Review - Sigma dp3 Quattro.

Landscapes / scenery and Studio / still life is where it truly excels. Studio portraits (as long as no one moves) could also be an option. I would not use it for anything else. Now that D850 has arrived I see it comfortably passes Quattros for anything I can think of.

I did not realize you were in Paris, recognized some of the images.

-sergey

xpatUSA wrote:

Gate bois wrote:

I acquired this digital camera a little over a month ago. Regarding its use, access to different settings is relatively intuitive. I use it almost exclusively in manual mode. The different settings, opening, speed, iso, ..., are easy to access.

Hi res vs Low Res

Crop 100 - 60 Mpix

Hi

Low

Hi

Low

Hi

Low

Very good review, Noël. It is very interesting the difference in quality between Quattro low and high resolution when the images are made the same size, like above.

Was the low resolution made larger, or the high resolution made smaller?

Thank you Ted.

For the Low res vs. Hi res comparison, one shot is made in Low res mode and the other in Hi Res mode.

Sergey_Green wrote:

Landscapes / scenery and Studio / still life is where it truly excels. Studio portraits (as long as no one moves) could also be an option. I would not use it for anything else. Now that D850 has arrived I see it comfortably passes Quattros for anything I can think of.

I did not realize you were in Paris, recognized some of the images.

-sergey

I live in paris.
Some photos were made around the small village where my parents live, 250 km from Paris.

It is true that ultra-pixelated bayer digital cameras are very interesting alternatives to quattro.
the quattro have certe, a capacity to restore the details comparable to the 40 to 50 Mpix bayer sensors, but it is true that they are much more limited.
In addition, even if the level of detail rendered is equivalent (IQ), the interpolation is losing finesse in the rendering of the details, compared to a photo from a bayer sensor very well processed and made with a very good goal. But I have often seen photos made with bayer sensors having the highest definitions, the rendering of details is worse than my photos from quattro interpolated to 39Mpix, sometimes even 60 Mpix.

The price of quattro is much lower.
The rendering is also different. Although it is true that by reducing a photo from a bayer sensor, and applying the appropriate processing, it is possible to approach, see equalize the foveon rendering. Especially for landscape photos.
But more difficult with photos of textures. Especially the quattro provides a very good feeling of texture.

Dp quattro have the advent of compactness.

I think if sigma managed to release a quattro 20 - 25 Mpix, to have a 3200 iso (or even better at 6400 iso) as good as the 800 iso, they would sell a lot more.

Gate bois wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

Landscapes / scenery and Studio / still life is where it truly excels. Studio portraits (as long as no one moves) could also be an option. I would not use it for anything else. Now that D850 has arrived I see it comfortably passes Quattros for anything I can think of.

I did not realize you were in Paris, recognized some of the images.

-sergey

I live in paris.
Some photos were made around the small village where my parents live, 250 km from Paris.

It is true that ultra-pixelated bayer digital cameras are very interesting alternatives to quattro.
the quattro have certe, a capacity to restore the details comparable to the 40 to 50 Mpix bayer sensors, but it is true that they are much more limited.
In addition, even if the level of detail rendered is equivalent (IQ), the interpolation is losing finesse in the rendering of the details, compared to a photo from a bayer sensor very well processed and made with a very good goal. But I have often seen photos made with bayer sensors having the highest definitions, the rendering of details is worse than my photos from quattro interpolated to 39Mpix, sometimes even 60 Mpix.

I did like what I saw in Sigma images when compared to D800, although they were just different. For photographing people there is hardly an alternative other than the FF camera with the fast lens on it. At least for me. For landscapes with distant views, foliage, flowers, all things you see when hiking, Merrill/Quattro are (or perhaps were) the best.

The price of quattro is much lower.
The rendering is also different. Although it is true that by reducing a photo from a bayer sensor, and applying the appropriate processing, it is possible to approach, see equalize the foveon rendering. Especially for landscape photos.
But more difficult with photos of textures. Especially the quattro provides a very good feeling of texture.

I know what you mean.

Dp quattro have the advent of compactness.

Also true.

I think if sigma managed to release a quattro 20 - 25 Mpix, to have a 3200 iso (or even better at 6400 iso) as good as the 800 iso, they would sell a lot more.

Frankly ISO did not really bother me that much but the highlights did. Quattros clip like there is no tomorrow, and this I find bothersome. Also speed of operation in general. Although I am a patient person when it comes to photography, I could not even focus that camera on the incoming train from 50 meters away. Imagine that.

-- hide signature --

Dp2q: https://flic.kr/s/aHskEEjYY6
Dp2s: https://flic.kr/s/aHskPR4tLF
Photo SD9: https://flic.kr/s/aHskMYdG1G
Gsm: https://flic.kr/s/aHskMZxBzy

Photo Hi res interpolated to 60 Mpix (and cropped). With can more sharpness.

The level of detail returned is still bluffing.

Gate bois wrote:

Photo Hi res interpolated to 60 Mpix (and cropped). With can more sharpness.

The level of detail returned is still bluffing.

I know, and there is no argument here. The argument comes when the scene and the dynamics change. You end up with either having it, having not what you want, or not having it at all.

Sergey_Green wrote:

Gate bois wrote:

Photo Hi res interpolated to 60 Mpix (and cropped). With can more sharpness.

The level of detail returned is still bluffing.

I know, and there is no argument here. The argument comes when the scene and the dynamics change. You end up with either having it, having not what you want, or not having it at all.

Regarding the recovery of details in high lights, I did a single interesting test on a relevant example, from a photo of a test dp3q on the site "photographyblog".

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3880805

TN Args wrote:

A well-presented review, with excellent examples of the camera's strengths.

At its price, there is nothing that can match its strengths. Nothing. This point cannot be over-stated.

As long as the intending buyer understands its scope of competence, and is comfortable with that scope, the camera will delight.

Above ISO 800, I would not have chosen your level of praise. I do not think it is fair to the buyer to say 'excellent at ISO 1600, with processing'. Processing in SPP with standard colour style to TIFF, then processing in Lightroom with its sharpening and NR controls, will not lead to the qualitiative result that you describe. Your results are the culmination of your carefully-tuned technique that has been honed over years of ownership of Sigma dpQ models, not the one month of your reported ownership of this camera.

Thank you.