in both scenes? I ask because I have general concerns about what camera AF systems might do when asked to AF on a distant point: would not surprise me if some adopt a hyperfocal-like distance instead of actual infinity.

 

[JackM]

So Canon gets to keep their crown.



I AM surprised how good that 50mm f1.8 is. That is one hell of a lens. Another thing about it is how small and light that little sucker is. I wonder what it would be like to mount it on a Sigma SD Quattro H. What other lenses does Canon have that are so good? Is there a small and light 35mm f1.8 (or even a 35mm f2.8) that performs that well too?

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
http://www.bigprintphotos.com

Thanks. I'm not aware of a reversible way to adapt Canon lenses to Signa mount, otherwise the SDQH would be more appealing. Enlighten me? Yes, the 50/1.8 is a special lens. There is a 35/2.0 IS for $550 that is small and light and reportedly excellent but I don't have one yet. Then there are a 28/2.8 IS and a 24/2.8 IS that are small and light but f/2.8 in a prime doesn't excite me when I already have a 24-70/2.8 II.

 

[JackM]

Thanks Jack for going to the effort of making such an equal and fair comparison. Same scene, same exposure, same ISO (base). Well done.

Also appreciate your decision to process to taste, since the two different sensor technologies demand different processing to establish a 'well-processed baseline'. Just throwing two raw files at us would have been unfair to both cameras for different reasons.

I will have a look at them later-- probably at home tonight. My expectation is that the Canon will have slightly more detail -- nothing significant -- and significantly better deep shadows regarding noise and colour accuracy/saturation/retention.

Your comment on off-centre sharpness is certainly unexpected and reminds me of a question I had for you: did you manually focus with magnification on the same point in both scenes? I ask because I have general concerns about what camera AF systems might do when asked to AF on a distant point: would not surprise me if some adopt a hyperfocal-like distance instead of actual infinity.

You are most welcome, and thanks for the kind words. I didn't process for max DR, so you may not see a difference in the shadows on these jpegs. You're welcome to the raws if you want.

I used auto focus on the center and I'd say both cameras nailed it. In my experience infinity focus is almost never optimal, but I could be wrong.

 

[JackM]

Today's cameras are all good. They all give images that are extremely good. Bottom line photographers have it very good today - independent if we shoot Sigma/Foveon, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc. WE should stop arguing over it and stop obsession over 200% enlargements and enjoy the camera technology available.

I agree. And that's pretty much my point. The Sigma doesn't offer anything to make all of its shortcomings worth it. The Merrill series did offer something unique and special to justify its existence in its day, when a 15mp APS-C Foveon image could embarrass a 21-24mp FF Bayer image. I suppose if you want great landscape/still-life performance forsaking all else, and you have no other system already, and your budget is $3000 for a body and two lenses, the SDQH is it.

 

[JackM]

taken over 2 years ago, finished in SPP, with less regard to post processing. I'd make them much less green now.

 

[richard stone]

So Canon gets to keep their crown.



I AM surprised how good that 50mm f1.8 is. That is one hell of a lens. Another thing about it is how small and light that little sucker is. I wonder what it would be like to mount it on a Sigma SD Quattro H. What other lenses does Canon have that are so good? Is there a small and light 35mm f1.8 (or even a 35mm f2.8) that performs that well too?

 

[JackM]

In my view the blur from even minor hand-held camera motion out-weighs any benefit from sharp lenses. So the tripod and low ISO is required for the ultimate in sharpness/detail/resolution on any system.

Indeed, these were all tripod shots, but there is one of the old town scene on the 5DSR that I deleted that was taken without live-view (MLU) that I deleted because of vibration. Even with 2 second timer.

 

[Jozef M]

Sigma fans will say the SDQH represents a greater value as the body is only $1200. However I feel that the upgrade path for any landscaper who already has a bag of Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax lenses is to those companies' top landscape bodies, not to the SDQH. The price of each of these kits is $3125 for the Canon (factory refurbished body with $125 lens) and $2100 for the Sigma. Not a huge difference when you consider how much more capability the Canon has (higher ISO, real AF, more responsive, works with all my lenses, much faster post workflow, etc). Add a couple more Sigma Art lenses and you are right up there with the cost of a 5DSR.

If the Sigma crushed the 5DSR for detail like the DP2M did to the 5D3, it would be worth keeping. But it doesn't.

Yes, I agree with most of this (...real AF ???), I am surprised not too see a huge quality difference between the Canon and Quattro sensor. I see a bit more resolution in the Canon, a bit more DR, and a bit more jaggies too, but this must be the Canon raw converter.

So what is the point of using the Foveon Quattro sensor then???
The Merrill detail magic is gone ... Yes, it's a cheaper camera, but with a whole lot of limitations too.

Jozef

Canon on the left.

 

[JackM]

Sigma fans will say the SDQH represents a greater value as the body is only $1200. However I feel that the upgrade path for any landscaper who already has a bag of Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax lenses is to those companies' top landscape bodies, not to the SDQH. The price of each of these kits is $3125 for the Canon (factory refurbished body with $125 lens) and $2100 for the Sigma. Not a huge difference when you consider how much more capability the Canon has (higher ISO, real AF, more responsive, works with all my lenses, much faster post workflow, etc). Add a couple more Sigma Art lenses and you are right up there with the cost of a 5DSR.

If the Sigma crushed the 5DSR for detail like the DP2M did to the 5D3, it would be worth keeping. But it doesn't.

Yes, I agree with most of this (...real AF ???),

Real AF = AF that can do sports, or at least catch a fleeting moment.

I am surprised not too see a huge quality difference between the Canon and Quattro sensor.

I'd call the 5DSR's superiority "significant".

So what is the point of using the Foveon Quattro sensor then???

Right. For anyone with any serious investment in another system there is no point. For a landscaper building a system from scratch, it's worth considering.

The Merrill detail magic is gone

I would say in the center of the frame the SDQH beats Merrill handily. 25 > 15. A big part of the magic of the DP Merrills was that they were razor sharp to the very corner pixel.

 

[Scottelly]

So Canon gets to keep their crown.



I AM surprised how good that 50mm f1.8 is. That is one hell of a lens. Another thing about it is how small and light that little sucker is. I wonder what it would be like to mount it on a Sigma SD Quattro H. What other lenses does Canon have that are so good? Is there a small and light 35mm f1.8 (or even a 35mm f2.8) that performs that well too?

 

[Scottelly]

Sigma fans will say the SDQH represents a greater value as the body is only $1200. However I feel that the upgrade path for any landscaper who already has a bag of Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax lenses is to those companies' top landscape bodies, not to the SDQH. The price of each of these kits is $3125 for the Canon (factory refurbished body with $125 lens) and $2100 for the Sigma. Not a huge difference when you consider how much more capability the Canon has (higher ISO, real AF, more responsive, works with all my lenses, much faster post workflow, etc). Add a couple more Sigma Art lenses and you are right up there with the cost of a 5DSR.

If the Sigma crushed the 5DSR for detail like the DP2M did to the 5D3, it would be worth keeping. But it doesn't.

Yes, I agree with most of this (...real AF ???), I am surprised not too see a huge quality difference between the Canon and Quattro sensor. I see a bit more resolution in the Canon, a bit more DR, and a bit more jaggies too, but this must be the Canon raw converter.

So what is the point of using the Foveon Quattro sensor then???
The Merrill detail magic is gone ... Yes, it's a cheaper camera, but with a whole lot of limitations too.

Jozef

Canon on the left.

There are other advantages of the Sigma cameras. Their OOC jpegs are better than those from Canons. The size and weight of the camera body alone is a little less than that of the Canon. The EVF has some composition advantages in very dark scenes, if you don't want to use the screen on the back for some reason. (The Canon can be used with live-view for the same result, but if you don't want to use that back screen for some reason, such as if you're in a crowd and don't want to bother people around you with the bright light from your camera, then the Sigma, with its EVF, would have an advantage.) The Sigma has a removable IR filter, which is nice for shooting in the IR spectrum (for astro-photography, forensic photography, and artistic B&W shots). The Sigma's Foveon sensor means you will avoid much of the color moiré that the Canon will produce in various scenes. As you can see by these examples though, such moiré is not always present. Try shooting interiors or product shots of fabrics though, and you'll experience a variety of problems with moiré using the 5 Dsr or a Nikon D810 or Sony A7r II.

Yes, the Canon has many advantages, such as speed (both in focusing and in shooting . . . as well as in buffer clearing and when reviewing photos), video capabilities, battery life, having an optical viewfinder (if you prefer optical viewfinders . . . plus there is the inherent advantage that you can view through an OVF without turning on your camera), better high ISO noise levels, compatibility with a wider variety of native lenses (including tilt-shift lenses), etc.

To me, the advantages of the Sigma (primarily the cost) outweigh the disadvantages. The 5 Dsr is a great camera though, and when Canon introduced it, I'm sure it really helped them maintain their high-end customer base.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly

http://www.bigprintphotos.com