Review - The Sigma dp3 Quattro - For the color connoisseur

I made a quick video review as well containing lots of samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvpGrmNwqDU

The design is different and it has grown on me over time.

Why?

Im a Foveon fan. Simple as that.
I like what I get from my Sigma cameras. Modern once like this as well as my old dp1 classic. The colors and tones are just where I want them.

The reason to get specifically the dp3q was the focal length and the super crisp images that the Quattro sensor produces.
The colors are so nice. I just ad some contrast, no filters or presets.
I shoot mostly premium compact cameras these days. So this is like buying a short tele lens.
(I have also ordered the tele converter)

Impressions

Pros

• Build quality is excellent
• Its light
• The lens is awesome
• Images are so freaking detailed
• Macro!

Cons

• Some buttons are oddly placed
• No EVF
• Low ISO

Conclussion

I like this camera a lot and have no trouble recommending it if:

• You shoot primarily compacts and want another focal length.
• You are primarily a film shooter that wants a digital option.
• You enjoy Sigma Foveon

Don't buy it if:

• You shoot fast action.
• You shoot in the dark.
• You are in a hurry.

Samples

Colors from the camera. Only luma adjustments.

Macro is nice.

Pushed shadows and highlights brought back.

Well done! Thank you for the video!

Lobbamobba wrote:

I like what I get from my Sigma cameras. Modern once like this as well as my old dp1 classic. The colors and tones are just where I want them.

The reason to get specifically the dp3q was the focal length and the super crisp images that the Quattro sensor produces.

The colors are so nice. I just add some contrast, no filters or presets.

Pushed shadows and highlights brought back.

Excellent-looking colors. It was a pleasure to view full-size and thereby see on those billboards where the photo was taken . . . and just look at that bird in the sky, almost invisible in the thread image !!

OT, but I'm coming to an opinion, similar to Dave Millier's, that all of this forum's Q vs M vs Others threads are a waste of hot air and our time and only occasionally entertaining.

what processing s/w did OP use ?

I looked at the original of 2 pics and they have a background of black dots over all the pic, does not seem like a noise issue.

if have kinda noticed this from PS processed pics, someone said it was from the sharpening.

I have looked at some previous Merrill sensor pics (DP & SD1)and saw nothing but perfect looking pics, usable to 100%, these pics you could not use at 100% maybe 75%.

but if only 75% for the new quattro sensors, might as well get a bayer cam !!

i hope this is processing and NOT what comes off the sensor/cam !!!

what do you think ?

xpatUSA wrote:

Lobbamobba wrote:

I like what I get from my Sigma cameras. Modern once like this as well as my old dp1 classic. The colors and tones are just where I want them.

The reason to get specifically the dp3q was the focal length and the super crisp images that the Quattro sensor produces.

The colors are so nice. I just add some contrast, no filters or presets.

Pushed shadows and highlights brought back.

Excellent-looking colors. It was a pleasure to view full-size and thereby see on those billboards where the photo was taken . . . and just look at that bird in the sky, almost invisible in the thread image !!

OT, but I'm coming to an opinion, similar to Dave Millier's, that all of this forum's Q vs M vs Others threads are a waste of hot air and our time and only occasionally entertaining.

Ted

It's not really OT, it's sort of the meta-topic...

But Dave's point is usually that he (and many/most users) is only going to print 8x10 at most, so it limits what details will be visible to a viewer, etc. And in any event it's only at larger print sizes that one can see any difference. Etc.

It's a reasonable contention on a superficial level, and it suits his image style and purpose, but I think not entirely correct in the most general sense, for at least two reasons. First, on a gross scale the equipment and images produced influence your subject matter. The inability (real or imagined) of the Sigma to be  an easy camera to use sort of takes out the grandmother (and maybe even the enthusiast)  making pictures of the grandchildren, and maybe sports. Second, the "medium is the message:" The Sigma cameras, with what amounts to a very hi-res sensor, make for a very detailed image which influences not only the choice of subject matter, but how the subject/image is perceived by the viewer and image maker.

And the detail in the Sigma images is fun. Interesting to look at. Etc: Being able to see a single leaf, well resolved, at fifty yards is simply not what human vision does. A Sigma camera can do that, but then what?

Is it art? And/or wonderful? Not without something more.

My view is that the "M" series cameras produce (in my view) somewhat grating micro-contrast and somewhat inaccurate, although vibrant, color. The DPM3 still seems like a superb camera. The Q series seems to me to have more accurate/"natural" color and a more natural (smoother) appearance. In a word, my word, better.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Dave also has a great concern with aliasing and jpg artifacts, and those concerns greatly influence his perception of images. Not everyone shares that sensitivity.

But over-all, it is a topic in and of itself. The comparisons themselves can be somewhat tedious and annoying, particularly the excessive emotion sometimes involved, but among the sensitive and strong minded artists using the various cameras we should expect such emotions and strong feelings...

Richard

seriously, and why would i see it on a Q pic and not on a M pic - irrational thought ?

maybe this will let you 'see' the diff.

the sky though does not show just areas short of very bright, see the tan building wall or yellow sign below, even worse as it seems some smoothing by DPR?

now the DP2M

of course i am talking about 100% viewing, but the DP2M does not show it at all, i checked w/ ~8 pics @ 100% w/ range of pic types/exposures - zero 'black sand' on ALL the DP/SD merrill I have !

I had to try twice to get the 'black sand' to not be smoothed over, but all the processing (i tried to not alter it by my editing but some occurred) it may not make it.

but as i said originally, is it the s/w processing introducing or is this on the raw itself ?

Lobbamobba wrote:

There are no such issues on my end. Somethings up with your screen perhaps?

guys come on just look at the OP pics push the 'original' button and look at 100%, it is so obvious even moron Trump could see it !!!

and as I said, i suspect it processing but then do not have the raw, and never have seen this in any 'merrill' that I looked at, but that is a limited # of pics, but the one thing i admired about the merrill sensors, ability to use at 100% which is very impressive compared to bayer sensors.

so stop criticizing the messenger, GO LOOK FOR YOURSELVES !!

how hard is it to do ????

docmaas wrote:

This is quite often caused by luminance noise. You'll need the original x3f though to see if that is the case here. The sign almost certainly is defective in reproduction. The wall is a little bit more difficult to judge as it could be texture or dirt too.

The Quattro is not a merrill that is both a positive and a negative. Both have good and bad and ideally should be used to their own best advantage.

Recently in another thread someone said that they had heard that Sigma is able to produce Merrill like images but chose not to and to rather accentuate other aspects of the Quattro. I'd like to know if that is true but I really have no idea if it is or not.

Mike

KrampusClaus wrote:

guys come on just look at the OP pics push the 'original' button and look at 100%, it is so obvious even moron Trump could see it !!!

and as I said, i suspect it processing but then do not have the raw, and never have seen this in any 'merrill' that I looked at, but that is a limited # of pics, but the one thing i admired about the merrill sensors, ability to use at 100% which is very impressive compared to bayer sensors.

so stop criticizing the messenger, GO LOOK FOR YOURSELVES !!

how hard is it to do ????

A classic barely-intelligible response almost to the point of "flaming"!

Long lines in lower case with a bare minimum of punctuation.

Actually capitalizes "Trump" but disrespects Richard B Merrill by not so doing.

An excess of multiple exclamation points and question marks.

Lazy use of the pound sign to mean "number".

"Shouting" with caps (finally the shift key springs into action!).

And ending with a rhetorical question that implies that we're all dumb.

Unfortunately I won't be able to read your inevitable aggressive response