Sigma sd Quattro H real world samples gallery

I fail to see what can be achieved with a tiny sensor like an MFT. This is an APS-H and it's already on the limit of what I consider acceptable noise.

@Mescalamba, that's the worst excuse I've ever heard. Do you realize that CA may be 10 pixels wide?

This might be due to the layered design of the Foveon Sensor. I own that lens and does not show that amount of CA not even on a Canon 5DS R.
However I would assume that Lightroom should be able to handle it.

It more about colour space than colour depth which makes the colours of a foveon different (not more correct but then its not like bayer is perfect either). Different can be a good and bad thing. Myself I've found it extraordinary for landscapes but a bit off for people.

Yeah, perhaps color space is more appropriate to say. You feel like the image is more real, the colors more penetrating. I don't know, it's something very different that reminds me of film. Everything looks more real. It beats any other camera either for portrairts or anything else. I worked as a minilab operator for a few years and was trained by Kodak and Noritsu folks, and, well, in my opinion, nothing beats it.

Yea, I see it too. Not sure it would be an issue at normal viewing distances, but it's there.

The sigma does have a strange noise pattern, it's acceptable at ISO 100 but not acceptable by 400 which is kinda ridiculous for 2017. It does feel like a compact ccd sensor throwback at anything 400 and above. Colors all seem very off out of camera also and very hard to get anything usable out of shadows without major work, the yellow is so strong with magenta patterns. It does seem like an old ccd sensor camera with much better resolution but the same noise levels. I'd stick with the Fuji or a Sony over the sigma.

pkcpga:

I'm seeing banding at ISO 400 and above in these DNGs. But besides the very subtle bands in the ISO 400 example, I'm not seeing what I'd call significant noise. Noise is there, but nothing major. Makes me hope that future firmware can fix the banding at ISO 400.

Don't see banding until ISO 800 when starting with X3F files from another source.

But I'd not call this noise, and banding, akin to that from a compact CCD based camera. Now of course, my CCD Panasonic LX5 could be used at higher ISOs than this Sigma, with the later firmware, but the LX5 is an outlier.

There is definitely a yellow haze to anything in a shadow being recovered in Photoshop and magenta noise or fuzz in some highlights areas not shoot at 100. At 100 the details are amazing and they were in ccd sensors as well, specially old MF ones but anything above base like with this sigma the noise quickily creeps in and becomes a lot of work to correct if it's able to be corrected. So not only banding but definite noise and off colors. For my uses this becomes too much post work, maybe sigma can correct enough of this to make this camera useful but for now it takes too long to correct each photo unless your always shooting at 100. Hopefully than can correct it and make the camera usable to ISO 800 or hopefully 1600 otherwise for me it's too far behind today's cameras for my uses.

I have not tried x3f files and probably don't have the paitents to attempt since the dng file in Photoshop already require more work than I like to have.

It's in all the portraits both indoors and outdoors minus the one gentleman in the red shirt, in that photo there's a strong magenta hue that requires work to correct. It's also in a bunch of the bar scenes or restaurant scenes, very strong on the bar glass photo. I was thinking it's just poor white balance but it's a bit more complicated to correct than adjusting white balance in Photoshop. Not sure if the dng files from sigma are still a work in progress or if that's how the true raw files in sigma native form are as well since I'm only looking at the dng files.

The one with the peppers in the drink at ISO800 is just plain awful banding and tons of noise/grain. I'm just not really impressed when I can see this kind of behavior at normal viewing distance. At closer magnifications, it's ridiculous. I don't see a bright future for this camera.

@Howaboutraw - I haven't looked at the yellow haze yet, I've not spent a lot of time examining these dng's. But there's not a lot to like so far for me. I can see some of them being acceptable at smaller sizes or normal viewing distances, but image quality seems generally behind compared to the rest of the field.

@HowaboutRaw - I've got a few yet to examine. The bearded DPR staff member image is pretty good, but I have one of the outdoor flower shots and the oof areas just noise up too much. Same for the cherry trees with the blue sky in the background - too much noise for a bright blue sky. I don't understand it's doldrums punctuated by moments of brilliance. Maybe if I download more sample dng's, I'll see it as brilliance punctuated by moments of doldrums.

Go look at the 100mp phase one on the comparison page. Select you favourite camera with a reasonable pixel count. Select print comparison to resize the images to 8mp. Notice how much clearer the 100mp is even downsized (look at the foliage or sponges or brushes). That's the beauty of oversampling and why it is done for every form of recording (audio, imaging, communication).

@dr.noise, "This Ferrari's only advantage, the speed, vanishes as soon as you put it in a traffic jam"

Though I'm tired of irrelevant car comparison, I'll play along this time.

If this is the only Ferrai's advantage (your words, not mine), then it would be just a one trick pony, absolutely useless anywhere around me, where you can't drive above 80mph.

Isn't it quite obvious, if whatever theoretical advantage you think you may have, but you cannot realize it in reality, it's useless?

@Contra Mundum, Unlike Ferrari, nobody forces you to downsample your photos, so you really can realize the resolution advantage. This advantage is very real and not theoretical.

@Contra Mundum - Careful, you are using too much logic on this forum. Some posters here due not understand logic or objectivity.
If it was practical, I could produce a test that would bring down the chance of choosing the Foveon print or any other sensor type print accidently to 10% or less. Use the same size print and have a group of people match the print to the cameras. I would guess that the accuracy rate would be very small.

Well, i spend few hours with different samples that i dig thru inet and made quite big collection of x3f from sdq and sdqH made with different lenses and after SPP post sandy look gone and took all the details with it... ;)
Maybe someone can post some tutorial how to get rid of it, but there is not alot of function on spp anyway sooooo, i dont know... maybe after dancing with shaman drum you can achieve something good..?

I thought this too, but the abnormal look apes a medium format pro camera, and looks the part for portraitists, for instance.

Im talking about GAIN here. Its BAD! (noise and gain are totaly different things) What do you men by "organic looking"? Film gain? - nothing in common! been working with film (scaning on digital imagine Fuji Frontier) for years... i repeat - nothing in common!

'Sandy' image quality is only the result of naive processing of Quattro files. There is no need to have that result at all. A surprising number of 'old Sigma' users don't seem to have the basic processing skills to get the best from Quattro cameras, which, done properly, is the most detailed, clear and sharp, colour-accurate images ever from a Sigma camera. The poisonous angry ranting from 'old Sigma' users smacks of a fundamentalist religious movement (because Quattro is not the One True Way) and not of camera users delighting in the best they can get from a camera.

PLEASE PLEASE!!!! Can you please show me the image that was edited or shoud i say "done properly" with quattro sensor, that dont have that augly sandy effect !!!! I really want to eat my words sort of speak. I really want to be wrong about quattro. But its the reality to me at this moment.
If you can post some clear samples on base iso with quattro PLEASE!!!!
Or maybe some sort of link wiht samples or tutorial.
Prove me wrong!!! PLEASE!!! Thanks!

Don't you mean 'grain'. Obviously gain on the sensor also increases noise, so maybe you really do mean 'gain'. To be pedantic, this is noise not grain. Grain is only genuinely possible on film. But the point about this 'sandy' look is that it has an organic, grainy look like some film, which is not at all a bad thing. I've always preferred the grainy bokeh of film, for instance, which actually helps to somehow offset bokeh problems. Mind you, this grain is far too fine to really give the advantage except at high ISO. It's barely visible in the original 25MP images.

Meanwhile, a bit of judicious noise cleanup, and you still get stunning detail that beats the previous models. So really all we are talking about here is an extra step in your pp. Nothing to make a big deal about.

Settings->advanced

You'll find it there. However I would be surprised if this was additive. If (on windows) ctrl + or - indicates 100% , as it does in an annoyingly briefly visible indicator, then it should override any chrome-wide setting and actually be at 100%.

I've just tried it and the page setting does override the chrome-wide setting.

It may be that you have configured your computer to higher than 100%. Even in Windows, some apps ignore rescaling and appear at their native rendering, and maybe the viewer you've used does this.

On win10 the system setting for sizing is :

right-click the desktop->pop-up menu
Display Settings -> Opens a settings window
"change the size of text...." etc, which is a single adjustment

I had everything set to 100% everywhere.
I hit CTRL+, saw 150%, then hit CTRL- a couple times and saw 100%. Problem still there.
I hit CTRL+ and the little box had a place to "Reset to defaults" which I was able to click (you have to do this really fast because that little box is only there a second or so). Problem GONE!
Thanks very much! Windows has too many little hooks squirrelled away!