Gvie up on SD1? Pentax K-1/ar7ii? Need advice.

If you want a functional Sigma "ILC" camera go and buy an sdQ or sdQ-H. Easy to use, great color, slap a 17-70 C lens on the sdQ and you are good to go.

But I regard the SD1M as a good to excellent camera if you are willing to live with its various foibles. The Merrill sensor is unique, in both good and bad ways. If your sole issue is wide angle shots buy a DP1m.

Or maybe just buy a DP2M if you want that Merrill look.

No, the various Bayer camera images are not going to look like Foveon images.

What you might want to consider is that Sigma cameras currently produce images that more resemble slide film images compared to the color print film look from CFA and Bayer cameras.

If I were you, I would get a different lens, and try it with that first. Where are you? Maybe I can send you a lens to try, or you could get this one:

https://www.adorama.com/sg102035sga.html

https://www.adorama.com/sg1770nsgk.html

This second one is a great walk-around lens, from what I hear, and it's got OS, which is nice for handholding shot. Those two lenses would compliment each other.

PTemple wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

If I were you, I would get a different lens, and try it with that first. Where are you? Maybe I can send you a lens to try, or you could get this one:

https://www.adorama.com/sg102035sga.html

https://www.adorama.com/sg1770nsgk.html

This second one is a great walk-around lens, from what I hear, and it's got OS, which is nice for handholding shot. Those two lenses would compliment each other.

I really appreciate that Scott, thanks for the input/gesture! I might get one of those if I stick with the camera. They actually tested those two lenses on my camera and both produced blurry images with lots of CA. And they also had a slight magenta/green shift, although less than my 12-24. But.....it VERY well might have just been the copies they used...

It seems to me like the refurbished lenses at Sigma are not merely open box, but truly damaged. The 12-24mm I was issued with the SD1 body not only has the weird uneven focus plane inherent to it's design (see imaging resource), but mine is also usually out of focus more in one corner than it is in the other 3....or it has 1 strangely tack sharp corner out of 4. Makes no sense, especially at f11. I believe it was a lemon or got dropped, was returned to sigma, and put back on the shelf as "refurbished."

Kinda makes me suspicious of all the refurbished lenses from them. Or just the quality control on their non-art lenses in general.

Really hoping they can offer me a price break on a different lens, perhaps a new one. Not refurbished. Surely there must be some sort of compensation for the trouble I've been through with them and the fact that I'm returning the lens it came with. It's been 2 months of emails--many of them ignored for days or weeks, where I had to call in multiple times to get their attention again. And for half of that two months they've had my camera and I've been totally without a cam, having sold my other dslr. It's getting to be ridiculous.

At this point I admire your dedication, and/or curiosity.

In any event, I went from an SD10 (that made some excellent images) to the sdQ, which is a real marvel of a camera, as far as I am concerned. But the SD1M has its issues. If you want an easy to use Merrill you probably want a DPM series, not the SD...But that's just my opinion.

I still think you would be pleased with the sdQ, or the H version, and a 17-70 OS lens.

I think the OS is a necessity for the sd cameras because Sigma/Foveon cameras  like ISO 100 most of all, and so camera/lens movement is a real issue.

I have never had an SD1 myself but used to have DP1M as my main camera for a few years (and it has the same Merrill sensor as SD1). I sold it, then got a Pentax K-1 (which I still have). For some time during last summer, I also had DP1 and SD10, which I used for some fun photography but then sold after the summer. (I don't see a point in storing camera gear which I do not have time to use).

I think I owe very much for DP1M as it really taught me a lot about light and prhotography, i.e. how to survive with a very limited DR. Pentax gear is a good option among the Bayer matrix crowd but even with Pixel Shift, does not even get close to the Merril sensor IQ in good light. In low light or high contrast situations, the situation is obviously reversed.

My plan is to get the FF Foveon once it comes out and keep the K-1 as my stormy weather camera. Now, Sigma, please get it out.

paulawd wrote:

Assume the RGB filters to be bandpass with very abrupt cutoffs, no overlap in response by the R, G or B filter.

This is probably not the most correct assumption about Bayer filters. Quick google revealed for example next posting with nice graph: photo.stackexchange.com

absquatulate wrote:

richard stone wrote:

If you want a functional Sigma "ILC" camera go and buy an sdQ or sdQ-H. Easy to use, great color, slap a 17-70 C lens on the sdQ and you are good to go.

But I regard the SD1M as a good to excellent camera if you are willing to live with its various foibles. The Merrill sensor is unique, in both good and bad ways. If your sole issue is wide angle shots buy a DP1m.

Or maybe just buy a DP2M if you want that Merrill look.

No, the various Bayer camera images are not going to look like Foveon images.

What you might want to consider is that Sigma cameras currently produce images that more resemble slide film images compared to the color print film look from CFA and Bayer cameras.

This +1, the SD-Q or H are you best bet, they're better in too many important ways. Better focusing, liveview, wide angle lenses work fine, better write speeds, SFD mode etc. The SDQ has to be the best bang for buck getting into foveon, with the SDQ-H just a bit behind, being more expensive. I don't lose any sleep on what the SD-Q can't do, I just concentrate on what it does best, and it never disappoints.

absquatulate,

Very well said.

S

DMillier wrote:

Valonkuvaaja wrote:

<>. Pentax gear is a good option among the Bayer matrix crowd but even with Pixel Shift, does not even get close to the Merril sensor IQ in good light. In low light or high contrast situations, the situation is obviously reversed.

I have a K5 but have never used a high resolution Bayer camera like the K1.

I do have a DP2M, however. And I find the bolded sentence very difficult to believe, TBH.

I recently did a direct tripod mounted comparison shootout between my DP2M, 16MP m4/3 camera and 20MP 1" sensor FZ1000 bridge and could see absolutely no difference in image quality between them in the prints I made. None.

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between cameras but that all cameras today are really good and differences are marginal and subtle and only really exposed under special conditions. For "normal" photography you are unlikely to perceive any real differences. Any advantage that a Merrill sensor or a high resolution full frame Bayer has over lesser cameras is only going to be visible under unusual conditions (such as very large prints or when looking at 1:1 on screen). That is a very different reality from "not even close".

I agree, especially as regards the inclusion of "normal" photography. Earlier, I already said:

"The perceived quality of an image has a lot to do with the viewing medium and it's settings"

May I ask what you regard as normal photography, Dave?

As regards "looking at 1:1 on screen", I am in the habit of shooting the Merrill in low-res, and I do open the 2336x1568px images at 1:1 on my 1920x1200px screen - being quite happy to scroll around a bit. I might crop a bit for composition but I never up-size and I never print.

So, may I claim an exemption from that particular "unusual condition" because it is quite usual for me?

DMillier wrote:

I recently did a direct tripod mounted comparison shootout between my DP2M, 16MP m4/3 camera and 20MP 1" sensor FZ1000 bridge and could see absolutely no difference in image quality between them in the prints I made. None.

The lens on my DP2M is much better than the lens on my FZ1000.   I owned a Leica with a fantastic Summilux lens for many decades and I loved the sharpness and detail I got from that camera and that has become a benchmark for me.  The pictures from my DP2M can be beautifully sharp, as good as the Leica but the pictures from my FZ1000 always leave a little to be desired.  How much of that difference is due to the sensor and how much due to the lens is hard to say, but I do know that when I take both the DP2M and the FZ (or my NEX 7) on a trip, my favourite pictures invariably come from the DP.

I don't know what you mean by "quality", and I don't know how big you print,  and I don't know your subject matter but there must have been some slight differences between the prints.  Three different lenses, sensors, and developing softwares should have produced slight differences in the final results even though all three systems are very good.  Did you mean that the prints were identical, or did you mean that you liked them all equally?

Jan

absquatulate wrote:

DMillier wrote:

Valonkuvaaja wrote:

I have never had an SD1 myself but used to have DP1M as my main camera for a few years (and it has the same Merrill sensor as SD1). I sold it, then got a Pentax K-1 (which I still have). For some time during last summer, I also had DP1 and SD10, which I used for some fun photography but then sold after the summer. (I don't see a point in storing camera gear which I do not have time to use).

I think I owe very much for DP1M as it really taught me a lot about light and prhotography, i.e. how to survive with a very limited DR. Pentax gear is a good option among the Bayer matrix crowd but even with Pixel Shift, does not even get close to the Merril sensor IQ in good light. In low light or high contrast situations, the situation is obviously reversed.

My plan is to get the FF Foveon once it comes out and keep the K-1 as my stormy weather camera. Now, Sigma, please get it out.

I have a K5 but have never used a high resolution Bayer camera like the K1.

I do have a DP2M, however. And I find the bolded sentence very difficult to believe, TBH.

I recently did a direct tripod mounted comparison shootout between my DP2M, 16MP m4/3 camera and 20MP 1" sensor FZ1000 bridge and could see absolutely no difference in image quality between them in the prints I made. None.

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between cameras but that all cameras today are really good and differences are marginal and subtle and only really exposed under special conditions. For "normal" photography you are unlikely to perceive any real differences. Any advantage that a Merrill sensor or a high resolution full frame Bayer has over lesser cameras is only going to be visible under unusual conditions (such as very large prints or when looking at 1:1 on screen). That is a very different reality from "not even close".

I have a strong dislike of exaggeration of this type so forgive me if I come across as overly harsh but I really wish that when people make blanket emotional statements like yours above, that they would caveat it by stating very clearly under what conditions they achieve their results. Otherwise, you rish misleading people who have no experience of their own and are relying on your statements.

What size print did you do this comparison at? that's rather important in the context of what you said.

Yes. Size is a good start, but it's also worthwhile to consider the nature of the images as well, and the vision (in terms of visual acuity and image purpose, etc.) of the creator and viewer. Is the creator someone who deliberately un-sharpens the image? In SPP terms, sharpen set at -1.0 or some such number... And "detail" set all the way to the left...

There is also the difference between (photographic) "splitters and lumpers" to consider. Does one look at an image with regard to the details, or as to the image as a whole? Obviously we all do some of both, but everyone has leanings, one way or the other.

And then we have the printer. Meaning both the machine and the person doing the printing.

Lots of variables.

Personally, for myself, there is both a delicacy and an intensity to the Foveon images that appeals to me. Not everyone cares, or even notices such things. I am okay with that. They are free to say they can't see any difference. Why question their honesty? Just agree that they cannot see any difference? Does everyone have the same vision?

There are various tests that can be done in terms of detail and resolution (and words with similar import) and from what I know the Foveon sensors do very well on such actual tests.

Speaking of all this: see the architectural images from Kirk Tuck with the 45mm C for L mount. I really want to see how that lens works on a FF Foveon sensor.

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2020/03/sunday-show-notes-week-in-rear-view.html

DMillier wrote:

Valonkuvaaja wrote:

Sorry for coming back to this after all this delay. I am currently not shooting Sigma (although I am actively waiting for the FF) so do not come back to this forum that often. Obviously my statement would need a a few more details. Think about golden hour! In those conditions, the sky is about the same lightness as ground, and the still bright horizon sends the beautiful warm rays to whatever you have in the foreground. With DP1M, I learned to use those moments. To be more precise, those were often the only moments of a day when DP1M came out of its pouch. You are asking me to state the conditions, so yes, this is what I mean with "good light" in my earlier answer. With Pentax K-1, I have yet to see similar structure and 3D pop as I did with Sigma DP1M in those conditions.

To further elaborate: this is not really about the measurable resolution. (Although I must say that it is amazing how in DP1M images, you can have some text, like in a sign or mural, in the photo where the character lines, forming the character shapes, are one pixel wide with no fuzzy half-way black pixels, like you always have with a Bayer sensor). I assume it is more about the finer grading of colour shades or something. Like film has its distinct look, so does Foveon. Maybe the root cause even is the same - less discontinuity in colour grading leading into more natural looking image?

Valonkuvaaja wrote:

<> ... I assume it is more about the finer grading of colour shades or something. Like film has its distinct look, so does Foveon. Maybe the root cause even is the same - less discontinuity in colour grading leading into more natural looking image?

Maybe.

This might help:

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf