Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H
#7
Quote:Are you sure you want only going in at 200%? Why stopping there, and not go to 400 or 1000%?  Rolleyes

 

Really, you're making something up not even Canon would deal better with. The same you're doing with all other samples? What and why do you want to look at files in 200%? If you need 200% to print or crop, you're already using the wrong system. No wonder I could not see noise - to me, 100% is what I max out. This pictures printed are 52 × 35 cm @300 dpi. Your screenshots would have double size and you're not thinking this comes without quality loss on a Bayer sensor?

 

I don't want to offend you, but I never ask a sensor to perform at more than 100%, I think that's entirely pointless.

 

Oh and of course the 35 mm has CA, it was the first ART lens 5 years ago. At that time there were no CA-free lenses around - it was just reduced pretty much.

Just look for yourself: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/79...fx?start=1

0.8 pixel at all apertures. I suspect, the Foveon sensor does show it better than AA filters in front of Bayer pattern.
This is so silly. The noisy crap of those images is visible at 100% easily (ISO 100!!! mind you), yet you claim you don't see. To make it evidently clear, I give 400% crops, and you make a stupid post like that.

 

Claiming that foveon somehow would show CA better is just plain nonsense without any basis. And failing to atually look at the odd CA, and where from the frame it comes, is even more mind boggling. No, these "CA fringes" do not come from the extreme edges of a FF image. They come from more or less the central part of a 1.36x crop camera image, mostly. This is NOT "just normal CA". This is the camera inventing nonsense colours and messing up big time, due to the sensor structure and issues to figure out what the colour should have been.

 

To be honest and frank, the images show very bad IQ. That is honest. And true. And real. And yet, you claim it is fake news. Trumpian. 

 

And then you have the audacity to troll with bringing up "Canon". Why? Because I have a Canon camera. Want to see Canon ISO 100 400% crops to compare? Ok, smaller sensor, so smaller pixels, ISO 100, Canon EOS 77D.

[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

Anywhere near similar noise crap? No.

  


Messages In This Thread
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H - by JJ_SO - 06-01-2017, 04:06 PM
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H - by JJ_SO - 06-01-2017, 07:00 PM
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H - by borisbg - 06-02-2017, 02:41 AM
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H - by JJ_SO - 06-02-2017, 05:14 AM
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H - by Brightcolours - 06-02-2017, 05:31 AM
DPReview reviews Sigma SD Quattro H - by JJ_SO - 06-02-2017, 05:51 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
10 Guest(s)