Sigma's secret weapon - SD Quattro review, an incredible filmic 8K timelapse tool with infrared capabilities

[maxotics]

32 minutes ago, Stab said:

Is there any other camera with Sigma's sensor technology?

No.  You can take great photographs with any camera.  But almost all serious "model" photographers use Nikon or Canon full-frame, if not medium format if they can afford it.   Not Sigma, they're too slow.  That's a fact, take from it what you will   Sigmas appeal to two types of photographer in my experience.  1) The ones who come from film and are very fussy about color (though Foveon has trouble with red).  2) photographers who are super picky about printing and deplore bayer color artifacts.  The question for you would be is full-frame good enough that you don't need that extra clarity of a Sigma?  So, I suggest you borrow/rent a full-frame and try it out.  Even an old one.  If you don't see a difference between that and your GH5 then I'm fairly certain you'd find the Sigma camera a complete frustration.  As much as I love the Sigma look, if size/weight isn't a factor, a Nikon D810 is close enough for me.  IF I want something small with the best look possible, and I can take my time, then Sigma is the way to go.

[PannySVHS]

38 minutes ago, maxotics said:

No.  You can take great photographs with any camera.  But almost all serious "model" photographers use Nikon or Canon full-frame, if not medium format if they can afford it.   Not Sigma, they're too slow.  That's a fact, take from it what you will   Sigmas appeal to two types of photographer in my experience.  1) The ones who come from film and are very fussy about color (though Foveon has trouble with red).  2) photographers who are super picky about printing and deplore bayer color artifacts.  The question for you would be is full-frame good enough that you don't need that extra clarity of a Sigma?  So, I suggest you borrow/rent a full-frame and try it out.  Even an old one.  If you don't see a difference between that and your GH5 then I'm fairly certain you'd find the Sigma camera a complete frustration.  As much as I love the Sigma look, if size/weight isn't a factor, a Nikon D810 is close enough for me.  IF I want something small with the best look possible, and I can take my time, then Sigma is the way to go.

But Max, I dare you!:) Browsing through the Merrill pictures on Flickr reveals some breathtaking images. A Merrill in combination with its fixed lens is a winner in price image ratio,

you cannot reach with a D810. But speed, easy of use, flexibility and high iso are fair trade offs, of course. I think Merrills are putting out a nicer image than the Quattros.

[BTM_Pix]

10 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

A Merrill in combination with its fixed lens is a winner in price image ratio

The price of them has gone up a bit over the past couple of years. The mint Buy It Now DP1m,DP2m and DP3m from Japan are around about £450 now on eBay but biddable ones go for around £300-350 which although dearer than they were is still a bargain for their performance.

The DP2m is the best compromise one to start off with IMO. 

This contact sheet is from a wander about yesterday with my DP2m and looking at the EXIF were taken over a period of just under 25 minutes. I mention that because that was a long enough period to burn through a battery so its for good reason that these things are one of the few cameras where the manufacturer puts two batteries in the box!

 

[Ed_David]

The greatest challenge i want to test is magic hour and golden hour before magic hour. 

I dont think a camera with such limited dynamic range and low iso can handle this.

I think, in 99 percent of work...shooting on film is a better idea. Faster film stock. More dynamic range. And just better cameras with optical viewfinders. Now to find a cheap way to scan the negatives that still looks good.

I got a good deal on a dp1x im going to test with.

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, Ed_David said:

The greatest challenge i want to test is magic hour and golden hour before magic hour. 

I dont think a camera with such limited dynamic range and low iso can handle this.

I think, in 99 percent of work...shooting on film is a better idea. Faster film stock. More dynamic range. And just better cameras with optical viewfinders. Now to find a cheap way to scan the negatives that still looks good.

I got a good deal on a dp1x im going to test with.

It depends what film stock you're coming from and what your budget is. I don't think anything digital surpasses 8X10 film or even 4x5 film (Velvia 50 and Portra 400 were my favorites), but I can't afford to spend a few hundred dollars (with scans) per shot anymore. At least not often.

The DP2 Merrill has more dynamic range than my favorite film stock (Velvia), but it has worse color rendering. It has much less dynamic range than Portra has, or black and white film. Its look is most similar to 4x5 velvia scans without the same intense richness and wildly vibrant greens and of course less high frequency detail. And despite its initial strong impression, I find that the Sigma has banding, slight aliasing, and a low frequency green/magenta pattern that looks a lot like heavy noise reduction, all unique to it. It ruins the tonality of rock textures in a way that's wholly unique. On Bayer sensors they have a nice smooth look but no high frequency detail; on Foveon they have great high frequency detail with an ugly smoothed low frequency color noise reduction pattern. If you shoot at 50 ISO you can reduce this but it increases banding, too. I generally rate the camera no faster than 64 ISO.

But I prefer the look of a film stocks with less than five stops of dynamic range because the print itself has less than five stops of contrast and so you get a more accurate contrast in the print by limiting the dynamic range of your scene. So I don't find the Sigma's limited dynamic range to be a problem. For landscapes, I like it. I also find the clipping to look less digital than you'd expect.

The lens is great, though.

I guess what I can say is it's a good replacement for medium format Velvia, and brings roughly as well, but a poor replacement for medium format Portra. Drum scanned large format of course wins against almost anything and has a special look but at such a great cost. If you want the look of 4x5 Velvia using a very modern lens, the DP2 Merrill is the closest thing there is that's cheap and digital. If you like older lenses, organic texture, grain, etc. it will disappoint a bit.

I think you know your needs and your clients' expectations and that they're better met by shooting film, and I don't think you'll have your mind changed. But for landscape photographers I think it's quite viable. The screen is terrible, though, but 4x5 is even slower.

Don't expect too much from the DP1X. It's only going to produce 4 megapixel images and while they will be nice 4 megapixel images, they'll still be less sharp than today's entry-level dSLRs. But it should give a good idea of the Foveon "look."

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, Ed_David said:

The greatest challenge i want to test is magic hour and golden hour before magic hour. 

I dont think a camera with such limited dynamic range and low iso can handle this.

Golden hour is low enough DR for the DPs. One just need too work the shutter speeds.

[HockeyFan12]

I just found this photo I took by accident on my DP2 Merrill while trying to adjust the settings. A bit underexposed but it shows that the limited DR looks fine at magic hour if you don't shoot straight at the sun. This is straight out of camera, default settings, not even any exposure adjustment I don't think. (It is a little underexposed, and there are some NR artifacts.)

I think the sensor behaves more like slide film than color negative film (which more closely resembles the Alexa's look). And most photographers I know who shoot 4x5 slide film generally wait until just after sunset for a more even light, finding magic hour too harsh. So I can't vouch for the DR at all. That's just not why you'd buy this camera.

For "organic" portraiture or a gritty look I wouldn't go with a DP Merrill. It's better for landscape and macro and studio type work IMO, where it excels.

Don't judge the sharpness too harshly. I didn't adjust focus (I was on manual focus and took a photo by accident) and I shot handheld and the jpeg artifacts are softening it a lot.

[Ed_David]

15 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

It depends what film stock you're coming from and what your budget is. I don't think anything digital surpasses 8X10 film or even 4x5 film (Velvia 50 and Portra 400 were my favorites), but I can't afford to spend a few hundred dollars (with scans) per shot anymore. At least not often.

The DP2 Merrill has more dynamic range than my favorite film stock (Velvia), but it has worse color rendering. It has much less dynamic range than Portra has, or black and white film. Its look is most similar to 4x5 velvia scans without the same intense richness and wildly vibrant greens and of course less high frequency detail. And despite its initial strong impression, I find that the Sigma has banding, slight aliasing, and a low frequency green/magenta pattern that looks a lot like heavy noise reduction, all unique to it. It ruins the tonality of rock textures in a way that's wholly unique. On Bayer sensors they have a nice smooth look but no high frequency detail; on Foveon they have great high frequency detail with an ugly smoothed low frequency color noise reduction pattern. If you shoot at 50 ISO you can reduce this but it increases banding, too. I generally rate the camera no faster than 64 ISO.

But I prefer the look of a film stocks with less than five stops of dynamic range because the print itself has less than five stops of contrast and so you get a more accurate contrast in the print by limiting the dynamic range of your scene. So I don't find the Sigma's limited dynamic range to be a problem. For landscapes, I like it. I also find the clipping to look less digital than you'd expect.

The lens is great, though.

I guess what I can say is it's a good replacement for medium format Velvia, and brings roughly as well, but a poor replacement for medium format Portra. Drum scanned large format of course wins against almost anything and has a special look but at such a great cost. If you want the look of 4x5 Velvia using a very modern lens, the DP2 Merrill is the closest thing there is that's cheap and digital. If you like older lenses, organic texture, grain, etc. it will disappoint a bit.

I think you know your needs and your clients' expectations and that they're better met by shooting film, and I don't think you'll have your mind changed. But for landscape photographers I think it's quite viable. The screen is terrible, though, but 4x5 is even slower.

Don't expect too much from the DP1X. It's only going to produce 4 megapixel images and while they will be nice 4 megapixel images, they'll still be less sharp than today's entry-level dSLRs. But it should give a good idea of the Foveon "look."

Thanks for this - yes even though film has limited dynamic range - it has a really smooth roll off into the highlights, and doesn't have much dynamic range in the shadows which is I look I prefer over, say the alexa, which has a lot of information in the shadows.

Yea, not expecting miracles from the DP1x.

why not shoot 35mm film ,where 36 shots is only about $40 or so to get developed and scanned?  I know its still expensive but overall you get more dynamic range, sharpness, and more accurate skintones and sharpness and speed than a foveon chip.

I hope someone else can make the foveon and other non-bayer type cameras work to get to what film can do.

Until then, I guess, still an expensive habit.

13 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I just found this photo I took by accident on my DP2 Merrill while trying to adjust the settings. A bit underexposed but it shows that the limited DR looks fine at magic hour if you don't shoot straight at the sun. This is straight out of camera, default settings, not even any exposure adjustment I don't think. (It is a little underexposed, and there are some NR artifacts.)

I think the sensor behaves more like slide film than color negative film (which more closely resembles the Alexa's look). And most photographers I know who shoot 4x5 slide film generally wait until just after sunset for a more even light, finding magic hour too harsh. So I can't vouch for the DR at all. That's just not why you'd buy this camera.

For "organic" portraiture or a gritty look I wouldn't go with a DP Merrill. It's better for landscape and macro and studio type work IMO, where it excels.

Don't judge the sharpness too harshly. I didn't adjust focus (I was on manual focus and took a photo by accident) and I shot handheld and the jpeg artifacts are softening it a lot.

The handling of green is pretty - feels very natural - and painterly - what you shot.

And the noise feels very film-like.

I'm not too concerned with the low megapixels of the DP 1x - someone did a test against the merrill and said it still resolves fairly well.

Yea I didn't want to dip my feet in too deep to start.

[PannySVHS]

On 23.8.2017 at 8:39 PM, Ed_David said:

The greatest challenge i want to test is magic hour and golden hour before magic hour. 

I dont think a camera with such limited dynamic range and low iso can handle this.

I think, in 99 percent of work...shooting on film is a better idea. Faster film stock. More dynamic range. And just better cameras with optical viewfinders. Now to find a cheap way to scan the negatives that still looks good.

I got a good deal on a dp1x im going to test with.

 

Ed, you can try a Kodak RFS 2035 or 3570. They are 2000 dpi only but solid built and fast and super fun to play with. Scan some Kodak slides with that and

it´s the faithful way to get them analogue treasures into the digital format:) Use it with Vuescan. It´s an awesome piece of scanning software.

DP1X is very different from the DP Merrill beasts though:)

 

On 23.8.2017 at 8:39 PM, Ed_David said:

The greatest challenge i want to test is magic hour and golden hour before magic hour. 

I dont think a camera with such limited dynamic range and low iso can handle this.

I think, in 99 percent of work...shooting on film is a better idea. Faster film stock. More dynamic range. And just better cameras with optical viewfinders. Now to find a cheap way to scan the negatives that still looks good.

I got a good deal on a dp1x im going to test with.

 

Ed, you can try a Kodak RFS 2035 or 3570. They are 2000 dpi only but solid built and fast and super fun to play with. Scan some Kodak slides with that and

it´s the faithful way to get them analogue treasures into the digital format:) Use it with Vuescan. It´s an awesome piece of scanning software.

DP1X is very different from the DP Merrill beasts though:)

 

On 23.8.2017 at 8:39 PM, Ed_David said:

The greatest challenge i want to test is magic hour and golden hour before magic hour. 

I dont think a camera with such limited dynamic range and low iso can handle this.

I think, in 99 percent of work...shooting on film is a better idea. Faster film stock. More dynamic range. And just better cameras with optical viewfinders. Now to find a cheap way to scan the negatives that still looks good.

I got a good deal on a dp1x im going to test with.

 

Ed, you can try a Kodak RFS 2035 or 3570. They are 2000 dpi only but solid built and fast and super fun to play with. Scan some Kodak slides with that and

it´s the faithful way to get them analogue treasures into the digital format:) Use it with Vuescan. It´s an awesome piece of scanning software.

DP1X is very different from the DP Merrill beasts though:)

 

[HockeyFan12]

12 hours ago, Ed_David said:

Thanks for this - yes even though film has limited dynamic range - it has a really smooth roll off into the highlights, and doesn't have much dynamic range in the shadows which is I look I prefer over, say the alexa, which has a lot of information in the shadows.

Yea, not expecting miracles from the DP1x.

why not shoot 35mm film ,where 36 shots is only about $40 or so to get developed and scanned?  I know its still expensive but overall you get more dynamic range, sharpness, and more accurate skintones and sharpness and speed than a foveon chip.

I hope someone else can make the foveon and other non-bayer type cameras work to get to what film can do.

Until then, I guess, still an expensive habit.

The handling of green is pretty - feels very natural - and painterly - what you shot.

And the noise feels very film-like.

I'm not too concerned with the low megapixels of the DP 1x - someone did a test against the merrill and said it still resolves fairly well.

Yea I didn't want to dip my feet in too deep to start.

I agree that the Alexa renders in a duller way than film, in just the way you mention.

To that extent, the Sigma DP Merrills aren’t a great film replacement, either. I’m really not sold on how skin tones look, and the over/under is more similar to slide film than it is to color negative.

But the image is about as detailed as (and much less grainy than) a good 6x7 Velvia scan, with good color rendering and highlight rendering and nice high frequency detail, too. 

For landscapes and still life it’s a viable alternative to a Mamiya 7 with slide film. For candids and street photography where you want more texture and character, I’m not at all sold.

The LCD is really bad, unfortunately.

Somewhat like large format slide film, the DP2 Merrill has a transparent look to its image. It doesn't look like film or digital, it looks like the scene you shot (if you expose carefully)... Given its size and price, that's reason enough to recommend it to landscape photographers in particular. But no, it's not a direct film replacement, and behaves more like slide film than color negative.

Worth a try, though. I really like mine.

[Ed_David]

On 8/24/2017 at 4:32 PM, PannySVHS said:

 

Ed, you can try a Kodak RFS 2035 or 3570. They are 2000 dpi only but solid built and fast and super fun to play with. Scan some Kodak slides with that and

it´s the faithful way to get them analogue treasures into the digital format:) Use it with Vuescan. It´s an awesome piece of scanning software.

DP1X is very different from the DP Merrill beasts though:)

 

 

Ed, you can try a Kodak RFS 2035 or 3570. They are 2000 dpi only but solid built and fast and super fun to play with. Scan some Kodak slides with that and

it´s the faithful way to get them analogue treasures into the digital format:) Use it with Vuescan. It´s an awesome piece of scanning software.

DP1X is very different from the DP Merrill beasts though:)

 

 

Ed, you can try a Kodak RFS 2035 or 3570. They are 2000 dpi only but solid built and fast and super fun to play with. Scan some Kodak slides with that and

it´s the faithful way to get them analogue treasures into the digital format:) Use it with Vuescan. It´s an awesome piece of scanning software.

DP1X is very different from the DP Merrill beasts though:)

 

Yea I just got on ebay plustek opticfilm 7200.  Higher resolution scan - don't know how it compares.  But got a great deal on it.

Yea, I bought the DP1x without really knowing enough - I should have figured things out more.  Still got it for $220, which I think is $200 cheaper than the Merrill.

 

On 8/24/2017 at 7:55 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

I agree that the Alexa renders in a duller way than film, in just the way you mention.

To that extent, the Sigma DP Merrills aren’t a great film replacement, either. I’m really not sold on how skin tones look, and the over/under is more similar to slide film than it is to color negative.

But the image is about as detailed as (and much less grainy than) a good 6x7 Velvia scan, with good color rendering and highlight rendering and nice high frequency detail, too. 

For landscapes and still life it’s a viable alternative to a Mamiya 7 with slide film. For candids and street photography where you want more texture and character, I’m not at all sold.

The LCD is really bad, unfortunately.

Somewhat like large format slide film, the DP2 Merrill has a transparent look to its image. It doesn't look like film or digital, it looks like the scene you shot (if you expose carefully)... Given its size and price, that's reason enough to recommend it to landscape photographers in particular. But no, it's not a direct film replacement, and behaves more like slide film than color negative.

Worth a try, though. I really like mine.

Yes, I have heard mixed on that sensor.  

So I am back shooting 35mm film.  

Shot three rolls last week.  

I forget the enjoyment as well as the stress of shooting film.  Only having 36 exposures.  Having to think before I act.  

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, Ed_David said:

Yea I just got on ebay plustek opticfilm 7200.  Higher resolution scan - don't know how it compares.  But got a great deal on it.

Yea, I bought the DP1x without really knowing enough - I should have figured things out more.  Still got it for $220, which I think is $200 cheaper than the Merrill.

 

Yes, I have heard mixed on that sensor.  

So I am back shooting 35mm film.  

Shot three rolls last week.  

I forget the enjoyment as well as the stress of shooting film.  Only having 36 exposures.  Having to think before I act.  

I hear you. I never much enjoyed shooting on a dSLR.

For photographs of people and things, I'd take a Mamiya 7 or a Leica rangefinder with Portra over anything else. The Sigma has a nice formal look, though, with great texture. Gursky might like one.

[Ed_David]

Got the dp2x.

Images or not, having to take a photo with a horrible LCD screen, wait a ton of time to get the moment, and then wait for it to process.

Yea, it's not a camera for someone trying to do street photography.  Mostly just landscapes.

The image out seems really nice.  But, not really worth it for me in this front.

I am sure if I tried their more modern camera I would like it.

But I'm back shooting film again!

WOO HOO.

thank you guys!

love shooting film so much.

how meditative.

how each shot costs a lot of money, so there is that voice in your head asking you if its really worth it

[Mattias Burling]

The DP1 is great for street photography. I dont need speed for that as much as I need focus.

They are all slow, no need to buy another one. Its just like when shooting film, a Leica T or any other fundamentally different type of camera. You need to "get it". Not try to force the camera into working like a modern DSLR. You need to adapt to it

[Ed_David]

21 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

The DP1 is great for street photography. I dont need speed for that as much as I need focus.

They are all slow, no need to buy another one. Its just like when shooting film, a Leica T or any other fundamentally different type of camera. You need to "get it". Not try to force the camera into working like a modern DSLR. You need to adapt to it

Shooting 35mm on my f100 is fast as heck. Turn on. Check focus and exposure and shoot as many shots as i want.

I can capture little moments quickly.

Dp1x is a toy. That lcd ruins it. Takes about 10 sec per photo from start to finish.

I felt like i was shooting on a coolpix camera from 2004.

Sorry man.

Not for me.

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, Ed_David said:

Shooting 35mm on my f100 is fast as heck. Turn on. Check focus and exposure and shoot as many shots as i want.

I can capture little moments quickly.

Dp1x is a toy. That lcd ruins it. Takes about 10 sec per photo from start to finish.

I felt like i was shooting on a coolpix camera from 2004.

Sorry man.

Not for me.

I get it. Either you adapt to it or not.

My DP1 is just as fast as any other camera and actually faster than most due to the excellent manual focus.

1-2 sec from wakeup to fire, max.

The LCD doesn't matter to me. My film cameras dont have LCDs and some doesn't even have viewfinders, but I don't let that stop me

Its never going to suite everyone. The point of my comment was simply that you shouldn't buy a modern Sigma. Because it doesn't seem to be for you anyway

[HockeyFan12]

I think the process is more important than image quality, because the process dictates what kind of image you end up with in the first place. And the mis and composition and exposure and lighting are all going to be more important than film or digital or film stock or megapixel count unless your camera is absolute garbage. These days, few are.

But I agree with Ed here. I'm not a fan of LCD screens for photographing people. I admit I never liked film SLRs, either, least of all autofocus SLRs. Hated the F4. I'd prefer an F100 but not by much. I like rangefinders, particularly Leicas. I also liked the Nikon F and FM2. Just because it's so simple and physical. I like film cameras that feel very physical.

Process is everything. No one needs to defend the gear they use to anyone except themselves. Well, maybe David Lynch should have thought twice about the PD-150 on Inland Empire. (Is that movie any good? I couldn't get past how bad it looked on a big screen.)

 

[Mattias Burling]

My point exactly.
One need the tool that suites once needs, not others.
For me its all about the image I end up with and the process dictates that way more than specs. I dont care about the LCD because I dont use it. So they could remove it completely for all I care
And at the end of the day image quality isn't even measurable either. It to is just a personal taste.

Specs does not and will never mean jack.

 

[PannySVHS]

On 27.8.2017 at 10:53 PM, Ed_David said:

Yea I just got on ebay plustek opticfilm 7200.  Higher resolution scan - don't know how it compares.  But got a great deal on it.

 

 

The plustek has flimsy negative holders and handling. The Kodak is very robust, has been used by newspapers back then.

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

My point exactly.
One need the tool that suites once needs, not others.
For me its all about the image I end up with and the process dictates that way more than specs. I dont care about the LCD because I dont use it. So they could remove it completely for all I care
And at the end of the day image quality isn't even measurable either. It to is just a personal taste.

Specs does not and will never mean jack.

 

 

Still think the DP Merrill cams are the best marriage of sensor and lens. Still got my GF1 for the combo of an optical viewfinder for estimated manual focusing.

Have not tried because of worries about screwing up. Meanwhile have shot so many crappy pictures with EVF. "The process dictates way more than specs", very well said.

 

[Ed_David]

5 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

GF1

which version has a viewfinder?

maybe I did really buy the worst model of their camera!

6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

My point exactly.
One need the tool that suites once needs, not others.
For me its all about the image I end up with and the process dictates that way more than specs. I dont care about the LCD because I dont use it. So they could remove it completely for all I care
And at the end of the day image quality isn't even measurable either. It to is just a personal taste.

Specs does not and will never mean jack.

 

right - which version should I have bought?  I think it's my bad, talking trash because the dp2x does suck, and they improved it since then.

I need to do more research before I buy stuff used on ebay to save a buck.