Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: soboyle on September 02, 2014, 10:15:20 am
-
Agree with the review. All the weaknesses that Michael and Kevin mention are there. They were there for the Merrill's too, and I'm finding the Quattro an improvement on the Merrill, just not the jump I was hoping for. The best workflow to minimize time in Sigma photo pro is to shoot jpg and raw, review the jpgs in lightroom, then process the select raws in SPP. I added a Hoodman 3.2 LCD loupe to give the Quattro a usable viewfinder in bright sun. It adds bulk, but I use it on a tripod most of the time so works for me. Image quality is excellent, a slight improvement over the Merrill's, color is also better.
It's a quirky camera, has limited use, does not have huge dynamic range, doesn't fall to hand well, but if you treat it like a medium format camera, as I did with the Merrill's, then some of these issues go away. Not for everyone or every subject, excellent IQ within a narrow range of use.
-
I agree with some of it. SPP is slow but it seems to work ok on a PC, it seems a lot of the issues are with a MAC version. I preview all my files using Breezebrowser or Faststone viewer, I only shoot raws. Then I pick the few I want to process, develop them to an editable 16bit tif and import into Lightroom or PS and do final edits. I find I can get to a neutral image with a correct exposure fairly quickly in SPP, so not that grueling a task. Also with the Sigmas I do not shoot a lot of images and only process the few that are worth the time. I did the trial with the Quattro and knew what I was getting into, love the resolution and look of the images when the conditions are right. I have other cameras for other purposes. I then picked up a relatively inexpensive DP3M and that will pretty much do it for these cameras. I still love and use my Fuji XT-1 and for long lenses the 5DMII. The Sigmas are a niche camera for specific uses.
Alan
-
I think we are being spoiled by all this technology. Following Michael's review of the DP2M I bought one. I then bought a DP3M and have now bought backups of both them since the prices have plummeted. I am going to pass on the Quattro but the Merrills are my favourite cameras by far.
Yes SPP is a serious pain compared to other software. But I can still process 100 files in it quicker than I can develop and print just a contact sheet from just a couple of rolls of 120 film (if you include the drying time). Actually to process 100 images on film I would have to develop, fix, dry and then contact about 9 rolls of 120.
Mind you I still use SPP 5.5 or whatever. But I just batch process to Tiffs whilst doing something else and then weed things out in Lightroom. Actually the tedium of SPP might be a good thing - you have to think before making half a dozen exposures of the same scene from marginally different angles or perspectives.
At the end of the day photography is about making images. The Merrills plus SPP make spectacular ones. Well, they need a bit of input from the photographer as well.
-
I have the Merrills, not the Quattro. The software issue is huge, and I just don't understand why Sigma doesn't hire someone who has experience in top-level design of imaging software.
I like the idea of shooting RAW plus .jpg , something I avoid on my Canons (twice the crappy files to ditch). Being able to pre-screen in LR to get rid of the dross could be helpful.
Effects of knowing that SPP lies ahead: I shoot like I am shooting film, each frame has a cost in time. I tend to shoot fewer on-spec shots as a "warm-up", and spend more time setting up the shot.
-
I don't have a Quattro, just the older DP2M. SPP is not a great piece of software, but it functions tolerably on a PC. It's slower than Lightroom, but the Mac delays mentioned in both reviews just aren't something I ever see on my old Core2Quad with only 8G of RAM. I've never shot even a single jpg. I've done about 2,500 total shots in 11 months, all raw.
I guess I treat that camera sort of like a 4X5 with no movements. I choose my shots pretty carefully, then get out a tripod and go to work. Sure, the screen is terrible, but it's no worse than an upside down, reverse image ground glass. I hear the sensor is only good up to 400 ISO, but since mine is always on a tripod, I've never shot over 200 anyway.
The results come with the same frustrations I remember from 4X5. A lot of times I get perfectly exposed shots that have some niggling composition problem, resulting from my not being able to see the screen well in the sun. Like maybe a tree branch that goes right to the edge of the frame. I really need to coble up a hood arrangement.
When everything goes right, the TIFF files out of SPP are remarkable. Very little tweaking required in Adobe apps. On a recent trip, I took 2,200 shots with my 6D, and about 300 with the DP2M. I printed my favorite six shots from the trip, all from the DP2M files. One sold immediately, two others are in a local show (and one of those sold right away). The other three are going on my own walls.
I'm interested in the Quattros, but only if firmware updates give it the ability to noticeably increase resolution over the Merrills. It would be great if Sigma came up with Foveon cameras that behaved like all the other cameras we have now. Believe me, I understand the pain. But they're still productive cameras, provided you're willing to use them in very specific ways.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I suppose.
-
"Other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" It began to feel like they were savaging the camera and Sigma. When something's that far wrong, why review it in detail?
Makes me a little sad though. I'm a huge fan of scrappy underdogs, and in this case it seems things went the wrong direction. The number of misses in the user experience area are really pretty astonishing when you tally them up.
I had hopes that the unusual form factor might be good. One of my favorite compact camera designs was the old Nikon twist-body camera. It seemed weird until you started using it, and then just became second nature. I'm convinced that great digital cameras really don't have to look like their film predecessors. For a long time everyone seemed to think a camera had to have bellows. But no one has really come up with a breakthrough - except phone manufacturers. The strength of that design shows in its widespread acceptance and use.
-
Kevin, Michael, can you maybe explain WHY Adobe is so set against Sigma? Is the engineering too complex ?(though if Brian Griffith could do it on his own for the Merrills, surely the might of Adobe can muddle through?) The market size argument doesn't hold much water - first, there's a touch of self-fulfilling prophecy to it, in that if Lr and Ps did offer support, maybe sales would increase - and second, anyway, there are more tbsn a few supported cameras that don't have massive market share. Various MF backs for example. Is it just that Adobe / PhaseOne don't believe that the Foveon output is stable/predictable, and therefore they don't want to open up to potential massive customer support issues? Or are they being actively hindered by Sigma?
Maybe everybody going to Photokina can drop by the Sigma booth and embarass them by asking them to demo SPP? Or just call for the head of the lead sw architect? :-)
I sympathise with you trying to use the DP2Q in the Arctic, Kevin. I tried using the DP2M in the Antarctic... total nightmare, made worse by the hint of what it might have been able to produce had it been even vaguely usable with gloves....
One other question - when all is said and done, is the Quattro really much of a progression over the Merrill? I get the impression that it isn't. Especially as the Merrill has now got quite reasonable workflow, with Iridient's roundtripping to/from Lr (or Aperture) feature.
-
Neither Kevin nor I are in a position to speak for Adobe. One can speculate though that the amount of engineering resources needed to write support for a very specialized and different sensor design are not commensurate with the number of potential users.
Michael
-
It really depends on the way you look at the camera.
I find my DP2 Quattro to be a much more forgiving tool than the DP2m it replaced in terms of battery life, screen, overall usage envelope.
Yes, software sucks but jpgs are excellent. What I do is to:
- Select folder in SPP to launch thumbnail creation,
- Review the jpgs in Bridge in //,
- Only re-develop the very few keepers that I want with the best possible quality.
This is not a high volum images camera in the first place, so this approach works reasonnably well on my last gen Mac Pro.
I hope that Iridient Developper will find a way to support the DP2 Quattro files.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hope that Iridient Developper will find a way to support the DP2 Quattro files.
How good was the support of Iridient Developer for the DPx Merrill files?
-
As an aside, there's a typo here:
"Corn and Clouds. Clearview, Ontario. August, 2014
Sigma DP2 Quarttro. JPG. ISO 100."
-
Hello, My name is Paul and I'm a Foveon addict....
Mike and Kevin gave a fair assessment on the Quattro situation.
I have yet to update my SD14 out of the hope that someday I will be able to afford a Sigma DSLR that can give me the reliable and flexible capabilities of my almost as old Nikon D90. I'm still waiting... Sigma has moved the ball down the court with the Quattro on many fronts as far as Speed, Color(a real break through) & Battery life. But Sigma never really catches up and is still a lap behind where others are going. The SPP project management is a major embarrassment, but Sigma wanted to ship the camera as promised after shipping so many cameras late IMHO. So we have a new camera shipped with public beta software to handle the new format raws. I guess we will see if the update in October will bring happiness in the Sigma Universe.
-
How good was the support of Iridient Developer for the DPx Merrill files?
In my opinion, very good. In the present tense, not the past!
Early versions had some colour cast issues, but these were soon sorted out. Current version leaves no reason to use DPP, even if for Merrill files, on Mac, the last iteration of v5 was in my experience usable. Not exactly fluid, but nothing like the nightmare experiences reported for v6.
-
A sad story about misjudgment by Sigma. Strange considering how Sigma is reinventing themselves in very good lenses lately. Btw. I think one review had been more than enough :)
Having said that, I don't quite understand why there was not focus in IQ given that it would (or at least should be) easy to just convert the RAW files to 16 bit TIFF and import into Lightroom or Capture One and then process the files. Also it should be easy to view the RAW files extracting the embedded JPG files using one of many apps than can do that. Therefore in my view the review does come forward more negative than needed. But no excuses can be made for the bad software that comes with the camera, of course. Really amateurish by Sigma.
-
Hans, If you read the review you would see there is no easy way to convert files to TIFF. And, we did say the IQ was excellent under proper conditions. We did two reviews in this case as we were trying to give this camera a chance and make sure that it was not just one of us having a bad experience. Also, by converting to a TIFF you throw any chance of working from the RAW file and doing proper recovery of shadows and highlights as well as other corrections. And, considering I couldn't even get SPP to work on my MAC and I know others experiencing the same problems, how could I even do the conversion. Yes, I have a lot of images I shot in RAW that I would love to convert. They will have to wait now until some rainy day in the future.
Kevin Raber
-
Well I agree a lot with Bernard. It is a usable camera that is good for some special images. Getting tif is not that difficult, at least with a PC. Once you adjust exposure and WB and get a usable neutral file the editing is best accomplished in other programs that are more suited for it.
As far as evaluating images, on a PC you can use Breezebrowser and also FastStone viewer to view the image from the embedded jpg in the raw file. Faststone is free and will show a full screen version, it is pretty easy to evaluate which images are worth more attention and processing in the very slow SPP. Rawdigger can also read the files if you want to evaluate the raw image from the different color planes.
As a side note there is a new firmware and incremental SPP version available as well today from Sigma. It will never be a mainstream camera but I do not think that is their intention. From early reports that I have seen there is small increase in speed. I am hoping that when they finally release V6.1 it will be more usable.
Alan
-
Hans, If you read the review you would see there is no easy way to convert files to TIFF. And, we did say the IQ was excellent under proper conditions. We did two reviews in this case as we were trying to give this camera a chance and make sure that it was not just one of us having a bad experience. Also, by converting to a TIFF you throw any chance of working from the RAW file and doing proper recovery of shadows and highlights as well as other corrections. And, considering I couldn't even get SPP to work on my MAC and I know others experiencing the same problems, how could I even do the conversion. Yes, I have a lot of images I shot in RAW that I would love to convert. They will have to wait now until some rainy day in the future.
Kevin Raber
Kevin, I DID read the review and my comments are based on that! A simple convert to TIFF without any editing would surely have been possible. Unless there are clipping in either highlights or shadows you can use Lightroom to adjust to your hearts content. Not 100% as optimal as directly from RAW but close if you work on 16 bit TIFFs. And why not getting a version of SPP that could work? It took me about 30 minutes to find and download SPP and sample images from Imaging Resource and convert them to 16 bit TIFF. Attached a screen shot from Lightroom of Canon 5D III at ISO 100 and the Sigma Quattro at ISO 100. Other reviewers had a version that worked and they could process the RAW files. Yes, there were references to IQ (without much detail and no comparison to a Bayer sensor camera), but the focus was on all that was wrong and I still feel one review would have been enough. I do agree that a fairly negative review was fine assuming what was reported was correct and I have no personal experience with the camera. But other reviews are not nearly as negative.
-
For anyone interested, this is how I added the Hoodman 3.2 using a Desmond lens plate.
An ugly bugger, no doubt, but it works. I can't speak that highly of the optics in the Hoodman 3.2, but it works in the bright sun, and manual focus is now usable.
I've found that autofocus on the DP2Q tends to grab the background if trying to focus on a foreground object like the attached image.
-
But other reviews are not nearly as negative.
The key word being NEARLY. We wrote about our experience. We did involve Sigma when things didn't go right. The error message I showed in my article still is there today when trying to boot up SPP. I refuse to process RAW files in a manner that defeats the reason for working with RAW.
Kevin
-
But other reviews are not nearly as negative.
The key word being NEARLY. We wrote about our experience. We did involve Sigma when things didn't go right. The error message I showed in my article still is there today when trying to boot up SPP. I refuse to process RAW files in a manner that defeats the reason for working with RAW.
Kevin
As mentioned I downloaded SPP (edited: on my MacBook Pro retina) today and generated TIFF files using it.
-
As mentioned I downloaded SPP today and generated TIFF files using it.
On a PC or on a Mac? That seems to be key to the experience.
-
On a PC or on a Mac? That seems to be key to the experience.
On a Mac!
-
Sigma released a new version of SPP: http://www.sigma-global.com/en/download/cameras/sigma-photo-pro/ 6.06
I believe a new version of the Quattro firmware is also available.
-
I downloaded SPP 6.0.6 for Mac and found a sample Quattro file online.
The software does indeed seem to work and I was able to generate a TIFF file.
My folder had 5 images, 4 JPEGs and the Quattro file. The first time for some reason it took about a minute (on a Mac with 16GB) before the 5 thumbs appeared. Visits after that were much faster and responsive though.
Besides that, the user interface is completely unintuitive and indeed reminiscent of SilkyPix 3, the version that comes with the Fuji X cameras.
As soon as Iridient supports the files I probably would not mind giving the camera a try though.
-
I loved these two reviews!
Both truly gave me lots of useful information, just what a potential buyer really needs to know about a new camera.
And they were entertaining. I FELT Kevin's frustration and laughed at Michael's funny sarcasm.
Seriously, I don't recall ever reading two more useful and less 'biased' reviews - no one could fake those emotional responses to the camera and software as written.
-
As soon as Iridient supports the files I probably would not mind giving the camera a try though.
Apparently there are no plans for Quattro support in Iridient. Which means I personally will not be buying one. In any case I see no significant advance over the Merrills.
-
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.
-
Kevin and I have a meeting scheduled with Sigma at Photokina. One of the things that I plan on asking them is whether they have a beta program for SPP.
My guess is that they do not, because if they did we likely wouldn't see the software working (soft of) on one machine and not another.
Beta programs such as those run by companies like Adobe and Phase One have dozens of people on a wide range of machines and OS versions constantly testing revisions and updates. Yet bugs still sneak through.
To not have a broad-based beta testing program for consumer software is inviting disaster, and that's what we're seeing with SPP.
When the emperor is naked, someone has to say so. We did.
Michael
-
Thank you, Michael and Kevin, for reviews and for your contacting Sigma face to face about SPP issues. Michael's review of the DP2M gave a lot of momentum to the DP Merrills, it is clear that you want to like the Foveon cameras including the Quattro. Sigma should take note that their friendly user base is frustrated with the software.
-
Any way you cut it a device this badly designed is positively offensive and an insult to consumers. I really don't care how wonderful the images are, technically - which I realise someone's bound to seize on for the purpose of denial. Of course some of these consumers probably deserve whatever they get, so vulnerable have we become to the wiles of corporations in a decadent market. I've been had too, numerous times, with the Surface Pro 2 being the latest (well, last December anyway) but it's a flawless masterpiece compared to everything I've read about these bizarrely badly executed lumps.
I say this fully understanding that they can produce superb image quality, but there isn't much that can't these days, is there? I also view them from the perspective of someone who once had a company in which I invented, designed and manufactured video signal processing equipment which was sold by a major Japanese multi-national company. I got some of that enterprise and its products wrong too but compared to Sigma I was working with almost no financial or manpower resources. Even so I usually managed to iron out the faults before subsequent versions went on sale.
As for software I had a role for about ten years in managing the implementation of a large custom software package used in genuinely mission-critical environments - in the newspaper industry where you kinda need to make sure that every issue of the paper gets published. The cr@p software that Sigma are peddling sounds like a bad joke and would have got the team I was part of fired en masse.
Buy this sh!t and you simply encourage them.
"Never give a sucker an even break"
W.C. Fields
-
A good question to ask, since it looks like we will never see native X3F support on a mainline RAW editor like Aperture, Lightroom, Phase1 maybe they need to consider adding DNG to the firmware or 16bit TIFF options. Yes this may limit total capability but since their current JPGs color is so good I think this might be a good enough solution for most folks. I currently covert all my X3Fs in SPP to 16bit TIFF Pro Color and import to Aperture. Doubling my processing time compared to NEFs.
Paul
-
Kevin and I have a meeting scheduled with Sigma at Photokina. One of the things that I plan on asking them is whether they have a beta program for SPP.
Good. May I suggest you also ask them about publishing the specs of their raw files format? That may motivate somebody to write an alternative converter.
Also: many users would be perfectly pleased with a simple software to convert batch of files to 16-bits tiff, so as to be able to import them into Lightroom without losing too much quality. That should be much easier to do than the full-featured SPP program.
-
No doubt SPP is a dogs breakfast, but on my pretty fast PC with 32gb ram, its not too bad. Lets say about as fast as Hasselblad Phocus at processing a single shot H5D file. The biggest issue is when making pre-development adjustments, which are too slow.
I blow hot and cold with the Quattro. I have posted a number of files here and elsewhere and it is capable of superb results, as you, Michael, have said. It can be a medium format camera in your pocket, or a car crash, depending on light levels and shooting conditions.
-
It can be a medium format camera in your pocket, or a car crash, depending on light levels and shooting conditions.
Well said; this is kind of true of all Foveon-based cameras; I know, I own some of them.
I hope Photokina comes out with an affordable medium format RF-or-Mirrorless (with a fixed lens or with an interchangeable lens system) that allows me to print cropped images in 1:3 ratio panoramic format up to let's say 48-inches wide.
-
Kevin and I have a meeting scheduled with Sigma at Photokina. One of the things that I plan on asking them is whether they have a beta program for SPP.
My guess is that they do not, because if they did we likely wouldn't see the software working (soft of) on one machine and not another.
Beta programs such as those run by companies like Adobe and Phase One have dozens of people on a wide range of machines and OS versions constantly testing revisions and updates. Yet bugs still sneak through.
To not have a broad-based beta testing program for consumer software is inviting disaster, and that's what we're seeing with SPP.
When the emperor is naked, someone has to say so. We did.
Michael
Heartfelt thanks for pushing Sigma into making sane decisions. I hope you would mention opening up the SPP source code and X3F to developers worldwide. People *seem* to be lining up at the door to try to help Sigma, but Sigma, in what seems to be a rather arrogant attitude at this point, just doesn't want to acknowledge it.
Best wishes and thanks for furthering our best interests.
-
For windows there is another conversion option and it works on the Quattro files, it is Helicon Filter.
http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconsoft-products/helicon-filter/
Using the embedded conversion works on the files from my Quattro and DP3M. They have a 30 day trial, and full license is only $30. Worth a look. (this is also posted in another thread)
Alan
-
Lets hope Sigma sees the light and goes DNG with future files. Or works closely with Adobe for compatibility. Working with Quattro files currently is almost as time consuming as scanning film.
-
So now it is Photokina time, let's hope we hear some news from Michael's and Kevin's meeting with the Sigma folks, even if the result of the meeting is a non-specific comment from Sigma rep: "yes, we heard you, post-processing is a weakness of our platform". The reps can't tell us everything, but they can register our concerns.
-
All I can say is that we met for over an hour with senior people at Sigma and they are well aware of the issues.
It will be up to them to say more.
Michael
-
All I can say is that we met for over an hour with senior people at Sigma and they are well aware of the issues.
It will be up to them to say more.
Michael
Thanks. I hope they know what they're doing.
-
Thanks for letting us know that the Sigma execs heard your message. I wouldn't expect them to have instant comments or answers, just to nod their heads and ask questions.
-
I get this message while using the latest version of the Sigma Program for raw files from a Quattro 2. It says, "Developer Tools Access to debug must continue'. Then it asks for my password. Am wondering what's going on here. Has anyone else encountered this ?
Thanks for reading.
Richard
-
Suffered with that software yesterday again... but still like the files.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7476/15850232832_a1317b9764_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sigma just released an update to their proprietary software, it's version 6.2.
It's purported to speed things up a bit.
I guess we'll see if it's faster- and more stable.
Richard