Anyone used the Sigma DP2 Quattro?

[NessP]

Has anyone used the Sigma Dp2 Quattro? The sample images I've seen online haven't exactly knocked my socks off despite all the fuss.

[ameerat42]

No, I haven't either. I've used the DP1, DP2 and SD1M.

What is your point?

If you are starting a discussion, you might like to present some more evidence than an oblique reference to the benefits of
sock-changing by unconventional means.

Am.

[NessP]

Thanks for your pleasant reply. So I'll be more specific. Has anyone used the Sigma DP2 Quattro? If so how does the image quality compare to a full frame DSLR such as the Canon 5DIII or the Nikon D810?

[arthurking83]

Having your socks knocked off may not be as pleasant an experience as you may imagine.
I'd prefer my socks to not be stolen, not by anyone, nor anything.

But on a serious level, I haven't used the camera myself .. not particularly interested in it actually, let alone can afford the entry price .. but!

You can go to Imaging Resource and download files to compare for yourself.
Me being the geek that I am .. have already done so. Well, when you have lots of time up your sleeve sometimes .. doing non productive things helps to pass the time.

From what I see of the images I've downloaded:
ISO400 is only just usable at the 100% pixel level .. obviously downsampling the files to web presentable levels makes that a variable target .. but at the pixel level, I can't see the fuss.
Lots gets said about how it actually out resolves(or out details) the D800's (and hence by default the Sony's 36Mp camera too) .. but I think those comments are more fanboi-isms rather than reality.

Looking at the jpgs from camera compared to say a D7100 .. there seems to be more 'resolution', but the jpgs(I assume are made in camera) look over processed from the DP2Q(to my eyes).
Too much sharpening artifacts to begin with, which suggest that Simga is pumping the processing up by a lot(not just a bit) to make it appear to have some wow factor.
The images I tend to use for comparisons are the IR images of the gear I like to check up on.
I have downloaded a couple of the raw(X3F ??) files but can't yet open them even with Lr5.6 nor CaptureOne 7.2(both on trial).
So I can't compare raw files(which always look better than jpgs).

But .... from the jpgs, on initial viewing, the D800(not E!!) blows the DP2Q out of the water for both resolution and detail rendering.
When comparing the DP2Q against the 24Mp D7100 jpg files, the DP2Q definitely has an edge in many parts in terms of resolution, but then detail rendering is what can only be described as an anomaly.
The files I download from IR are the SL series. this is a studio setup with some bottles of stuff, some threads, some crayons and other paraphernalia.

The anomaly with the DP2Q files are on the patches of material fanned out in the background.
Where the lower res D7100 renders a specific pattern on a red swatch, the DP2Q seems to render it blurred. You can clearly see the leafy pattern in almost every other image IR has of this scene, but the DP2Q's rendering doesn't show the leafy pattern at all .. it's just a blur. Why this is an anomaly is that almost everywhere else, the detail that the DP2Q renders is better than the D7100(but not the D800).
A D800E will render better detail yet again!

Here are some links to the files referred too .. you can see them for yourself.

IR DP2Q samples link.

The files I have a preference for are the SL series if you scroll down towards the middle of the samples gallery, you will see the set. The file names make sense once you know the labeling regime.
Camera name followed by sample series(ie. SL or whatever) followed by ISO and noise reduction and so on. X3F files will only download or 'open with' .. jpg files will open in your browser. rightclick them once opened and save as to view them in your preferred image software.
Note that there are two different ISO100 files for the DP2Q. One is 20Mb the other is about 13Mb. The resolution of the 20Mb jpg file is actually higher than the D800 or D810 can produce. The relevant info for each file is marked.
Note that even tho the camera is partly marketed as a 29Mp, it does have extra high res modes that produce 39Mp images(at least that I see in jpg modes .. dunno about raw mode as I can't open them).
This is a real res boost too in some ways. The pixel dimensions it displays are 7680x5120 .. whereas the D800/D810's have only 7360x4912. Viewed at 100% pixel peeping level you see this difference.
if it weren't for the red cloth anomaly, the images would look very good.

Like I said tho .. this may well be a different story if I could open the X3F files. I'm not downloading any more software I don't really need to have. And my interest is simply my curiosity than any need.

Would I pay $1K for this camera .. no!

[MattNQ]

Has anyone used the Sigma Dp2 Quattro? The sample images I've seen online haven't exactly knocked my socks off despite all the fuss.

Hi NessP,
Welcome to the forum.As much as I'd love to try one, unfortunately it ain't gonna be until the kids leave home & stop draining the wallet
I agree the Sigma sample images were pretty ordinary.

Some better ones here.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...troGALLERY.HTM

You can also compare the Quattro images to D810 & 5D mk III.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

In terms of discussions on the intricacies of the Quattros vs DPM's vs Canikon offerings vs MF, & more samples I'd suggest Luminous Landscapes forum.
Nothing wrong with AP, but there are simply more 'togs with these cameras on LuLa than on here.


-------------------------

AK, beat me to it - you are quick on the draw!

[NessP]

Thanks guys, excellent information. Now I'm interested in the D800 again… unless something more interesting comes out at Photokina next month. I read just this morning that the X3F files are supported by Iridient Developer, which I have, so I'll have a go at downloading a raw file and see how it looks. And thanks for the 'welcome', Matt.

[arthurking83]

.... Now I'm interested in the D800 again .....

Some notes to consider too(oh! and welcome to AP too .. sorry about not realising that to begin with).

D800's can produce moire in some situations, if utmost detail rendering is required from the camera.
I don't think that IR use the sharpest lens possible for their interchangeable lens cameras.
They seem to only use the Sigma 70mm macro lens. Whilst this is good for allowing better comparisons from camera to camera, it's not the most ideal detail rendering solution.
ie. you may produce better detail rendering using better lenses.
Not that the Sigma 70mm macro seems to be a bad lens, IR seems to think it's still a worthy piece of equipment to use .. it's jsut that you may get better with something else too.
And even taking that into account, where the D800 can produce moire effects, is when the lens resolves too much detail!
Kinda sounds strange, but it's what happens. If moire is produced in any image, there is a trick many photographers use where they slightly defocus the lens to produce less sharpness!(I tell 'ya it's true!!)

So the comparison to the DP2Q is not exactly equal as the DP2Q has it's own lens ... which may be better at detail rendering than the Simga 70mm macro lens.

just some points to be aware of.

Being on Windows, we don't have access to Iridient.

[martycon]

Arthur , I am again amazed at the breadth and detail of your knowledge or gear.