sd Quattro samples

There seems to be that annoying Quattro problem which I have seen very often. The interpretation of the data at pixel level is compromised by the 4:1:1 structure. You can easily see it in the picture of the motorcycle. Have a look at the air inlets in the red cover panel. You can clearly see that the boundary between red and black is not clean. There are black pixels within the red color. It is not unsharp like a Bayer. It is sharp but fuzzy due to the wrong pixels. This is not due to noise as you can see in the dark part of the motor block which is much cleaner. I think that this is exactly what makes the background in picture one (the forrest) look grainy or noisy. (Like any other busy and fine detailed background.) It is no natural noise it is something artificial and I definitely don't like it.

The Q may have some advantages over the M but it is no longer a sensor for sharpness and acutance at pixel level. It may not be necessary to have this special sharpness because a picture should not be viewed at pixel level. But still, for me it was always a problem that I can't go too close to a Bayer picture without seeing the typical Bayer blur effects. Therefore, I decided to go with Foveon. Now, I can't go too close to a Foceon picture with the Q as well.

I think I remember that these artifacts have been taken care of by an update of SPP and/or firmware. They didn't go away completely but were much better afterwards. But I assume that the pictures of the sd Quattro have been taken and processed with the latest FW/SW with all tricks they have learned with the dpQs. So, it may a a property of the Q we have to live with.

Merrill sensor will be one of the high points in the history of digital imaging. But not uncommon for the "the best" not to prevail in the marketplace for other reasons.

One's looks at enough of these sample galleries from all OEMs and concludes: (1) Modern digital imaging is exceptional; no really horrible cameras; but (2) Digital still has its limitations-depending on the subject, lighting and subject distance, the image can look unreal; I still see chromatic aberrations from $4K cameras +lenses.

I have many an image on my computer taken with vintage point and shoots that look better than what DPReview posts from a Canon DX10MarkIV or Nikon D80005 at times.  I've often thought DPReview does it on purpose at times to make a point.

Too bad the original Merrill vision couldn't be sustained.

It seems like where the inlets are on the bike things get out of focus, so I wouldn't expect everything to be accurate there. The picture looks fine to me. In any case, we would only know accurately if we had exactly the same picture taken with the Q and M sensors.

mujana wrote:

maceoQ wrote:

http://www.sigma-global.com/jp/cameras/sd-series/impression/

-- hide signature --

https://500px.com/stoneage
Please, feel free to correct my English writing in the forums.

Maybe a lens thing, but I do not like the shot of the purple flowers...what's wrong here? Seems out of focus (?).

Probably hand held, so it could be both focus and camera shake.

idillic wrote:

That being said, I love the price point and will almost certainly buy the SDQH....or a mirrorless Hasselblad. That looks simply brilliant.

Funny you mention price point and Hasselblad x1d

D Cox wrote:

mujana wrote:

maceoQ wrote:

http://www.sigma-global.com/jp/cameras/sd-series/impression/

-- hide signature --

https://500px.com/stoneage
Please, feel free to correct my English writing in the forums.

Maybe a lens thing, but I do not like the shot of the purple flowers...what's wrong here? Seems out of focus (?).

Probably hand held, so it could be both focus and camera shake.

Could also be how it was processed?...got me.  Im interested in the H samples when they are finally released.

FDecker wrote:

There seems to be that annoying Quattro problem which I have seen very often. The interpretation of the data at pixel level is compromised by the 4:1:1 structure. You can easily see it in the picture of the motorcycle. Have a look at the air inlets in the red cover panel. You can clearly see that the boundary between red and black is not clean. There are black pixels within the red color. It is not unsharp like a Bayer. It is sharp but fuzzy due to the wrong pixels. This is not due to noise as you can see in the dark part of the motor block which is much cleaner. I think that this is exactly what makes the background in picture one (the forrest) look grainy or noisy. (Like any other busy and fine detailed background.) It is no natural noise it is something artificial and I definitely don't like it.

This must be a sharpness setting in SPP.

Did you take a look at the other pictures of the same motorcycle?

This one is very smooth and shows impressive shadow range IMO:
http://www.sigma-global.com/jp/cameras/sd-series/impression/images/sd_imp01_16.jpg

This one is the same but with more contrast:
http://www.sigma-global.com/jp/cameras/sd-series/impression/images/sd_imp01_17.jpg

And here it is with that sandy grit that we don't like:
http://www.sigma-global.com/jp/cameras/sd-series/impression/images/sd_imp01_18.jpg

I much prefer the smoother interpretation.

I see an improvement over Merrill too, mainly the reduction of green/magenta fringes and less blotching in shadows and gray areas.

Amadeus21 wrote:

I agree completely with Your observations and opinion. These pictures are really disappointing for me as owner of a SD1 M, especially the firs picture.

They should have stayed with the Merril.

-- hide signature --

Johannes

I agree.. I have never been a fan of the Q sensor.. I don't own a Q or an M sensored Sigma camera(yet).  Good thing is there are still plenty of M cameras available :).

For instance, looking at the sky in the sd_imp01_03.jpg at full res, I see an awful amount of purple (?) blotching all over. I've never seen this with my Merrills, having shot thousands of skies since I got my first Merrill in 2012.

The Merrill sensor, for me, is a kind of pinnacle as far as digital sensors are concerned. I like so many things about Sigma - and the pricing for the SDQ is just incredible!

But the Quattro is a step (or two) back from the Merrill, I'm afraid.

Here is a 'Merrill' sky:

P.S.:

I have not bothered too much with getting rid of those pesky insects in the sky, I just noticed when looking at the full res.