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

[SMGJohn]

1 minute ago, Ed_David said:

I think boost saturation level in the sd quattro to match it.  To really do a good test (not like I am good at that  - You should bring a color chart.  Shoot with the sigma at 100 ISO, the other camera at it's recommended ISO, same lens (as much as you can) and go from there.  I think of course, you would have to rent the removable lens quattro to make it work.

It's crazy, and maybe it's me, but I can't find a single A/B test on the internet besides one really quick one to compare foveon and cmos bayer pattern

Its the removal lens camera, SD Quattro is their latest high end camera, I heard a lot of praise for the image quality it makes, however I cannot seem to find it any better than the Samsung NX500 or NX1.
Saturation is already insane compared to what I usually use on my Sammy cameras. 

Maybe Samsung just have an exceptional high tech sensor with colour reproduction prioritisation in exchange for high ISO performance.
I will do some more tests, I prefer real world tests and its a good time to be testing these cameras as its closing in on autumn that means lots of nice colours that CMOS bayer seem to struggle heavily with.

If anyone got any good advice I be happy to listen to what I am doing wrong if I am doing wrong.

[Mattias Burling]

I printed 2m prints from a Fuji X-T2 + $1K 56mm and the cheap SD-Quattro.

The Sigma print has more detail, better contrast and nicer colors at a third of the price. Thats the last test I ever needed to make for myself on the subject

[Ed_David]

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I printed 2m prints from a Fuji X-T2 + $1K 56mm and the cheap SD-Quattro.

The Sigma print has more detail, better contrast and nicer colors at a third of the price. Thats the last test I ever needed to make for myself on the subject

Throwing this out here now, Mattias.

How does Foveon compare to Canon's ccd cameras like the 1d, or to Nikon's CCDs like the 1dX, and to their own version of foveon - in the D2H.  And to film.

I just ordered a D2h on ebay.  

Looking into Canon 1d and Nikon 1DX and Kodak DCS 760

Kodak seems to be the best, but going for nearly $800 on ebay!  I think it was $8,000 when it came out

 

[Mattias Burling]

52 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

Throwing this out here now, Mattias.

How does Foveon compare to Canon's ccd cameras like the 1d, or to Nikon's CCDs like the 1dX, and to their own version of foveon - in the D2H.  And to film.

I just ordered a D2h on ebay.  

Looking into Canon 1d and Nikon 1DX and Kodak DCS 760

Kodak seems to be the best, but going for nearly $800 on ebay!  I think it was $8,000 when it came out

 

The only CCDs Ive had are the Leica M8, M9 and M9 Monochrome.
Looking forward to  see what you make of it. 

I have also been sort of looking at older CCD DSLRs but Im currently watching a Foveon DSLR that Im hoping will be mine.
Also my DP3 Quattro got misplaced in the mail and delayed until monday.

[Ed_David]

33 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The only CCDs Ive had are the Leica M8, M9 and M9 Monochrome.
Looking forward to  see what you make of it. 

I have also been sort of looking at older CCD DSLRs but Im currently watching a Foveon DSLR that Im hoping will be mine.
Also my DP3 Quattro got misplaced in the mail and delayed until monday.

Ordered a Nikon 1DX for $100.  Image quality looks beautiful.

Seems better than Canon EOS-1d. 

Kodak DCS-760 - seems like it has some kind of film-like mojo- but way too expensive to justify

33 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The only CCDs Ive had are the Leica M8, M9 and M9 Monochrome.
Looking forward to  see what you make of it. 

I have also been sort of looking at older CCD DSLRs but Im currently watching a Foveon DSLR that Im hoping will be mine.
Also my DP3 Quattro got misplaced in the mail and delayed until monday.

Nevermind, Nikon D80 is even better image it seems like.  Cancelled my other orders, going for this!

 

Leica M9 is pricey!!  Maybe best CCD imager ever made?

[Mattias Burling]

12 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

Nevermind, Nikon D80 is even better image it seems like.  Cancelled my other orders, going for this!

Thats the one I have been eying before. Ive heard very good things.

[Ed_David]

16 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Thats the one I have been eying before. Ive heard very good things.

100 bucks man.  Test vs Sigma - that would be a really good test.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Ed_David said:

100 bucks man.  Test vs Sigma - that would be a really good test.

Coincidence that you should mention the D1x and Sigma as there was a thread on DPReview recently that I found very interesting.

Its taken me a bit of hunting to find again !

It was actually about AF on the SD1 and this guy posted up a link to a gallery of shots he'd taken at the same event on a couple of the SD Merrill bodies, both of the SDQ bodies and, oddly enough, the D1x.

The DSC file prefix ones are from the D1x.

Its a flawed test for a number of reasons but, still, the D1x were definitely the ones that popped out to me when I looked at the gallery page.

 

Original thread is here

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4201570

Text of the specific post is here :

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

Greetings

Here are a few shots. 3 are done with the SD1 some with the SD15, SDQ SDQ-H and my Nikon D1x 5mp camera. The SD1 shots were shot at ISO 1600.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefoto9/albums/72157685581297124/with/35998503563/

I find the AF on the SD1 trying at times. I have a split image screen in one of mine for manual focusing. Here's what I've learned over the years. The SD1 isn't really for sport but can be done. I'll look for more image to post later. I don't have the 17-50 f2.8 but do have the 17-70 f2.8-4 and it works very well. To be honest my SD15 worked better when it came to AF. My Nikon D1x beat it and my D1x is 13 years old now and the IQ is really good. You can see it in the images. What I do know is you'll have to micro adjust the lens to get the best IQ. I also found that the older EX DG can't be shot at high resolution the lenses can't do it. Steve Chong uses this combo and say it works great.

More later

Roger J.

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

[Ed_David]

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Coincidence that you should mention the D1x and Sigma as there was a thread on DPReview recently that I found very interesting.

Its taken me a bit of hunting to find again !

It was actually about AF on the SD1 and this guy posted up a link to a gallery of shots he'd taken at the same event on a couple of the SD Merrill bodies, both of the SDQ bodies and, oddly enough, the D1x.

The DSC file prefix ones are from the D1x.

Its a flawed test for a number of reasons but, still, the D1x were definitely the ones that popped out to me when I looked at the gallery page.

 

Original thread is here

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4201570

Text of the specific post is here :

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

Greetings

Here are a few shots. 3 are done with the SD1 some with the SD15, SDQ SDQ-H and my Nikon D1x 5mp camera. The SD1 shots were shot at ISO 1600.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefoto9/albums/72157685581297124/with/35998503563/

I find the AF on the SD1 trying at times. I have a split image screen in one of mine for manual focusing. Here's what I've learned over the years. The SD1 isn't really for sport but can be done. I'll look for more image to post later. I don't have the 17-50 f2.8 but do have the 17-70 f2.8-4 and it works very well. To be honest my SD15 worked better when it came to AF. My Nikon D1x beat it and my D1x is 13 years old now and the IQ is really good. You can see it in the images. What I do know is you'll have to micro adjust the lens to get the best IQ. I also found that the older EX DG can't be shot at high resolution the lenses can't do it. Steve Chong uses this combo and say it works great.

More later

Roger J.

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

Thanks for this - doesn't look like the photographer was trying to match skin tones - probably used whatever popped out of camera into raw, or however he processed it.

The Sigma - the biggest issue - is overexposure - that's not smooth at all - completely blown out highlights - video-y as heck.  

Excited to play with the d80, nikon's last CCD and seems from reviews to be one of their best cameras.

[HockeyFan12]

I really liked the tonality of the D70 (at the expense of very grainy shadows), but if you're looking for a clean highlight roll off, I'm not sure that's the camera, either. I did like the look of it. Less digital looking than the 20D and subsequent Nikon and Canon cameras... but noisier. I remember the highlights clipping just like with any other digital sensor, though. 

I think you might be stuck with film tbh. But there are worse things than that.

[Ed_David]

7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I really liked the tonality of the D70 (at the expense of very grainy shadows), but if you're looking for a clean highlight roll off, I'm not sure that's the camera, either. I did like the look of it. Less digital looking than the 20D and subsequent Nikon and Canon cameras... but noisier. I remember the highlights clipping just like with any other digital sensor, though. 

I think you might be stuck with film tbh. But there are worse things than that.

I think you are right.  Just film is making me broke!

Shot this on Kodak Ultramax 400.

I don't know if the Nikon D80 is going to get there

 

[HockeyFan12]

Those look great. I loved shooting 135 and 6x7 but large format was too expensive for me. Maybe start processing and scanning yourself? It'll slow you down more and save you money, too. The Nikon 5000 is seriously good. I used to own one and it has driver issues but once you solve them it and the Nikon 9000 scanners are spectacular. But very slow... I wouldn't get a flatbed scanner for 135.

Or try underexposing on the D80? It's not a bad camera I just don't think it's quite what you're looking for. Maybe save the money for more film. If I shot people I would shoot on a Leica Rangefinder, no question. Tiny, sharp, and no thunk or heavy shutter so with good technique you can use lower shutter speeds. I love rangefinders and 135 has great texture, looks more organic than larger formats. But I'm not really interested in stills these days. If I were I'd shoot film probably.

[Ed_David]

42 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Those look great. I loved shooting 135 and 6x7 but large format was too expensive for me. Maybe start processing and scanning yourself? It'll slow you down more and save you money, too. The Nikon 5000 is seriously good. I used to own one and it has driver issues but once you solve them it and the Nikon 9000 scanners are spectacular. But very slow... I wouldn't get a flatbed scanner for 135.

Or try underexposing on the D80? It's not a bad camera I just don't think it's quite what you're looking for. Maybe save the money for more film. If I shot people I would shoot on a Leica Rangefinder, no question. Tiny, sharp, and no thunk or heavy shutter so with good technique you can use lower shutter speeds. I love rangefinders and 135 has great texture, looks more organic than larger formats. But I'm not really interested in stills these days. If I were I'd shoot film probably.

I got a film scanner on ebay for $50 I'm going to try.

The darkroom which did those photos isn't that bad - it's $11 for developing and scanning per roll, if I don't go for the higher res photo options that's $15 a roll and the quality of the grain looked good.  Working on kodak ultramax which isn't the best film stock anyway

But yea, I'm going to give the d80 a quick chance and probably get rid of it

[Ed_David]

Now getting a nikon d40x, which has even more dynamic range.

some interesting links:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3000-versus-Nikon-D80-versus-Nikon-D40X___623_518_514

Also here's a list of every sensor Nikon has used:

https://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/

[Mattias Burling]

Yey, just got confirmation that my DP3 reached my post office. Now I just hope that I have time to go get it today

[Ed_David]

DP3 vs Nikon D40x vs Portra 400 or some other form of film?

Can you do it? I'm going to test D40x vs Portra

[Nikkor]

What about the Fuji FinePix S5 Pro. It has these super dynamic range pixels that record the highlights. That has to be filmic.

 

@Ed_David

[Mattias Burling]

54 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

DP3 vs Nikon D40x vs Portra 400 or some other form of film?

Can you do it? I'm going to test D40x vs Portra

Not agains the D40 but I can test against film. I have Portra, Ektar, Fujicolor, Slidefilm, Kodak Motion Picture (cinestill), Polaroid, Instax and a whole candy bag of different B&Ws

[Ed_David]

6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Not agains the D40 but I can test against film. I have Portra, Ektar, Fujicolor, Slidefilm, Kodak Motion Picture (cinestill), Polaroid, Instax and a whole candy bag of different B&Ws

Cinestill is awesome!!

7 hours ago, Nikkor said:

What about the Fuji FinePix S5 Pro. It has these super dynamic range pixels that record the highlights. That has to be filmic.

 

@Ed_David

Damn it now i gotta get this too!

[HockeyFan12]

On 9/9/2017 at 5:51 AM, SMGJohn said:

I recently acquired a Sigma SD Quattro from Japan just to have some fun alongside a 17-50mm Sigma F2.8 which for the price is okay lens.

I put it up against my Samsung NX500 and I just do not see it, what does this camera do better than my Samsung? It seems Samsung has exceptional colours out the camera as well albeit the profiles fall flat so I boosted them in bridge but other than that everything else is straight out the camera, DNG/RAW to JPEG with no edit except a crop, both cameras using standard colour profile which should not matter as neither seem to translate that to the RAW file. 

Both using F2.8 and 28mm range, I used the middle section. 

While some may say its unfair to compare 19 megapixel to 28 megapixel, remember that Foveon captures true RGB colour but yet does not have the colour resolution of a NX500 funny enough both cameras are best at ISO 100 - 200 and starts degrading the further you increase ISO.

 

NX500 - SD Quattro DNG - SD Quattro X3F

 

Maybe I am doing something wrong, I got the latest firmware on both cameras too or maybe I just do not see it. 
Someone shed some light on this? 

Your lens is failing you, for one. Did you shoot this wide open? I wouldn't expect a huge difference between the two cameras but try a better lens, ideally a high end prime, stopped down to f5.6 on the Sigma, and the performance should match the Samsung at least. The 17-50 isn't exactly good wide open.

That said, maybe it's more than that? That comparison's not even close. The middle bush with the variety of leaf colors should be where the Sigma pulls ahead and it's totally failing there.