Disheartening Very Disheartening

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Thank you all for the support and pointers, I bought from Japan and usually I have had on average good experiences with them, they tend to care quite a bit to their gear (although this doesn’t look “as new” by any means from pics).

Regarding the few “real” MPs, based on my other Foveon’s experience, I know that the images will likely stack favourably even to 14-16MP Bayer files

Just really curious about the colours, which in my opinion were never one of the Merrill's real forte. Cheers

I think the Merrill colours depend mainly on SPP, rather than the camera. I'm happy with the colours from my DP3M, as processed to TIF in SPP.

From the sdQH and the fp, I save DNG files and process them with an input profile made using the Color Checker, so SPP is not involved.

Don

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

• D Cox wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Thank you all for the support and pointers, I bought from Japan and usually I have had on average good experiences with them, they tend to care quite a bit to their gear (although this doesn’t look “as new” by any means from pics).

Regarding the few “real” MPs, based on my other Foveon’s experience, I know that the images will likely stack favourably even to 14-16MP Bayer files

Just really curious about the colours, which in my opinion were never one of the Merrill's real forte. Cheers

I think the Merrill colours depend mainly on SPP, rather than the camera. I'm happy with the colours from my DP3M, as processed to TIF in SPP.

From the sdQH and the fp, I save DNG files and process them with an input profile made using the Color Checker, so SPP is not involved.

Don

The DP3m to me appears to have the best colors of all the Merrills out of the box, it looks like Sigma tweaked something in it.

But usually I still prefer Quattros’ colors as a starting point in SPP.

DMillier wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Thank you all for the support and pointers, I bought from Japan and usually I have had on average good experiences with them, they tend to care quite a bit to their gear (although this doesn’t look “as new” by any means from pics).

Regarding the few “real” MPs, based on my other Foveon’s experience, I know that the images will likely stack favourably even to 14-16MP Bayer files

Just really curious about the colours, which in my opinion were never one of the Merrills real forte. Cheers

Interesting how opinions differ so widely.

Eyesight varies widely.

I've recently undertaken a re-organisation of my 20 year old Lightroom archive. For some reason I organised my files by camera (which was ok in the early years but is now a mess). I've resorted them by year so I can carry out a thorough weeding process ahead of categorising the surviving images by genre to feed my work in progress re-organisation of my website. Phew, that is a lot of re-organisation. I'm glad that for the last 3 years since I moved to darktable, I've followed a more rational plan.

In the process of doing so, I am now able to view every image in the archive in chronological order separate from the camera it was shot on, which means colour differences between cameras really stand out starkly.

And do you know what I discovered? The Foveon images from the SD9, SD14 and DP1 (classic) really stand out from the crowd. For all the wrong reasons. The colour is terrible. Yellow casts, green casts, yellow/green casts, blown dayglo magentas. To the point where most of them are unusable with my 2022 eyes. But not so the DP2M shots. They pretty much blend in with my Bayer shots: "normal" looking balanced colour.

Those early Foveon cameras are all different for colour and mostly bad. Sigma clearly did a lot of experimentation with colour from model to model, trying to decide how they wanted it to render. It took them a while to get it right (with the SD15, I would judge).

I wouldn't go back, and I'd be very cautious about upcoming cameras. Foveon really struggles to get consistent plausible colour IMO, it is clearly much harder than with Bayer CFA sensors, the cameras seem balanced on a colour knife-edge.

CFA cameras' colour is minutely affected by the mix of dyes in the CFA but 99% of the colour is determined by the colour profile used in the raw convertor. If you don't like the colour from a CFA camera, it is easy to change it with a custom profile (DNG profile, if you use ACR/LR) to your taste. I'm not sure this is true of Foveon.

If you prefer the colour of the early models to the later models, all power to you, but not my choice.

Some older models may suit the artistic aims of particular photographers or projects, while not being suitable for everything.

Don

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

I would agree with you there, except that in some ways it is actually easier, believe it or not. Apparently the Quattros actually have better auto white balance than some of the Sony cameras from the same era. The Quattros don't have IBIS, but the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H do have lens options with include OS, such as the very good Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS Art. I don't know if an SD Quattro H with that lens would be considered easy to use or not. I've had so many digital cameras that I just couldn't be objective about that. I think it would be interesting to see a novice's viewpoint if I were to hand that person the Sigma, followed by handing them my Nikon D810 with a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G, followed by handing the same person a new Sony A7r V with a Sony 24-105mm lens (or something similar). I'd really like to do such a test with a few novices, having them shoot a few photos with all three cameras, and then getting them to view the photos on a large computer screen, and tell me what they think of each camera and the photos they were able to shoot.

I know I prefer the photos I could get from my SD Quattro H to the photos I can get from my Nikon D810 . . . most of the time. I also don't find the Nikon to be particularly nicer to handle and use, though focus is definitely faster and more trustworthy, and the Nikon is certainly quicker in every way. Plus, I'm very happy with the battery life of my Nikon, while I have to take lots of spare batteries when I go out with my Sigma (well . . . when I did go out with my Sigma cameras . . . right now my SD Quattro H does not work, and I sold my SD1 Merrill).

D Cox wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Thank you all for the support and pointers, I bought from Japan and usually I have had on average good experiences with them, they tend to care quite a bit to their gear (although this doesn’t look “as new” by any means from pics).

Regarding the few “real” MPs, based on my other Foveon’s experience, I know that the images will likely stack favourably even to 14-16MP Bayer files

Just really curious about the colours, which in my opinion were never one of the Merrill's real forte. Cheers

I think the Merrill colours depend mainly on SPP, rather than the camera. I'm happy with the colours from my DP3M, as processed to TIF in SPP.

It seems that color modes make a HUGE difference in the colors from the Sigma cameras . . . and no doubt any camera. For example, the film simulation modes in the Fuji cameras probably change the colors just as much or more than what Sigma's color modes do. It would be an interesting comparison to make between an SD Quattro and a Fuji X-T5, with all the different color modes. If I had the money to buy both cameras, I might just do such a comparison.

Here's a couple of links:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/08/18/fujifilm-film-simulations-definitive-guide

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65727437

From the sdQH and the fp, I save DNG files and process them with an input profile made using the Color Checker, so SPP is not involved.

Don

ELSOK4ME wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

I would agree with you there, except that in some ways it is actually easier, believe it or not. Apparently the Quattros actually have better auto white balance than some of the Sony cameras from the same era. The Quattros don't have IBIS, but the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H do have lens options with include OS, such as the very good Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS Art. I don't know if an SD Quattro H with that lens would be considered easy to use or not. I've had so many digital cameras that I just couldn't be objective about that. I think it would be interesting to see a novice's viewpoint if I were to hand that person the Sigma, followed by handing them my Nikon D810 with a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G, followed by handing the same person a new Sony A7r V with a Sony 24-105mm lens (or something similar). I'd really like to do such a test with a few novices, having them shoot a few photos with all three cameras, and then getting them to view the photos on a large computer screen, and tell me what they think of each camera and the photos they were able to shoot.

I know I prefer the photos I could get from my SD Quattro H to the photos I can get from my Nikon D810 . . . most of the time. I also don't find the Nikon to be particularly nicer to handle and use, though focus is definitely faster and more trustworthy, and the Nikon is certainly quicker in every way. Plus, I'm very happy with the battery life of my Nikon, while I have to take lots of spare batteries when I go out with my Sigma (well . . . when I did go out with my Sigma cameras . . . right now my SD Quattro H does not work, and I sold my SD1 Merrill).

aww man - NO Foveon ...

Not at the moment . . . but I'm building my Nikon system. Not too long ago I almost bought a used SD Quattro H, but the owner changed his mind about selling it. No worries though. I will eventually get one . . . unless the FFF comes out first, and I buy that instead. I still have my SA mount lenses, which I might end up using on a Sony A7r IV. I've been considering getting one of those, because I want something fast for shooting the upcoming eclipse.

Sure color modes make a huge difference, on the Merrills I almost always shoot Vivid, which I definitely prefer to Standard as a starting point, while on the Quattros I usually shoot Standard with a tad of saturation bumped up if needed (works pretty well for people's shots too in my opinion, definitely better than Portrait for my tastes).

Scottelly wrote:

ELSOK4ME wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

I would agree with you there, except that in some ways it is actually easier, believe it or not. Apparently the Quattros actually have better auto white balance than some of the Sony cameras from the same era. The Quattros don't have IBIS, but the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H do have lens options with include OS, such as the very good Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS Art. I don't know if an SD Quattro H with that lens would be considered easy to use or not. I've had so many digital cameras that I just couldn't be objective about that. I think it would be interesting to see a novice's viewpoint if I were to hand that person the Sigma, followed by handing them my Nikon D810 with a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G, followed by handing the same person a new Sony A7r V with a Sony 24-105mm lens (or something similar). I'd really like to do such a test with a few novices, having them shoot a few photos with all three cameras, and then getting them to view the photos on a large computer screen, and tell me what they think of each camera and the photos they were able to shoot.

I know I prefer the photos I could get from my SD Quattro H to the photos I can get from my Nikon D810 . . . most of the time. I also don't find the Nikon to be particularly nicer to handle and use, though focus is definitely faster and more trustworthy, and the Nikon is certainly quicker in every way. Plus, I'm very happy with the battery life of my Nikon, while I have to take lots of spare batteries when I go out with my Sigma (well . . . when I did go out with my Sigma cameras . . . right now my SD Quattro H does not work, and I sold my SD1 Merrill).

aww man - NO Foveon ...

Not at the moment . . . but I'm building my Nikon system. Not too long ago I almost bought a used SD Quattro H, but the owner changed his mind about selling it. No worries though. I will eventually get one . . . unless the FFF comes out first, and I buy that instead. I still have my SA mount lenses, which I might end up using on a Sony A7r IV. I've been considering getting one of those, because I want something fast for shooting the upcoming eclipse.

Scott,

Did you ever try to get your sd Q H repaired.? From the photos of it it seems that it would be easily enough to do, just requiring a new front plate or even straightening out the damaged one.  If it was mine I would do that. Better try than have it sitting there doing nothing.

S

Ceistinne wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

ELSOK4ME wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

I would agree with you there, except that in some ways it is actually easier, believe it or not. Apparently the Quattros actually have better auto white balance than some of the Sony cameras from the same era. The Quattros don't have IBIS, but the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H do have lens options with include OS, such as the very good Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS Art. I don't know if an SD Quattro H with that lens would be considered easy to use or not. I've had so many digital cameras that I just couldn't be objective about that. I think it would be interesting to see a novice's viewpoint if I were to hand that person the Sigma, followed by handing them my Nikon D810 with a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G, followed by handing the same person a new Sony A7r V with a Sony 24-105mm lens (or something similar). I'd really like to do such a test with a few novices, having them shoot a few photos with all three cameras, and then getting them to view the photos on a large computer screen, and tell me what they think of each camera and the photos they were able to shoot.

I know I prefer the photos I could get from my SD Quattro H to the photos I can get from my Nikon D810 . . . most of the time. I also don't find the Nikon to be particularly nicer to handle and use, though focus is definitely faster and more trustworthy, and the Nikon is certainly quicker in every way. Plus, I'm very happy with the battery life of my Nikon, while I have to take lots of spare batteries when I go out with my Sigma (well . . . when I did go out with my Sigma cameras . . . right now my SD Quattro H does not work, and I sold my SD1 Merrill).

aww man - NO Foveon ...

Not at the moment . . . but I'm building my Nikon system. Not too long ago I almost bought a used SD Quattro H, but the owner changed his mind about selling it. No worries though. I will eventually get one . . . unless the FFF comes out first, and I buy that instead. I still have my SA mount lenses, which I might end up using on a Sony A7r IV. I've been considering getting one of those, because I want something fast for shooting the upcoming eclipse.

Scott,

Did you ever try to get your sd Q H repaired.? From the photos of it it seems that it would be easily enough to do, just requiring a new front plate or even straightening out the damaged one. If it was mine I would do that. Better try than have it sitting there doing nothing.

S

No. I figured it would be better to put the money toward getting one that was in good shape, because I didn't want to take a gamble by spending money on it, and then it goes bad in six months or a year, because moisture gets in it or some other problem happens. Then I'd have to buy another one anyway. I know there's no guarantee a different camera will work for more than six months, and I know there's no guarantee the camera will stop working if I fix it, but I just didn't want to take the gamble. I'd rather feel more confident that the camera hasn't been damaged, and then repaired . . . like a car that's been in a bad accident. You know how it goes, right?

Scottelly wrote:

Ceistinne wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

ELSOK4ME wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

I would agree with you there, except that in some ways it is actually easier, believe it or not. Apparently the Quattros actually have better auto white balance than some of the Sony cameras from the same era. The Quattros don't have IBIS, but the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H do have lens options with include OS, such as the very good Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS Art. I don't know if an SD Quattro H with that lens would be considered easy to use or not. I've had so many digital cameras that I just couldn't be objective about that. I think it would be interesting to see a novice's viewpoint if I were to hand that person the Sigma, followed by handing them my Nikon D810 with a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G, followed by handing the same person a new Sony A7r V with a Sony 24-105mm lens (or something similar). I'd really like to do such a test with a few novices, having them shoot a few photos with all three cameras, and then getting them to view the photos on a large computer screen, and tell me what they think of each camera and the photos they were able to shoot.

I know I prefer the photos I could get from my SD Quattro H to the photos I can get from my Nikon D810 . . . most of the time. I also don't find the Nikon to be particularly nicer to handle and use, though focus is definitely faster and more trustworthy, and the Nikon is certainly quicker in every way. Plus, I'm very happy with the battery life of my Nikon, while I have to take lots of spare batteries when I go out with my Sigma (well . . . when I did go out with my Sigma cameras . . . right now my SD Quattro H does not work, and I sold my SD1 Merrill).

aww man - NO Foveon ...

Not at the moment . . . but I'm building my Nikon system. Not too long ago I almost bought a used SD Quattro H, but the owner changed his mind about selling it. No worries though. I will eventually get one . . . unless the FFF comes out first, and I buy that instead. I still have my SA mount lenses, which I might end up using on a Sony A7r IV. I've been considering getting one of those, because I want something fast for shooting the upcoming eclipse.

Scott,

Did you ever try to get your sd Q H repaired.? From the photos of it it seems that it would be easily enough to do, just requiring a new front plate or even straightening out the damaged one. If it was mine I would do that. Better try than have it sitting there doing nothing.

S

No. I figured it would be better to put the money toward getting one that was in good shape, because I didn't want to take a gamble by spending money on it, and then it goes bad in six months or a year, because moisture gets in it or some other problem happens. Then I'd have to buy another one anyway. I know there's no guarantee a different camera will work for more than six months, and I know there's no guarantee the camera will stop working if I fix it, but I just didn't want to take the gamble. I'd rather feel more confident that the camera hasn't been damaged, and then repaired . . . like a car that's been in a bad accident. You know how it goes, right?

Scott,

OK, I suppose that's a good enough reason not have it repaired but if Sigma repaired it it would as good as new.

I dropped my SD14 years ago, the focus screen and all with it popped out, the 18-50mm f 2.8 lens split in two. The repairer at the Sigma importers here at that time repaired both the camera and lens and they are both working perfectly right up to this day. I believe that the lens was better after the repair than it was before.

S

S

Ceistinne wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

Ceistinne wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

ELSOK4ME wrote:

Scottelly wrote:

Tirpitz666 wrote:

Guess the point was that Foveon-based cameras are much less forgiving that Bayer ones in terms of under/overexposure (depending on the sensor version).

If you add a general sluggishness in terms of AF and a good degree of shutter lag, I think it’s fair to say that on average Sigma cameras require quite a bit more of effort to get a “proper” shot vs a regular modern Bayer-based camera.

I would agree with you there, except that in some ways it is actually easier, believe it or not. Apparently the Quattros actually have better auto white balance than some of the Sony cameras from the same era. The Quattros don't have IBIS, but the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H do have lens options with include OS, such as the very good Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS Art. I don't know if an SD Quattro H with that lens would be considered easy to use or not. I've had so many digital cameras that I just couldn't be objective about that. I think it would be interesting to see a novice's viewpoint if I were to hand that person the Sigma, followed by handing them my Nikon D810 with a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR G, followed by handing the same person a new Sony A7r V with a Sony 24-105mm lens (or something similar). I'd really like to do such a test with a few novices, having them shoot a few photos with all three cameras, and then getting them to view the photos on a large computer screen, and tell me what they think of each camera and the photos they were able to shoot.

I know I prefer the photos I could get from my SD Quattro H to the photos I can get from my Nikon D810 . . . most of the time. I also don't find the Nikon to be particularly nicer to handle and use, though focus is definitely faster and more trustworthy, and the Nikon is certainly quicker in every way. Plus, I'm very happy with the battery life of my Nikon, while I have to take lots of spare batteries when I go out with my Sigma (well . . . when I did go out with my Sigma cameras . . . right now my SD Quattro H does not work, and I sold my SD1 Merrill).

aww man - NO Foveon ...

Not at the moment . . . but I'm building my Nikon system. Not too long ago I almost bought a used SD Quattro H, but the owner changed his mind about selling it. No worries though. I will eventually get one . . . unless the FFF comes out first, and I buy that instead. I still have my SA mount lenses, which I might end up using on a Sony A7r IV. I've been considering getting one of those, because I want something fast for shooting the upcoming eclipse.

Scott,

Did you ever try to get your sd Q H repaired.? From the photos of it it seems that it would be easily enough to do, just requiring a new front plate or even straightening out the damaged one. If it was mine I would do that. Better try than have it sitting there doing nothing.

S

No. I figured it would be better to put the money toward getting one that was in good shape, because I didn't want to take a gamble by spending money on it, and then it goes bad in six months or a year, because moisture gets in it or some other problem happens. Then I'd have to buy another one anyway. I know there's no guarantee a different camera will work for more than six months, and I know there's no guarantee the camera will stop working if I fix it, but I just didn't want to take the gamble. I'd rather feel more confident that the camera hasn't been damaged, and then repaired . . . like a car that's been in a bad accident. You know how it goes, right?

Scott,

OK, I suppose that's a good enough reason not have it repaired but if Sigma repaired it it would as good as new.

I dropped my SD14 years ago, the focus screen and all with it popped out, the 18-50mm f 2.8 lens split in two. The repairer at the Sigma importers here at that time repaired both the camera and lens and they are both working perfectly right up to this day. I believe that the lens was better after the repair than it was before.

S

S

Hmmm . . . thanks for that. Maybe I'm being silly. 🤔