Sigma dp2 Quattro Full Size Sample Photos

That's some impressive image quality !!.

That's some impressive image quality !!.

If you multiply 7680x5120 you get 39.32 megapixels . . . not 33. The numbers in the specs. here are confusing, to say the least. Of course, I guess the numbers for the Quattro are confusing to most people, considering the sensor captures 29 megapixels of information and makes 19.6 megapixel raw photos, but in SUPER-HIGH mode the camera makes 39 megapixel JPEG photos. It sure is an even weirder camera than the Merrill cameras are. It seems like Sigma is traveling a road . . . well . . . making a new road of their own. I've seen a lot of photos from the Quattro so far, and from my analysis of those photos and these, it looks like a winner. :)

If you multiply 7680x5120 you get 39.32 megapixels . . . not 33. The numbers in the specs. here are confusing, to say the least. Of course, I guess the numbers for the Quattro are confusing to most people, considering the sensor captures 29 megapixels of information and makes 19.6 megapixel raw photos, but in SUPER-HIGH mode the camera makes 39 megapixel JPEG photos. It sure is an even weirder camera than the Merrill cameras are. It seems like Sigma is traveling a road . . . well . . . making a new road of their own.

I've seen a lot of photos from the Quattro so far, and from my analysis of those photos and these, it looks like a winner.

Specs updated with physical pixel count. Thanks.

Specs updated with physical pixel count. Thanks.

It's not a camera I'd ever consider but for an architectural photographer who must have maximum detail this is a stunning camera. Possibly a cheaper, if less versatile alternative to a medium format camera for some jobs.

It's not a camera I'd ever consider but for an architectural photographer who must have maximum detail this is a stunning camera. Possibly a cheaper, if less versatile alternative to a medium format camera for some jobs.

Much as I admire the bold design, it is hardly braking [i]new[/i] ground is it? And another thing... ASP-C with 20/39 megapixels does not a medium format make. This premise would make that Nokia phone camera thing eligable for the title wouldn't it? Big sensors / optimum pixel count / good glass mean bigger pixels mean clearer images. No argument please, it's just proven physics. Whether or not they produce [i]better[/i] images is a moot point and far more deserving of a discussion!

Much as I admire the bold design, it is hardly braking new ground is it? And another thing... ASP-C with 20/39 megapixels does not a medium format make. This premise would make that Nokia phone camera thing eligable for the title wouldn't it? Big sensors / optimum pixel count / good glass mean bigger pixels mean clearer images. No argument please, it's just proven physics. Whether or not they produce better images is a moot point and far more deserving of a discussion!

I've never seen images as clear and sharp from any so-called compact camera, whatever the sensor size. In that respect it is ground-breaking. Apart from that, it is a bit too limiting with no evf or lens versatility, and dodgy looking ergonomics.

I've never seen images as clear and sharp from any so-called compact camera, whatever the sensor size. In that respect it is ground-breaking. Apart from that, it is a bit too limiting with no evf or lens versatility, and dodgy looking ergonomics.

[quote] Whether or not they produce better images is a moot point and far more deserving of a discussion[/quote] My point is made purely from the RAW image quality. Physics do not enter into that. No argument please. What is deserving of discussion is a matter of opinion.

Quote: Whether or not they produce better images is a moot point and far more deserving of a discussion


My point is made purely from the RAW image quality. Physics do not enter into that. No argument please.

What is deserving of discussion is a matter of opinion.

Photos are good but not ground breaking. Ground breaking (from a digital perspective) will be when a photo can be seen by the normal eye with a 3D perspective of real life and life-like as we see it. Digital needs to go back to the past in order to move forward in a proper manner. As it stands analogue film remains king, just like analogue-created music remains king. Moreover, Sigma remains in it's own solitary cocoon as far as electronics which has never made justice to its unique Foveon sensor and the rest of the photographic equation. If they never listened to the thousand + voices and did something about it since creating their first DP I don't believe they'll ever do it.

Photos are good but not ground breaking. Ground breaking (from a digital perspective) will be when a photo can be seen by the normal eye with a 3D perspective of real life and life-like as we see it. Digital needs to go back to the past in order to move forward in a proper manner. As it stands analogue film remains king, just like analogue-created music remains king.

Moreover, Sigma remains in it's own solitary cocoon as far as electronics which has never made justice to its unique Foveon sensor and the rest of the photographic equation. If they never listened to the thousand + voices and did something about it since creating their first DP I don't believe they'll ever do it.

It's strange how everyone's approach is technical. I use a camera to make pictures, which I believe to be the purpose of a camera in my hands. Different criteria apply to picture making than to technical testing and pixel peeping. The quality of that camera's files are exceptional to my eyes. [quote] normal eye with a 3D perspective of real life and life-like as we see it.[/quote] That will never be possible except possibly via hologram in very limited way. The brain constructs what we see, not the eye. Concentrate on your vision for a while. How is your perception of detail at the peripheries? That is how truly lifelike photography will be. Look at a scene and something moves. All your perception goes to that as we are programmed, top ascertain threat or not. Vision is active, a photograph s passive. They cannot be reconciled. But d we want truly recorded utterly lifelike photography? Isn't the difference between how the camera records and how the eye sees precisely what we use to [i]make pictures[/i] instead of a simple recreation of the scene? If want to see the Yosemite, I can go there. If I want to understand its beauty I can look at Ansel Adam's work. It's monochrome, of course, so completely unrealistic. Isn't that the point?

It's strange how everyone's approach is technical. I use a camera to make pictures, which I believe to be the purpose of a camera in my hands. Different criteria apply to picture making than to technical testing and pixel peeping.

The quality of that camera's files are exceptional to my eyes.


Quote: normal eye with a 3D perspective of real life and life-like as we see it.


That will never be possible except possibly via hologram in very limited way. The brain constructs what we see, not the eye. Concentrate on your vision for a while. How is your perception of detail at the peripheries? That is how truly lifelike photography will be. Look at a scene and something moves. All your perception goes to that as we are programmed, top ascertain threat or not. Vision is active, a photograph s passive. They cannot be reconciled.

But d we want truly recorded utterly lifelike photography? Isn't the difference between how the camera records and how the eye sees precisely what we use to make pictures instead of a simple recreation of the scene?

If want to see the Yosemite, I can go there. If I want to understand its beauty I can look at Ansel Adam's work. It's monochrome, of course, so completely unrealistic. Isn't that the point?

Welcome Xectis, who is either Neil Young or Ansel Adams, to the forum! I emphatically disagree with your first paragraph but that's purely my opinion. However I wholeheartedly agree with your second. Producing a sensor as good as this and then shoehorning it into a child's toy camera is ludicrous, lets hope for their sales' sake they test the water with this brick and then use the CCD in a camera people will buy and want to use.

Welcome Xectis, who is either Neil Young or Ansel Adams, to the forum!
I emphatically disagree with your first paragraph but that's purely my opinion. However I wholeheartedly agree with your second. Producing a sensor as good as this and then shoehorning it into a child's toy camera is ludicrous, lets hope for their sales' sake they test the water with this brick and then use the CCD in a camera people will buy and want to use.

[quote] sake they test the water with this brick and then use the CCD in a camera people will buy and want to use.[/quote] Is is a little, er....eccentric, isn't it?

Quote: sake they test the water with this brick and then use the CCD in a camera people will buy and want to use.


Is is a little, er....eccentric, isn't it?

The images do seem impressive. With such a big design I am sure they could a easily incorporated a tilting screen and not added any more bulk. As its big anyway how about sticking on the 18-35, now that would be fantastic!

The images do seem impressive.

With such a big design I am sure they could a easily incorporated a tilting screen and not added any more bulk.

As its big anyway how about sticking on the 18-35, now that would be fantastic!

[quote]It's strange how everyone's approach is technical. I use a camera to make pictures, which I believe to be the purpose of a camera in my hands. Different criteria apply to picture making than to technical testing and pixel peeping.[/quote] A bit pompous, Lemmy, and not accurate. We're all, including you, doing the same thing here - looking at sample images of standard subjects and judging the camera, not the photography.

Quote:It's strange how everyone's approach is technical. I use a camera to make pictures, which I believe to be the purpose of a camera in my hands. Different criteria apply to picture making than to technical testing and pixel peeping.


A bit pompous, Lemmy, and not accurate. We're all, including you, doing the same thing here - looking at sample images of standard subjects and judging the camera, not the photography.

[quote]A bit pompous, Lemmy, and not accurate. [/quote] Sorry if it comes across that way, it wasn't meant to. The RAW image quality this camera produces are exceptional and I think it sells it short to discuss it in terms of numbers of pixels. I don't think the Foveon sensor will go mainsteam on but I do think that it gives a much more pleasing and natural image and colour rendition than the standard mosaicing ones do and, because each of its pixels count, its rendering has more in common with color film than the standard ones. I'm saying therefore, that a camera should be judged on the pictorial quality of its output, not the fact that it 'has however many pixels and so do lots of other cameras so it is no different'.

Quote:A bit pompous, Lemmy, and not accurate.


Sorry if it comes across that way, it wasn't meant to. The RAW image quality this camera produces are exceptional and I think it sells it short to discuss it in terms of numbers of pixels.

I don't think the Foveon sensor will go mainsteam on but I do think that it gives a much more pleasing and natural image and colour rendition than the standard mosaicing ones do and, because each of its pixels count, its rendering has more in common with color film than the standard ones.

I'm saying therefore, that a camera should be judged on the pictorial quality of its output, not the fact that it 'has however many pixels and so do lots of other cameras so it is no different'.

[quote]Sorry if it comes across that way, it wasn't meant to. The RAW image quality this camera produces are exceptional and I think it sells it short to discuss it in terms of numbers of pixels. [/quote] Completely agree about the sensor (and the lens seems very good also). My comment was that the camera is very basic and limited. If Sigma can't put that sensor in a better package economically, they should do a deal with someone who can.

Quote:Sorry if it comes across that way, it wasn't meant to. The RAW image quality this camera produces are exceptional and I think it sells it short to discuss it in terms of numbers of pixels.


Completely agree about the sensor (and the lens seems very good also). My comment was that the camera is very basic and limited. If Sigma can't put that sensor in a better package economically, they should do a deal with someone who can.

Additional ISO and WB test images added.

Additional ISO and WB test images added.

[quote] If Sigma can't put that sensor in a better package economically, they should do a deal with someone who can.[/quote] Yes, you wonder what Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic or someone could do with it.

Quote: If Sigma can't put that sensor in a better package economically, they should do a deal with someone who can.


Yes, you wonder what Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic or someone could do with it.

lemmy says "That will never be possible except possibly via hologram in very limited way". I totally respect your point of view. However, ever since I can remember I have repeatedly heard the words "That will never be possible", only to discover that eventually it all becomes possible. We need to overcome our way of limited thinking and trust that we are better than we think we are. To my mind there is no reason why analogue and digital cannot work in harmony to make photo results that much more life-like. A similar working principle has already been created by a certain company for the music-recording industry. Far as 3D life perspective, that is how I surely would see life if I rose above our present dimensional understanding. Bit deep I know but it'll all become possible eventually ;) minter e2, thank you for the welcome. I used to own a DP1 and sold it within a week of using it. Seeing the results of the unique image quality wasn't enough to convince me to keep the camera because the frustration of working with what surrounded the magnificent Foveon sensor was that powerful. I agree that the electronics and perhaps body should be left to the real professionals. Lastly to add my personal view on the DP Quattro body, by the picture shown I see a very impractical body. Not because of the body itself but its poor ergonomics. I foresee that it'll irritate the wits out of many users with tired hands.

lemmy says "That will never be possible except possibly via hologram in very limited way". I totally respect your point of view. However, ever since I can remember I have repeatedly heard the words "That will never be possible", only to discover that eventually it all becomes possible. We need to overcome our way of limited thinking and trust that we are better than we think we are.

To my mind there is no reason why analogue and digital cannot work in harmony to make photo results that much more life-like. A similar working principle has already been created by a certain company for the music-recording industry. Far as 3D life perspective, that is how I surely would see life if I rose above our present dimensional understanding. Bit deep I know but it'll all become possible eventually

minter e2, thank you for the welcome. I used to own a DP1 and sold it within a week of using it. Seeing the results of the unique image quality wasn't enough to convince me to keep the camera because the frustration of working with what surrounded the magnificent Foveon sensor was that powerful. I agree that the electronics and perhaps body should be left to the real professionals.

Lastly to add my personal view on the DP Quattro body, by the picture shown I see a very impractical body. Not because of the body itself but its poor ergonomics. I foresee that it'll irritate the wits out of many users with tired hands.

[quote]To my mind there is no reason why analogue and digital cannot work in harmony to make photo results that much more life-like[/quote] I can't see the value of 'life-like'. It sounds very prosaic as an aim for a photographer. Perhaps for someone taking pictures for record purposes. a passport picture, perhaps. But for a landscape? A portrait? When photography was invented in the 19th century many people thought and it was said that 'from now, painting is dead'. Actually, far from killing it it spurred new developments and techniques in painting, the impressionists, pointillism and many others which remain popular to this day. Painters recognized that people do not want records of things to look at, they want something more personal and imaginative. I think most photographers are more interested in changing or distorting reality (whatever that is) for pictorial effect than making a record of it.

Quote:To my mind there is no reason why analogue and digital cannot work in harmony to make photo results that much more life-like


I can't see the value of 'life-like'. It sounds very prosaic as an aim for a photographer. Perhaps for someone taking pictures for record purposes. a passport picture, perhaps. But for a landscape? A portrait?

When photography was invented in the 19th century many people thought and it was said that 'from now, painting is dead'. Actually, far from killing it it spurred new developments and techniques in painting, the impressionists, pointillism and many others which remain popular to this day.

Painters recognized that people do not want records of things to look at, they want something more personal and imaginative.

I think most photographers are more interested in changing or distorting reality (whatever that is) for pictorial effect than making a record of it.

800 ISO looks to be the max. usable. With no flash or stabilisation, another limitation.

800 ISO looks to be the max. usable. With no flash or stabilisation, another limitation.

The added images of Thoresby Hall are stunning !!.....incredible detail being recorded ! The WB pics are also very impressive....enlarging the image shows amazing detail in that Crumpler bag, & the printing on the Panasonic compact lens is incredible....then look at that little brass clock in the bottom RH corner, sooo crisp !!!!! The ISO test images look limited to 800 or less, for best quality....so Sigma needs a bit more work in that aspect......... I just find the appearance/design a bit too offbeat ??......put the lens & sensor in a more conventional camera & it should be a winner ??.

The added images of Thoresby Hall are stunning !!.....incredible detail being recorded !

The WB pics are also very impressive....enlarging the image shows amazing detail in that
Crumpler bag, & the printing on the Panasonic compact lens is incredible....then look at that
little brass clock in the bottom RH corner, sooo crisp !!!!!

The ISO test images look limited to 800 or less, for best quality....so Sigma needs a bit more
work in that aspect.........

I just find the appearance/design a bit too offbeat ??......put the lens & sensor in a more
conventional camera & it should be a winner ??.