I agree with Michael and Kevin that what we expected was not met in our experiences (I used the Quattro for the 5-day (too-short-) loan period, a nice gesture by Sigma, but perhaps also one that shot themselves in the foot a bit, as many reactions towards the camera weren't all that positive).
There is nothing more frustrating than dashed expectations, especially due to the way this camera was touted and how it affected our expectations, perhaps beyond the levels of Sigma's own intentions? (actually, I don't think so!)
All companies use hype. Nothing new there. If they deliver, we are ecstatic (as in the case of e.g. the Pentax 645Z apparently; see MR's review here on lula), and quite let down if the opposite happens, which happened to a large extent with the Q.
This is exactly how I felt. I have the DP2M and DP3M; and for my landscape and city-scape purposes, under most circumstances, these are great little cameras. I have tried the SD1 as well, liked it kind of, but need live view, so did not buy.
So, my expectations of ever improved Foveon performance got somewhat smashed by the Quattro, despite its better handling and faster processing speed. The only thing so far I can say is that its jpeg performance is the best of any Sigma camera so far, and according to some reviewers, the best coming out of any digital camera, period. I cannot personally verify that accolade.
But I shoot RAW, and processing these RAWS is indeed the most frustrating experience ever. I liked the Quattro camera itself enough so consider a purchase, but hated (and still do) the new software version. It is simply TOO &#$^%$#@ SLOW. So, no Quattro. Got a hardly used DP3M instead for half price of a new one.
If the files of the Q could be processed fast enough, I'm sure many users would forgive some of the camera's foibles. After all, it has IQ; there is no doubt about that. Whether it's better that the DP Merrills: many argue it is not enough better.
Apart from the slowness of the software, the current versions still do not bring out the full potential of the Foveon sensor; there has been talk about the so-called beer-garden phenomenon, and other issues with colors, lack of micro-detail, etc. They are apparently being slowly addressed, and we are promised a final SPP version in October. I'm a skeptical about a significant speed improvement, as they are focusing on bug fixes and tweaking of image processing (we have now at least 3 new versions since the camera first came out, and this may continue until the October great event?).
Let's say for moment that they fix all bugs, all processing issues, and the software produces absolutely fantastic out of this world, to-die-for, images, but it's still really molasses slow. Then what? Will they suddenly win the hearts of potential customers? We know the answer already to this silly question.
Sigma MUST absolutely produce a much faster SPP software, even if it means (and I hope they do), rebuilding the entire software from the ground up, even if it means using a different programming language. Even if it means delaying the selling of the DP1Q and DP3Q until that's done. Something very and deadly serious got to be done if Sigma is to hold its head above water as a viable camera producing company.
SPP IS and REMAINS the main problem. The SPP for the Quattros is significantly slower than for the Merrils and previous Foveon cameras. I have a quad-core, 32GB RAM PC, and a 250MB tiff file take a few seconds in PS to open up and adjustments take at most 10-15 seconds.
What's broken is not the Foveon technology itself but the software, the funnel through which the RAWs are processed. Sigma needs to invest very heavily and urgently in RAW software development.
So, I have one word to express to Sigma when it comes to better and faster software: Hya-ku-neh! (Japanese for: please hurry up !)
Personally I am considering the Sony A7R as my next DSLR, or, if I can raise the money, something like the Pentax 645Z. Would love to see some really good dng files from that machine.
