Will You Get Sigma's 20 MP/layer Full-Frame Camera?

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

Sigma will surely call it a 60 MP camera, which will make it the "highest resolution" camera Sigma has ever made. It will surely capture more "information" than any previous Sigma camera . . . but it will not produce files with greater resolution than the SD Quattro H.

It is slightly higher resolution (5520 x 3680 for the L, 5,440 × 3,616 for the H).

Actually, photos from the H are 6,192 x 4,128.

Huh! Thanks to you and FDecker for pointing out my error here, you'd think after processing so many H pictures I would know the resolution!

That does kind of make me think twice, as I am hesitant to lose some resolution... on the other other hand all of the other benefits are still there. I guess another one is that it would be less demanding for lenses than the H has been, so that would be a plus... and seeing what a really hi res Merrill style sensor could do is too appealing to pass up.

 

[Manzur Fahim]

I think this new camera will give you a closer medium format look than the current Quattro H. You won't get the resolution, true. But the medium format look is more than just the resolution. I remember Hasselblad H3D-31 (31mp) gave a distinct look over the D800 where D800 had more resolution. I believe this new FF Merrill with its larger, cleaner pixel will take you close to medium format look, just not the resolution.

So do you think the 20 MP of the full-frame Sigma will match a 39 MP medium format Hasselblad? I believe the SD Quattro H matches a 51 MP Pentax 645 Z. I may be smoking crack, but I was under the impression that the original Quattro could match the 645 D and the H can match the 645 Z. If that is indeed the case, and if the Quattro doesn't punch above its weight class as much as the Merrill did, then maybe the full-frame Sigma will be able to match the 645 Z. Unfortunately I don't have a 645 Z to compare against my SD Quattro H to prove my point, but I did make this at one point:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58046617

I did this too: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60395404

No, I cannot tell that for sure. What I meant is resolution is not everything, because a 31MP medium format could outperform a D800 36MP FF sensor, and the FF sensor tech was more advanced than the old Hasselblad H3D-31.

Thing with dpreview example image is it is just a flatboard, it does not represent how a camera can render at a real-life scenario. I have never used 645z, neither a sd Quattro H. Pentax 645D was actually better at skin rendering due to the CCD sensor.

Merrill had a great rendering, and I think it will only get better with a larger sensor. I could be wrong, but Sigma is bringing back the 1:1:1 for one reason only it seems: Ultimate image quality. So it should be significant I think. Only time will tell.

Ultimately, I think Sigma will maintain their image of very good low-ISO image quality for a good value, if Sigma can keep the price of the new camera to less than $2,000. The SD Quattro H was under $1,000 for a while, so I do think that's a possibility . . . and I figure it will produce image quality about as good as what a 39 MP medium format camera from Hasselblad (or Pentax . . . i.e. the 645 D) could produce, and possibly competing with the image quality from the 645 Z. I just don't see it competing with the likes of the $10,000 Fuji that's coming though . . . not that it needs to do that.

I do wish they'll keep the price below $2000, it is a niche market for Sigma cameras, and a great price would attract many. I was actually looking for a used 645D, maybe I can get one for cheap and see how it is

 

[D Cox]

Sigma will surely call it a 60 MP camera, which will make it the "highest resolution" camera Sigma has ever made. It will surely capture more "information" than any previous Sigma camera . . . but it will not produce files with greater resolution than the SD Quattro H.

It is slightly higher resolution (5520 x 3680 for the L, 5,440 × 3,616 for the H).

Actually, photos from the H are 6,192 x 4,128.

Huh! Thanks to you and FDecker for pointing out my error here, you'd think after processing so many H pictures I would know the resolution!

That does kind of make me think twice, as I am hesitant to lose some resolution... on the other other hand all of the other benefits are still there. I guess another one is that it would be less demanding for lenses than the H has been, so that would be a plus... and seeing what a really hi res Merrill style sensor could do is too appealing to pass up.

You can keep your H for when you want to shoot high resolution monochrome pictures. The resale value of an sdQH next year isn't going to make it worth selling.

 

[joe173]

The megapixels race reminds me, a computer nerd, of the MegaHertz/GigaHertz race in computer CPUs. Everyone obsessed over GHz until they realized that a) what they had was often fast enough b) straight line computation performance (i.e. a single task) was not the full measure of desirability.

Exactly. Too much emPHAsis on the wrong things/syllables

20MP of Foveon non-Bayer is more than enough for anything a person reasonably wants to do. 20MP Foveon is roughly equivalent to 36MP Bayer and with smart/careful Photoshop work you could easily upsize it to 72MP Bayer equivalence.

If you are doing anything above 20x30inch prints, you are an outlier... I am old enough to remember that getting a "good" 20x24 from low-ISO 35mm or medium format, was considered to be the mark of a craftsman.

If you need that size, please consider film, a 4x5 or larger and a drum scanner. It sounds terrifying. But there is a process. Use that system for really large print needs. I seriously doubt you will find a thousand scenes warrant the ultimate resolution. Maybe .01% of the photos might need it. It's going to be a long while before digital sensors offer that level of quality. Maybe in 15-20 years. People underestimate film based on scanning with crappy/low-end middling type scanners or using a DSLR for scanning film. Neither do it justice.

(Aside: I know an artist and her artist husband, they both love big canvases but realized that they don't even have a big enough house to display everything....)

I went to visit my brother who lives in a 3rd World country; not knowing how violent it would be (turns out I was safe the entire time I was there), I took a Sony DSC-R1 I had. The issue was not the megapixels but my ability!

If the Foveon FF looks good enough I will buy it. It will take Leica ($$$) and Panasonic (will drop in price on the used market) lenses as well as Sigma lenses.

BTW: The sensor used in Pentax 645Z, Hasselblad X1D and Fuji 50 is EXACTLY the same sensor.

 

[LasseS]

Didn't see that coming. Sigma makes the camera, and Leica puts their Red Dot on it. Possibly the only way Sigma could actually charge enough to cover their costs.

Jan

This would go against Sigma making their own cameras. I do not see a Leica branded Sigma camera coming- it is no longer Sigma at that point. The intent at Sigma is to continue making Sigma branded cameras.

Agree.

I would be surprised if, as an example, native L mount Sigma or Panasonic lenses would work (electronically) with a L mount Leica camera- even though the lens may physically mount to the camera. And native L mount Leica lenses may not work on the other cameras.

Disagree: The alliance is precisely about enabling a consumer to mix Leica lens with Panasonic camera or Sigma lens with Leica camera. That includes aperture and focus control.

Sigma and Leica are not going to go after the video features of Panasonic, either.

Agree.

Agree, and the quality of Sigma glass today is equal to or better than anything out there.

 

[SigmaChrome]

I never liked Quattro, found at least the early pics I saw really noisy/blotchy at low ISO

if less noisy than SD1 (by 2 stops…)

if it can do 1920x1080 video (could binned 4 pixels to 1 for video)

then, it could be hard to resist

but I "fear" that Leica will use this sensor and if they do, this could push the price up

rd

I would say that there is Zero chance of this happening. The L-mount alliance is solely concerned with the lens mount and all the associated technology. Sigma are fully committed to Foveon sensor tech for their cameras. It gives them a way of demonstrating their uniqueness to the world. That's not something they are prepared to give up lightly.

 

[SigmaChrome]

Even though I love the idea of a Sigma full frame camera, I am still very attached to the APS-C format. I like that I can now use fast Sigma glass on the SD1 Merrill and get results that are so close to what I'd get with a FF.

I'm philosophically kind of half in the Fuji camp too, with their refusal to go full frame but to also embrace medium format. It makes perfect sense to me. I can do pretty much anything I need with my APS-C cameras, and if I really want to emphasize shallow DOF etc, then why not go the whole hog and go MF?

Nevertheless, I will no doubt be very tempted to go down the FF path if Sigma's new camera is as good as we hope it will be. But I hope they continue to produce APS-C SD and DP cameras as I cannot think of one good reason to abandon that wonderful, rich heritage.

 

[richard stone]

I'm not "planning" to get the L mount, but I figure I just might, eventually, depending on price. I like the idea of the FF sensor size and 20MP per layer. The image results, both color and detail "resolution" should be excellent. Micro-contrast should be superb.

My point of view, however, is something like this:

My sdQ is a very well made and implemented "quattro architecture" camera with excellent detail resolution and great color. I usually do not print beyond medium-sized final prints, and I generally use the whole image frame. Most of the time I make 8x10 prints. I like the BW images from the sdQ.

So: As it is now I don't come close to what the sdQ camera can do.

Similarly, as I see it, unless "post-processing" is done with some real care and skill, the difference between a good sdQ image and a good 20MP FF image is not going to be that great.

I do not generally take pictures of clouds.

And honestly, if I want a MF image or, if I may be so bold, if anyone does, the best plan is to buy and use a MF camera and be done. MF just has a different (and I think better) look and feel than even FF.

 

[richard stone]

Even though I love the idea of a Sigma full frame camera, I am still very attached to the APS-C format. I like that I can now use fast Sigma glass on the SD1 Merrill and get results that are so close to what I'd get with a FF.

I'm philosophically kind of half in the Fuji camp too, with their refusal to go full frame but to also embrace medium format. It makes perfect sense to me. I can do pretty much anything I need with my APS-C cameras, and if I really want to emphasize shallow DOF etc, then why not go the whole hog and go MF?

Nevertheless, I will no doubt be very tempted to go down the FF path if Sigma's new camera is as good as we hope it will be. But I hope they continue to produce APS-C SD and DP cameras as I cannot think of one good reason to abandon that wonderful, rich heritage.

Yes, and:

Most of the "issues" I have with the sdQ stem from my own failure to use a tripod often enough.

The thing with MF is that you know it begs for, and justifies, using a tripod, and the combination produces superb results.

 

[Scottelly]

Sigma will surely call it a 60 MP camera, which will make it the "highest resolution" camera Sigma has ever made. It will surely capture more "information" than any previous Sigma camera . . . but it will not produce files with greater resolution than the SD Quattro H.

It is slightly higher resolution (5520 x 3680 for the L, 5,440 × 3,616 for the H).

Actually, photos from the H are 6,192 x 4,128.

Huh! Thanks to you and FDecker for pointing out my error here, you'd think after processing so many H pictures I would know the resolution!

That does kind of make me think twice, as I am hesitant to lose some resolution... on the other other hand all of the other benefits are still there. I guess another one is that it would be less demanding for lenses than the H has been, so that would be a plus... and seeing what a really hi res Merrill style sensor could do is too appealing to pass up.

You can keep your H for when you want to shoot high resolution monochrome pictures. The resale value of an sdQH next year isn't going to make it worth selling.

If that's true, I might get another!

 

[ELSELS]

Scottelly, post: 62388827, member: 904360"]
Sigma will surely call it a 60 MP camera, which will make it the "highest resolution" camera Sigma has ever made. It will surely capture more "information" than any previous Sigma camera . . . but it will not produce files with greater resolution than the SD Quattro H.

It is slightly higher resolution (5520 x 3680 for the L, 5,440 × 3,616 for the H).

Actually, photos from the H are 6,192 x 4,128.

Huh! Thanks to you and FDecker for pointing out my error here, you'd think after processing so many H pictures I would know the resolution!

That does kind of make me think twice, as I am hesitant to lose some resolution... on the other other hand all of the other benefits are still there. I guess another one is that it would be less demanding for lenses than the H has been, so that would be a plus... and seeing what a really hi res Merrill style sensor could do is too appealing to pass up.

You can keep your H for when you want to shoot high resolution monochrome pictures. The resale value of an sdQH next year isn't going to make it worth selling.

If that's true, I might get another!


[/QUOTE]
Go for it Scott ---- Stock up.. Smiles...

 

[Scottelly]

I'm not "planning" to get the L mount, but I figure I just might, eventually, depending on price. I like the idea of the FF sensor size and 20MP per layer. The image results, both color and detail "resolution" should be excellent. Micro-contrast should be superb.

My point of view, however, is something like this:

My sdQ is a very well made and implemented "quattro architecture" camera with excellent detail resolution and great color. I usually do not print beyond medium-sized final prints, and I generally use the whole image frame. Most of the time I make 8x10 prints. I like the BW images from the sdQ.

So: As it is now I don't come close to what the sdQ camera can do.

Similarly, as I see it, unless "post-processing" is done with some real care and skill, the difference between a good sdQ image and a good 20MP FF image is not going to be that great.

I do not generally take pictures of clouds.

And honestly, if I want a MF image or, if I may be so bold, if anyone does, the best plan is to buy and use a MF camera and be done. MF just has a different (and I think better) look and feel than even FF.

I think for someone who had a 22 MP medium format camera, back when the Canon 16 MP full-frame 1Ds Mk II was all the range, and they were happy with that 22 MP camera, and they never felt a need for anything more, they might be quite happy with a full-frame camera today. The Nikon D850 and Canon 5Ds are really great camera - fast, lots of dynamic range, and very versatile cameras. They're also compact, in comparison to a medium format camera. The new Fuji will be a bit lighter and smaller than the Pentax 645 D/Z, but those lenses are still big, heavy, and expensive. I won't even mention Hasselblad. Certainly I could get a used Pentax 645 D. They're amazingly good value today, but they aren't what I want. In fact, I think my little SD Quattro H offers images with just as much detail. A Nikon D850 surely out-resolves the 39 MP sensor in the Pentax, being 45 MP, but maybe not. Surely the Nikon camera is much more usable, portable, and reliable. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. I work for a guy who has a 40 MP Hasselblad. He got the D850 to replace the D810, which he sold to me. Now he almost never uses the Hasselblad, and I'm sure that Hasselblad offers pretty much the exact same image quality as the Pentax 645 D.

The 100 MP Fuji will surely out-resolve my 25.5 MP SD Quattro H, the 20 MP full-frame Sigma, and any other 135 (35 mm) "full-frame" camera. This is why I'm considering getting one, if at some point I can afford it. I doubt I'll get it before I go sailing the Caribbean though. Maybe I'll come back, with the intent to get a bigger boat, and at that point it will most-likely make sense to go for a used 100 MP Fuji, with three or four lenses (probably costing well over $10,000). I guess I'll probably still end up taking an L-mount system, for portability, long-range shots of animals and what not, and for shooting video.

 

[saltydogstudios]

I'm not "planning" to get the L mount, but I figure I just might, eventually, depending on price. I like the idea of the FF sensor size and 20MP per layer. The image results, both color and detail "resolution" should be excellent. Micro-contrast should be superb.

My point of view, however, is something like this:

My sdQ is a very well made and implemented "quattro architecture" camera with excellent detail resolution and great color. I usually do not print beyond medium-sized final prints, and I generally use the whole image frame. Most of the time I make 8x10 prints. I like the BW images from the sdQ.

So: As it is now I don't come close to what the sdQ camera can do.

Similarly, as I see it, unless "post-processing" is done with some real care and skill, the difference between a good sdQ image and a good 20MP FF image is not going to be that great.

I do not generally take pictures of clouds.

And honestly, if I want a MF image or, if I may be so bold, if anyone does, the best plan is to buy and use a MF camera and be done. MF just has a different (and I think better) look and feel than even FF.

I think for someone who had a 22 MP medium format camera, back when the Canon 16 MP full-frame 1Ds Mk II was all the range, and they were happy with that 22 MP camera, and they never felt a need for anything more, they might be quite happy with a full-frame camera today. The Nikon D850 and Canon 5Ds are really great camera - fast, lots of dynamic range, and very versatile cameras. They're also compact, in comparison to a medium format camera. The new Fuji will be a bit lighter and smaller than the Pentax 645 D/Z, but those lenses are still big, heavy, and expensive. I won't even mention Hasselblad. Certainly I could get a used Pentax 645 D. They're amazingly good value today, but they aren't what I want. In fact, I think my little SD Quattro H offers images with just as much detail. A Nikon D850 surely out-resolves the 39 MP sensor in the Pentax, being 45 MP, but maybe not. Surely the Nikon camera is much more usable, portable, and reliable. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. I work for a guy who has a 40 MP Hasselblad. He got the D850 to replace the D810, which he sold to me. Now he almost never uses the Hasselblad, and I'm sure that Hasselblad offers pretty much the exact same image quality as the Pentax 645 D.

The 100 MP Fuji will surely out-resolve my 25.5 MP SD Quattro H, the 20 MP full-frame Sigma, and any other 135 (35 mm) "full-frame" camera. This is why I'm considering getting one, if at some point I can afford it. I doubt I'll get it before I go sailing the Caribbean though. Maybe I'll come back, with the intent to get a bigger boat, and at that point it will most-likely make sense to go for a used 100 MP Fuji, with three or four lenses (probably costing well over $10,000). I guess I'll probably still end up taking an L-mount system, for portability, long-range shots of animals and what not, and for shooting video.

If I were you, I would be thinking

• Light weight - you will be traveling. A lot. Like non-stop.
• Inexpensive (or at least affordably replaceable)
• Rugged / weather resistant
• Image stabilization (since you will be on a boat)

We all want to chase what's at the edge of what's possible - why spend the time taking the photo if you can't get every last bit of pleasure out of it after.

I've tasted 40+ megapixels quality (first with a DP Merrill and then with a Sony) and yeah - once you see what those can do, you don't want to go back.

But for 99% of my use case - my 24 megapixel Fuji X-Pro2 is just fine. I made the tough choice and sold the Sony because I didn't like the colors - going back to 24 megapixels.

If you already have a Nikon D810 and SD Quattro H - I'd say that's probably all the camera you need. Or sell them both and buy the new Panasonic - you can get the Foveon when it comes out & this will at least reduce the number of lenses you need to carry around / you can already use many of your lenses adapted.

I know you want to print big, but those will print big just fine. The Nikon is super rugged and the SD Quattro H will get you that Foveon look.

Then if you're really not happy - look at the 100mp GFX.

Or the Sigma Octavo due out in 2022 - it will be a 72 megapixel medium format 2:2:2 sensor (72+72+72 = 222 megapixels, 2x2x2 layers = 8 = Octavo).

--
It Gets Nerdy: https://medium.com/ice-cream-geometry
Sometimes I take photos: https://www.instagram.com/sodiumstudio/

* early april fools

 

[Sjak]

If size, weight and price are reasonable, I would love to own this camera. It would be an ideal day-time platform for my collection of vintage lenses.

Price is bound to drop at some point, so that can be overcome if launch price is not to my liking.

If size and/or weight is like the Panasonic, then I'll probably pass. Yes, I can carry a 1kg cam all day, but I simply do not want to ;-)

 

[danski0224]

You CAN'T compare the red channels only. That seems absurd to me.Where is the red in a photo of a blue car in front of a green hedge ... ?

Just in case you didn't get the graph:



Here's all the red in that photo:


GIMP>decompose to R,G,B>export red layer

Hmmm ... quite a lot of red there, right?

This is obviously fake, because this is a truck, not a car....



--
Moments in Time, a work in progress.... https://www.flickr.com/gp/142423236@N08/965cs3

 

[dlj]

Finally just bought an SD1M a year ago (it was on my 'to buy' list since a few months after launch, once I confirmed the quality was 'still' good enough). I am happy with it, but yes, sometimes it can appear a bit 'crunchy', but the 1:1:1 look was really important to my type of images. I also have an SD14, which changed photography for me, revitalizing me back to what got me into photography decades earlier.

I still love the SD14 the way people still love the SD9 or 10, but it's electrics (reminiscent of an 1980's era Chrysler) made it highly unreliable, and I increasingly hit a barrier where the lower resolution constrained how much I could subsequently crop or enlarge, forcing me to upgrade. I could live with the efforts of teasing realistic colour out of raws, for the combination of creamy smooth gradations along with microcontrast and seemingly limitless sharpness (when used with good glass and allowing for ample photon bombardment). That's what for me, most of all, made Foveons special.

I find myself often using the SD1M in Medium resolution mode and also often BW, because it still delivers me that Foveon goodness. Although display resolutions have increased in the last decade (ubiquity of HD, and increasingly 4HD), the slightly higher resolution of the SD1M in Medium resolution is usually 'good enough' for HD display or small to medium prints. It appears to me that there is some binning occurring when I use Medium resolution, which is enough to eliminate any 'crunchiness', to the point where I get all the benefits of the SD14, plus better BW (and a more reliable body). It seems to be all I need for now.

I do similarly intend (meaning, in a few years) to get the new FF 1:1:1, as the key features for me are incrementally higher resolution (just enough to accommodate 4HD displays and bigger prints), but most importantly, it has the magical combination of ingredients in a 1:1:1 Foveon sensor and beefy sensor site sizes, plus (I hope) all the goodies that come with a several year update for me (better display, faster internal processing, SFD, deeper raw bit depth), and the attractiveness of an L mount.

The reason I will have to wait is because I have amassed an arsenal of exclusively EX DC glass, which will all need to be replaced, unless Sigma decides to offer an 'electronic crop mode' function, which would drastically accelerate my switch-over (hint-joint, Sigma marketing).

 

[danski0224]

If I am not mistaken, the sdQH has a crop mode.

I would be surprised if Sigma does not include a crop mode in the upcoming "full frame" camera, but if it is not included, you can crop your own images

No need to wait for a crop mode

 

[dlj]

danski0224 wrote...

... ,but if it is not included, you can crop your own images

Haha. Low tech, but it completely evaded my considerations! So very true!

 

[mengaza]

If I am not mistaken, the sdQH has a crop mode.

I would be surprised if Sigma does not include a crop mode in the upcoming "full frame" camera, but if it is not included, you can crop your own images

No need to wait for a crop mode

should have crop mode because sigma plan to sell three apsc lens L mount, beginning of next year.

 

[Thomas Mottl]

the only reason that I will not buy it, is a price tag of 10k, but this will not happen.

I have so much SA lenses and also a few EF lenses. So the L mount might be my new home and a Panasonic will serve as add on for low light and faster things.