Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So what do you think of the Sigma SD Quattro ?
#21
  Great IQ by all accounts, but it kind of looks like a camera for those with infinite patience and time!
Dave's clichés
#22
Well dave, If I would know your face, I think I would see you smiling soon - but I imagine that camouflage-Chewbacca smiling and it's also alright. Oh wait, I know your face - the one with the big round glasses, right?

 

Yesterday I passed the link to this thread forward to Sigma importer of Switzerland. Today I got his reply. Now I know, that he wants to forward it to Japan headquarters and summarized, IQ and color rendering is good but developing RAW ist too slow. He regretted that these days "fast" and with that "superficial" became so important and wonders if that'0s our future. Are we not all whishing to de-accelerate (there's no exact translation for the German fashion word "Entschleunigung")?

 

I replied, I like to decide when and at which part in my life I like to "slow up" (another fashion term), but if that was the intention to make Mac users wait longer and reflect, while waiting, about life universe and decisions to buy Sigma, why do have the poor Windows users need to hurry up and rush through the whole process? -_-

#23
I'm slightly wondering why you are so stressed about the RAW question ...

 

Adobe seems to have a decent support for Sigma cameras:

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/ca...meras.html

 

If the SD quattro gains at least a minimal amount of traction they'll certainly support it. 

#24
BTW, the SD quattro has an IR filter "far" in front of the sensor.

Thus no anti-dust shaker, right ?

Any experience with the "sealing" ?

#25
Come on, Klaus: In that list NONE of the current models is listed! Adobe and "decent support for Sigma", what a joke.  :lol:

 

I took the list and put the year of introduction in brackets. Current cameras are not supported, and if Iridient says they will not go on to support Foveon quattro sensors, then it's ONLY the de-accelerating Photo Pro software left.  :unsure:

 

 

DP1 (2006) X3F 4.6, 5.1 2.1

DP1s (2008?) X3F 5.6 2.6

SD9 (2007) X3F 2.2 1.0

SD10 (2009?) X3F 2.2 1.0

SD14 (2010) X3F 4.1 1.1

DP2 (2009) X3F 5.4 2.4

#26
They supported all DSLRs (thus all Sigma system cameras ...), didn't they ?

I lost the overview there so maybe I missed something.

 

More samples here:

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/s...mpression/

 

Honestly some of these samples look really bad. Hopefully this is the RAW converter ....

#27
Quote:BTW, the SD quattro has an IR filter "far" in front of the sensor.

Thus no anti-dust shaker, right ?
Infrared it is? Didn't know that but saw it, too. Don't know about dust removement functions, so far I've only experience with fixed lens Sigmas.

Quote:Any experience with the "sealing" ?
Hmmm, I would not bet much on that. Even if the body would be sealed, then

  1. there's still no description, against what exactly the seals should do a good job - weather we have all day...
  2. the lenses which have some kind of seals, are to be found in the "Sports" group. 120-300/2.8 and 150-600/5.6-6.3 is kind of not much wide angle 
#28
Quote:They supported all DSLRs (thus all Sigma system cameras ...), didn't they ?

I lost the overview there so maybe I missed something.

 

More samples here:

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/s...mpression/

 

Honestly some of these samples look really bad. Hopefully this is the RAW converter ....
 

Maybe not only the converter: Have you seen how many were taken with the 17-70 C? The guy didn't use much of the better Art lenses. No wonder, as those make the whole package a lot heavier. I see it the way, if zoom, then 18-35 and 50-100 are the first choice. To me, even the 150-600 could become interesting again, it's just that not many users want to buy second hand lenses with Sigma mount.

 

You're right, some of the samples they should have left in the trash. But then - at least it's honest. When I take the little DPx Merrills with me, a tripod has to be in the bag, and those flowers would look good - or at least sharper.

 

But then, I easily get bad pictures out of each camera. So far I don't know of one body which tells me "no, mate, won't take the picture, it really is crap. Not worth the effort or battery power..."

 

Even at PZ's sample galleries I could post pictures which were not perfect although take with a highly recommended lens  ^_^

#29
I'm not talking about the artiness of those images. These are just samples after all.

However, the technical quality is often bad (image noise) even at low ISOs.

#30
Quote:BTW, the SD quattro has an IR filter "far" in front of the sensor.

Thus no anti-dust shaker, right ?

Any experience with the "sealing" ?
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/s...p01_06.jpg

This image at least shows a dust spot "on the sensor" (a bit above the water line about 1/3rd into the image from the right).

 

What I mostly notice, apart from the CA, is the quite drab colours in these samples, very rainy day-ish even if the sun clearly is out. I don't see oddly strong noise?

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)