But image no. 6 is ISO 100 so... In this particular instance his comment is slightly more relevant.

Terkwoiz:

You can download various Sigma Quattro raws from PhotographyBlog--they tested a few Quattros, including the SD. There's also Imaging Resource as a source for Sigma Quattro raws.

You must shoot raw.

You can download the Sigma raw converter (Sigma Pro Photo 6.5.3) for free from Sigma-Global. As of May 2017: That is the only raw converter for Sigma Quattro files.

Right, the Fuji is much more expensive.

Thanks for the references. 👍🏻

Quattro/Sigma Photo Pro produces cooked, overprocessed, noisy, low DR images.
They might look fascinating at first, but the latitude is very low.
Foveon is dead with the Quattro, imho.

Really? HowaboutRAW do you agree with Baumgartner? What is your opinion of Foveon?

I'm curious because I would love to have something as supposedly powerful iq-wise for slow image-taking as the sigma with Foveon is alleged to be. I don't care how slow or impractical it's use is if it can deliver the goods imagewise.

Terk,

Download Quattro raw files and see what you think after extraction with Sigma Pro Photo 6.5.

No Sigma Foveon files were ever good for things like lifting of the shadows.

As has been written before, MF is currently still in a very nascent stage with limited slow lenses, mediocre AF and prohibitively high prices.

In time prices should come down and many more lenses would also be available. But for now FF just has so many more lenses and accessories available right now.

This original post makes no sense. Perhaps it is secret code known only to tiny-sensor users who have the willingness (or lack of training) to turn a blind eye to noise, DR and resolution deficiencies.

Sensor size is just one part of photography. Else everyone would be shooting large format film.

MF is currently a niche market for a lot of people. You can't match FF for shallow dof, video capabilities, size, AF, range of lenses and price.

FF and APS-C are far more comparable since both are mature technologies with many similar lenses and other capabilities.

Medium Format is quite mature: Wikipedia - In the film world, medium format has moved from being the most widely used film size (1900s through 1950s)...

You must have meant digital medium format, but even then: Wikipedia - This market began in 1992 when Leaf Systems Inc. released their first digital camera back (4 Megapixels),

^^ This whole discussion has been about this particular camera and hence we are talking about digital medium format. And by mature I mean mature I mean not age but maturity of technology. Currently digital MF lags behind smaller sensor format cameras in almost every aspect and some of the things are quite glaring like AF and lens selection.

After a few years I am sure those shortcomings will mostly vanish and digital MF will become more mainstream. But currently due to very high prices and limited lens availability the system isn't going to attract too many people right now.

^^ There exists TODAY f1.2 lenses for MF. Its just that they are manual focus lenses.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9707208210/speedmaster-65mm-and-85mm-fast-primes-for-fujifilm-gfx-on-the-way

I am sure in a few years time with 3rd parties entering MF territory we might see more lenses added.

And yes I shoot for a living. So if MF can help my work improve ill spend the money if required. However right now its not good enough for my needs and so ill stick with my current system.

@brendon1000, I wouldn't touch those Chinese fast lenses for the GFX with a 100ft. pole until they're proven to be at least on par with what I'd expect from a really good (not even stellar) medium format lens. I hope the lenses are great, but I wouldn't bet on them.

^^ Whether they are good (or not) is irrelevant. That they are a reality IS what is important since there doesn't exist such fast lenses for medium format yet. So my point is that if lenses like this does exist we can expect more such lenses from better manufacturers once MF adoption improves

It hasn't occurred to you that these Chinese lenses might be marketing stunts?

You state a fact when you say: there doesn't exist such fast lenses for medium format yet. For a format that has been around since 1900, what can you deduce from these two facts?

Listen, I am all for as many choices as possible and if this Chinese company can produce a quality product, that will make the system more valuable for those who already have the system but I doubt that fast lenses alone will draw many folks to MF.

I've said this many times since the first affordable digital MF camera, the 645D, hit the market that MF will only draw significant numbers away from FF when the MSRP reaches below $4k. The GFX shaved $2000 off the MSRP of the 645z. So, I do not think it will be many more generations before we see MF cameras compete price-wise with FF. Then, issues like fast lenses, AF, whatever may make sense. But, those issues are already present when considering one FF over another.

LOL, "proper FF". What exactly is that?

@Pete_W He meant a "proper FF-camera" not a "proper-FF camera".

@deep7 35mm might be a compromise, but it's a mature compromise with a plethora of options. So, no, one doesn't need to be a hypocrite to think 35mm offers the best compromise. (And yes, MF is also a compromise, and so is LF or whatever you want to throw at those you deem blind and deaf :D )

@Jens. Replace FF with APSC and its equally true without paying that price premium of FF.

@darngooddesign ...replace APS-C with µFT, replace µFT with smart phone...

Due to the combination of sensor technology and available lenses 35mm is still a sweet spot at the moment. There are some lenses that can almost remove that advantage, but not quite. A larger system such as MF could offer lenses that cannot be done physically on 35mm, but to my knowledge, these are not (not yet?) available.

Anyway, dpreview had a write-up on this.

That said, sometimes a smart phone *is* the right compromise.

@Pete_W

Don't be ridiculous, I never said FF is the only "true" format. What I said is these results are nothing special and easily achievable with a full frame camera.

@Pete_W

Ok, I see. Then I should choose another word like "current" or "modern" full frame camera. I said proper as "adequate".

I still think is so close the difference nobody could tell if these shots were made with FF or this "Mini MF".

darngooddesign: "FF is only the sweet spot if you are a fan of FF."

There is a tiny niche where MF outperforms FF with currently available lenses. You know what niche that is? Very high MP photos for scenes with some kind of movement, shot at low to medium-low ISO. For every other scenario FF is better or equal for less money and bulk.

If you disagree, make an argument, an example, some physics equation, show us you can do more than one-liners.

JensR, sorry, not worth discussing such things with someone who is showing some bias in his/her posts!

Agreed! I use Lightroom because it works so well and so intuitive at least for me but I lament that Adobe doesn't put more effort in liaising with camera manufactures to recreate the manufacturer's desired outcome. Mind you, the manufacturer's are half the problem, more than half in some cases with their paranoia over commercial secrecy.

Strange isn't it. Every day government and corporate spies around the world break into each others computers and steal reams of secrets, but the still camera companies act like their color science and gamma curves are matters of national security.
Cinema camera makers on the other hand seem to not care at all (although I can't be sure about that because I'm not a computer imaging genius).

VisualFX:

"edited" has nothing to do with my question.

There are raws for download, they're clearly compressed in some manner.

Just like Nikon, Fuji offers uncompressed and lossless compressed RAW. I never use uncompressed. Canon doesn't give the option. Canon's are lossless compressed only.

Yes, Fuji offers the option for lossless compression when saving raw files, if your raw convertor supports such files then why not save on storage space. Don't think compression means loss of data, I think you are muddling up lossy jpeg compression with lossless compression.

left eye:

Right, but I think DPR needs to make clear if these are lossy, or lossless.

They're less than half the size for the GFX 50S raws that I've shot, that more than makes me think lossy.

"I think you are muddling up lossy jpeg compression with lossless compression."

Why, and how, would I be doing that?

RK,

I wasn't asking about Canon.

The files DPR posted are less than half the size of the raws I've shot with the GFX-50S. That fact makes me suspect lossy compression.

left eye,

Okay, however I don't have a GFX-50S to check in my hand.

Are the lossless PEFs of the Pentax 645Z 50MB, or the DNGs?

re: 645Z PEF or DNG, sorry I'm not sure which; if you need to know ask in the Medium Format forum.

All I know is that the GFX has a lossless compressed raw file format, and that's what I'm using, and it seems that is what DPR are now using (and I expect everyone who owns the GFX once they find the menu option will also use).

left eye:

PEFs and DNGs from the Pentax 645Z are 62-80MB in size.

Clearly, that's significantly bigger than the compressed raws from the Fuji GFX-50S, but the cameras use the same sensor.

I've seen better images by DPR staff. There may be something "special" in how these files need to be processed. The GFX is a traditional Bayer pattern, so it's not an xtrans issue. ACR not up to the task? Wouldn't be the first time ACR disappoints

...yes I'm sure. Distortion corrections are automatically applied in-camera for EVF / rear monitor displays (these corrections cannot be turned off). Without distortion correction more of the image received from the lens and sensor would be revealed in the corners - this might affect your framing. With distortion correction applied in-camera, ACR follows this so you are not surprised by something unexpected appearing in the corners.

See my post here... https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59241147

Again, framing is just matter of projecting sensor capture to evf or back lcd/oled screen. If it's in same , 100% ratio, i don't see much need to crop or correct spherical distortions etc in "raw" shot, lenses are usually designed to project slightly bigger image than sensor size anyway.
But if what you're saying is true, aka you can't turn off software lens corrections in all mirrorless cameras, i found that kind of cheating, since you loose some field of view (could be large frame proportion in some wide lenses) etc. I hope you wrong, but i guess you did your homework..

p.s.: what happens, when you use fisheye lense, then? I guess automatic correction only works with native, programmed lenses?

...yes I was surprised by ACR applying lens corrections [that can't be turned off], but now I can see the sense in it. Previously with OVF cameras, lens correction was an option for OOC jpegs - with the proviso that the resulting jpeg would show less image information (usually in the corners) than seen through the OVF.

With EVF this 'loss' of image at the edges or corners can be applied live to the viewfinder, but then this same 'framing' or 'view' due to correction must also be replicated by the raw-converter. Adobe have decided that this lens correction should not be an option to turn off in this case - for MILCs (ACR applies automatic correction for my GH4 as well, which also cannot be turned off). I personally don't mind this, these are digital cameras and that is part of their progression.

cont...

(deleted)

The blues are a little stout. Changing the profile really doesn't help but changing the WB balance does. I got used to Canon's AWB usually being right on. (Nikon too for that matter) I hope this firmware update addresses the blues (pun intended).