Probably the best camera in the world for some scenarios

Much is said about these cameras.   Much is said in ignorance. I read terrible reviews, I read brilliant reviews, I read mixed reviews.  I looked at the studio scene tool on this website, it appears to compare favorably to more or less anything else.  Curiosity just got the better of me - I came to the conclusion I had to find out for myself.  I am glad I did.

The DP Quattro comes in DP0, DP1, DP2 and DP3 type. They are the same camera and each has a fixed lens, the DP0 being the widest and the DP3 being essentially a modest fixed zoom. I only mention this because it took me a while to figure that out.  So the point is - buy the one that suits your main photography style.

The camera needs reasonable light and a steady hand or ideally a tripod. I have found it best to take shots in RAW and JPEG. Download the free Sigma software and work on the RAW until you are happy and then save as a JPEG, really this effort is pretty much essential as otherwise the images are not really that good.  One review said the JPEGs were OK and my first efforts took this advice and I thought I had made a mistake buying the camera.  Whilst writing I am wondering if shooting them in JPEG as well as RAW is worth it but arguably that gives you a clue as to which RAW images might be worthy of the effort.   What I like about this effort is with each image it is like unwrapping a treasure. (I have an IPS 4k monitor)  This experience is made more suspenseful by the sometimes slightly sluggish software.  My images take about 5 seconds to load up on a reasonable gaming spec desktop.  The first impression is very rough but as the detail loads up my mouth sort of drops open.

Another good tip is to check your camera has the latest firmware - which is simple to update.  Mine came with a much older version and they have improved it.  You just download it to a memory card, put that in the camera and press a few buttons and you are done.

The main downsides are:

Fixed lens, not a low light camera, limited battery life (but you get 2!), large image files (50mb), slow write time- but not ridiculously so, no good for sports/action shots, no tilt screen, no built in flash, no touch screen, no data transfer, no gps, slowish focus, not a pocket camera, ISO range limited, stick to 100 if possible but up to 400 is ok.

The main upsides are:

A good clear menu function, a cool looking camera (arguably), well built, but most importantly of all - stunning image quality - but only if you persevere. Roughly the equivalent of medium format but better than the very best full frame in my opinion - albeit obviously in a less flexible overall camera of course. Landscape photographers who do not have this camera have simply not lived, close up photography is also on a different level.

My other thought is on the shape. This is much criticized as awkward to hold. Personally I find it easy to hold and if anything the shape makes it easier to hold steady, as this is of course very critical for top image quality, so the shape does not bother me.  The length helps keep your fingers away from the lens and the sensors so that is a plus.  Most cameras seem to have some pros and cons in the grip department I find.

In summary, if you are looking for the very best image quality for landscapes and close ups (probably good for portraits too but not tried yet) and you don't mind putting some work in then I believe this is it.  I would say it is still not cheap, but it is a fraction of the cost of cameras that cannot deliver this image quality.  At the same time the price is affordable to many and there are good second hand ones out there.

If you are looking for an all round camera with the latest features that produce good JPEGs then this is definitely not the camera for you.  So I understand why these cameras get 2 and 3 star reviews, fair in a way, but if you love fabulous image quality the shortcomings could arguably just make other cameras look gimmicky.  Depending on your preferences you could take the view that who wants all those gimmicks when you can just have fabulous image quality?  So 5 star all the way for me as image quality is my personal priority.

Thanks, Richard. Quite a detailed and useful review.

Just one minor error (that I can spot):

"The DP Quattro comes in DP0, DP1, DP2 and DP3 type. They are the same camera and each has a fixed lens, the DP0 being the widest and the DP3 being essentially a modest fixed zoom."

None of Sigma's DP & dp cameras has a zoom lens -- they are all primes.

SigmaChrome wrote:

Thanks, Richard. Quite a detailed and useful review.

Just one minor error (that I can spot):

"The DP Quattro comes in DP0, DP1, DP2 and DP3 type. They are the same camera and each has a fixed lens, the DP0 being the widest and the DP3 being essentially a modest fixed zoom."

None of Sigma's DP & dp cameras has a zoom lens -- they are all primes.

A better description of it might be that it's a fixed, short telephoto prime (portrait focal length equivalent) lens.

SigmaChrome wrote:

Thanks, Richard. Quite a detailed and useful review.

Just one minor error (that I can spot):

"The DP Quattro comes in DP0, DP1, DP2 and DP3 type. They are the same camera and each has a fixed lens, the DP0 being the widest and the DP3 being essentially a modest fixed zoom."

None of Sigma's DP & dp cameras has a zoom lens -- they are all primes.

He meant telephoto. A lot of people think of a telephoto lens as 'zoomed-in' lens.

When you think about it, the words 'zoom' and 'prime' are equally ludicrous. The real terms are variable focal length, and fixed focal length.

Hi Richard

thanks for your review. I think it is quite sensible.

Funny thing about Sigma camera reviews, is that, just like all DPR user reviews, the writers usually have owned the camera for a modest period of time and are writing the review for readers who don't really know the camera and are writing to give them a bit of insight, and your review appears on the DPR site under the relevant Cameras/ Camera Model/ User Reviews page, in this case that means here: https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/compacts/sigma_dp2q/user-reviews . All good.

But your review also is automatically posted to the Sigma Camera Talk forum, link , where it immediately attracts the interest of a group of hardened Sigma camera experts who 'live there' and have been using Sigma cameras for years, in some cases decades. (!)

So don't be surprised if your review attracts some strong feedback or detailed corrections from these people. I'm one of them, although I am pretty low on the expert scale compared to some. You might actually get some useful tips from some of the feedback to your review.

If image quality is your ultimate purpose for your dp2Q, you might enjoy using the SFD Mode, (SFD = Super Fine Detail), which is Sigma's variant on multiple exposure, high dynamic range functions that some cameras have. It requires a camera support. One of the Sigma forum regulars has written a very useful user guide for SFD mode. Another was talking about setting up a .info website for Sigma camera owners.

I see you wrote about the slowness of raw processing. One option in the camera that you could consider is shooting in DNG image file format, which is easily read by Adobe and several other software.

cheers

Well said.  I pretty much agree with all your findings.

I bought a dp0q brand new a few months go and was shocked rigid at how good the output was, and almost immediately thereafter I picked up an almost new dp2q.  I love them both to bits and still can't believe the quality of the photographs it produces.  I'm primarily landscape and general scenery.

The downside of these, and all Foveon cameras, is file format.  Do I go DNG and Capture One / LightRoom? Or do I go X3F and struggle with SPP and take TIFFs across?  I've played extensively with both routes, and still don't know if I'm getting the best the cameras can offer. Something deep inside me niggles away saying that DNG isn't as 'good' as X3F, but at the same time I wonder if I'm making the right adjustments (or no adjustments?) with SPP.  It's fun experimenting though.

CallMeAlan wrote:

Well said. I pretty much agree with all your findings.

I bought a dp0q brand new a few months go and was shocked rigid at how good the output was, and almost immediately thereafter I picked up an almost new dp2q. I love them both to bits and still can't believe the quality of the photographs it produces. I'm primarily landscape and general scenery.

The downside of these, and all Foveon cameras, is file format. Do I go DNG and Capture One / LightRoom? Or do I go X3F and struggle with SPP and take TIFFs across? I've played extensively with both routes, and still don't know if I'm getting the best the cameras can offer.

Why not shoot some targets?

For color, shoot a color-patch target such as the 24-patch X-rite Macbeth? Each patch has a defined color which you can compare to your C1/LR's color-picker and thereby determine color accuracy.

For resolution, shoot a slant-edge, and compare edge-spread response with a suitable application. There are a few, ranging from free (ImageJ with a plug-in) to bloody expensive (Imatest).

Something deep inside me niggles away saying that DNG isn't as 'good' as X3F, but at the same time I wonder if I'm making the right adjustments (or no adjustments?) with SPP. It's fun experimenting though.

You're on the right track with 'no adjustments', IMHO. Well, perhaps 'minimal' ?

I try my hardest to set just the so-called 'exposure' slider to correct minor actual exposure errors and just the sharpness slider for less-than-perfect capture sharpness. I try to avoid the easy temptation of 'Fill Light' but don't always succeed.

Then off in 16-bit ProPhoto TIFF to my favorite editor which beats SPP on just about every front.

Adobe pushes DNG as a replacement for proprietary raw files. Would you "correctly" dump the raws, or save both your raw AND your DNG files?

Remember that the Foveon DNG is a version known as 'Linear' - it has been said that not every editor can open those ...

xpatUSA wrote:

CallMeAlan wrote:

Well said. I pretty much agree with all your findings.

I bought a dp0q brand new a few months go and was shocked rigid at how good the output was, and almost immediately thereafter I picked up an almost new dp2q. I love them both to bits and still can't believe the quality of the photographs it produces. I'm primarily landscape and general scenery.

The downside of these, and all Foveon cameras, is file format. Do I go DNG and Capture One / LightRoom? Or do I go X3F and struggle with SPP and take TIFFs across? I've played extensively with both routes, and still don't know if I'm getting the best the cameras can offer.

Why not shoot some targets?

For color, shoot a color-patch target such as the 24-patch X-rite Macbeth? Each patch has a defined color which you can compare to your C1/LR's color-picker and thereby determine color accuracy.

For resolution, shoot a slant-edge, and compare edge-spread response with a suitable application. There are a few, ranging from free (ImageJ with a plug-in) to bloody expensive (Imatest).

Well, I could, but really at present I'm basing my views on subjective 'goodness' of my results in real-world clicking.

Something deep inside me niggles away saying that DNG isn't as 'good' as X3F, but at the same time I wonder if I'm making the right adjustments (or no adjustments?) with SPP. It's fun experimenting though.

You're on the right track with 'no adjustments', IMHO. Well, perhaps 'minimal' ?

I try my hardest to set just the so-called 'exposure' slider to correct minor actual exposure errors and just the sharpness slider for less-than-perfect capture sharpness. I try to avoid the easy temptation of 'Fill Light' but don't always succeed.

Then off in 16-bit ProPhoto TIFF to my favorite editor which beats SPP on just about every front.

Adobe pushes DNG as a replacement for proprietary raw files. Would you "correctly" dump the raws, or save both your raw AND your DNG files?

Remember that the Foveon DNG is a version known as 'Linear' - it has been said that not every editor can open those ...

I use SPP simply as an X3F to TIFF converter and zero all sliders and options.  TBH I find SPP so slow to reflect adjustments that I just do the TIFF export and go for a cup of coffee or three while it deliberates.  Then I'm into Lightroom or sometimes Capture One.  I have a lot invested in LR, not only the Adobe subscription but a Behringer X-Touch Compact to drive it so I want to use those investments!  LR does of course handle Sigma DNGs, but, as you say, they're linear, so I wonder if LR can get the best from them.

Your mention of ProPhoto for TIFFs is interesting.  Must look into that.

CallMeAlan wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

CallMeAlan wrote:

Well said. I pretty much agree with all your findings.

I bought a dp0q brand new a few months go and was shocked rigid at how good the output was, and almost immediately thereafter I picked up an almost new dp2q. I love them both to bits and still can't believe the quality of the photographs it produces. I'm primarily landscape and general scenery.

The downside of these, and all Foveon cameras, is file format. Do I go DNG and Capture One / LightRoom? Or do I go X3F and struggle with SPP and take TIFFs across? I've played extensively with both routes, and still don't know if I'm getting the best the cameras can offer.

Why not shoot some targets?

For color, shoot a color-patch target such as the 24-patch X-rite Macbeth? Each patch has a defined color which you can compare to your C1/LR's color-picker and thereby determine color accuracy.

For resolution, shoot a slant-edge, and compare edge-spread response with a suitable application. There are a few, ranging from free (ImageJ with a plug-in) to bloody expensive (Imatest).

Well, I could, but really at present I'm basing my views on subjective 'goodness' of my results in real-world clicking.

Nothing wrong with that, as long we account for the compensating effects of human vision.

Something deep inside me niggles away saying that DNG isn't as 'good' as X3F, but at the same time I wonder if I'm making the right adjustments (or no adjustments?) with SPP. It's fun experimenting though.

You're on the right track with 'no adjustments', IMHO. Well, perhaps 'minimal' ?

I try my hardest to set just the so-called 'exposure' slider to correct minor actual exposure errors and just the sharpness slider for less-than-perfect capture sharpness. I try to avoid the easy temptation of 'Fill Light' but don't always succeed.

Then off in 16-bit ProPhoto TIFF to my favorite editor which beats SPP on just about every front.

Adobe pushes DNG as a replacement for proprietary raw files. Would you "correctly" dump the raws, or save both your raw AND your DNG files?

Remember that the Foveon DNG is a version known as 'Linear' - it has been said that not every editor can open those ...

I use SPP simply as an X3F to TIFF converter and zero all sliders and options. TBH I find SPP so slow to reflect adjustments that I just do the TIFF export and go for a cup of coffee or three while it deliberates. Then I'm into Lightroom or sometimes Capture One. I have a lot invested in LR, not only the Adobe subscription but a Behringer X-Touch Compact to drive it so I want to use those investments! LR does of course handle Sigma DNGs, but, as you say, they're linear, so I wonder if LR can get the best from them.

Can't help you there, my computer is Adobe-free ...

Your mention of ProPhoto for TIFFs is interesting. Must look into that.

Just so's we're clear - I have the working color space in SPP set to sRGB (I don't print and I don't have a "wide gamut" monitor). I export in ProPhoto only because that is the native working color space of my serious editor (RawTherapee).

If I'm exporting to FastStone Viewer for less serious or for just illustrative work, then I go 8-bit sRGB TIFF ...

TN Args wrote:

SigmaChrome wrote:

Thanks, Richard. Quite a detailed and useful review.

Just one minor error (that I can spot):

"The DP Quattro comes in DP0, DP1, DP2 and DP3 type. They are the same camera and each has a fixed lens, the DP0 being the widest and the DP3 being essentially a modest fixed zoom."

None of Sigma's DP & dp cameras has a zoom lens -- they are all primes.

He meant telephoto. A lot of people think of a telephoto lens as 'zoomed-in' lens.

Well, a lot of people are wrong!

When you think about it, the words 'zoom' and 'prime' are equally ludicrous. The real terms are variable focal length, and fixed focal length.

Ying tong yiddle I po!

I couldn't agree with you guys more. I go back to film days when ISO 1600 was high and IQ was pretty bad. If I shot BIF or sports then the Sigmas would not be the ideal equipment but for my work, landscapes and macro and portraits, ISO 100 is no problem at all.

All in in all,  I would be quite content to shoot with my SD1 and SDQ indefinitely. I own a D800 and XT2, neither come close to the IQ I get (at ISO 100) with the Sigmas. I am still amazed at the clarity and definition. IMHO Bayer images can not compete with my Sigmas.

I look forward to the FF model, and will buy it.