Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: capital on February 23, 2016, 03:49:32 am
-
Press:
https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=566
Further specs:
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/sd-series/
I am wondering why they pulled a Pentax and retained the SA mount though. They shortened the flange distance on their compact cameras, why not here? Would open up other adapted lenses to their system.
-
Why not 35mm format, to make the most of the Art lenses???
-
Press:
https://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=566
Further specs:
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/sd-series/
I am wondering why they pulled a Pentax and retained the SA mount though. They shortened the flange distance on their compact cameras, why not here? Would open up other adapted lenses to their system.
OMG. 19.6 MP sampling positions becomes 39-megapixel-equivalent resolution, and 25.7 MP sampling positions becomes 51-megapixel-equivalent resolution???
Who are they trying to fool? Resolution is determined by the number of sampling positions per unit length or width. The sd Quattro has 5,424×3,616 (=19.6 MP) top layer pixels, and the sd Quatro HD has 6,200×4,152 (=25.7 MP). Just because the in-camera JPEGs can be upsampled to larger sizes, doesn't increase resolution, not even equivalent.
The resolution will probably be very good, and potentially with reduced false color aliasing (although not all color planes of the Quattro design are sampled at the highest top layer sampling density), due to the co-located 'RGB-ish' sampling of the Foveon sensor design, but why fabricate such measurable untrue resolution claims and terms like "equivalent" (so not the same, but equivalent/similar, how similar?).
I understand that due to the design (oblique rays are hard to capture vertically in the three layers), it is hard to produce much larger sensor dimensions (offset micro-lenses can only help so much), so APS-C or APS-H type of dimensions are probably the best one can expect from this type of design. No problem, it's large enough for the majority of users. But upsampling the files to 141% of their sampling density, and claiming that as resolution is still deceptive. I'd expect some benefit from upsampling to reduce apparent aliasing issues, but resolution is something else.
Rant over.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Why not 35mm format, to make the most of the Art lenses???
Hi Paul,
The Foveon design relies on 'distance traveled through silicon' as a first approximation for color. The larger the sensor dimensions become, the more rays will enter the silicon at an oblique angle, and that causes color contamination (some of which can be calibrated out, but there are limits). So the design benefits from retrofocus design lenses with a modest imagecircle diameter.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Got it now, thanks!
-
Ignoring all the misdirection about megapixels, which I believe Sigma has always done, I'm extremely eager to see what this camera offers in the real world. I hope Sigma puts a sensible price tag, battery life and improved file processing speeds.
Here is a link that has some good photos of the camera (Sigma's website seems to have trouble loading) http://photorumors.com/2016/02/23/new-sigma-sd-quattro-mirrorless-cameras-with-foveon-x3-sensor-and-sigma-sa-mount/
That thing is beautiful!
-
I have a DP2Q and Sigma really needs to improve their SPP, especially highlight recovery, it is extremely poor at that. The data seems to be there using Rawdigger to look at the planes, and also using a third party converter. The 3rd party converter does not do well with color so it is not really an alternative but it sure shows that the highlight recovery in SPP could be fixed. It is something that can be worked with, it is better speed wise than a few versions ago, but still is not what I consider a mature product. I do like it when it works with the data.
Interesting camera, not sure I like the styling the bottom not being flat will make it unstable and hard to have decent L-plate. As funky as the DP2Q is in shape I got used to it. Interesting camera but not sure I would invest any more in this system. I have a feeling it will not be priced competitively, it will still be high.
Alan
-
I have a DP2Q and Sigma really needs to improve their SPP, especially highlight recovery, it is extremely poor at that. The data seems to be there using Rawdigger to look at the planes, and also using a third party converter. The 3rd party converter does not do well with color so it is not really an alternative but it sure shows that the highlight recovery in SPP could be fixed. It is something that can be worked with, it is better speed wise than a few versions ago, but still is not what I consider a mature product. I do like it when it works with the data.
Interesting camera, not sure I like the styling the bottom not being flat will make it unstable and hard to have decent L-plate. As funky as the DP2Q is in shape I got used to it. Interesting camera but not sure I would invest any more in this system. I have a feeling it will not be priced competitively, it will still be high.
Alan
And I think, besides pricing, this is the big issue with Sigma's cameras. How many of us want to buy a camera that takes us out of our normal Lightroom/Capture One workflow? I know, at least for me, that has been a stopping point for picking up one of the P&S versions. If they worked with Adobe and got it added to their supported RAWs, I wouldn't be surprised if it helped sell a few more cameras.
-
And I think, besides pricing, this is the big issue with Sigma's cameras. How many of us want to buy a camera that takes us out of our normal Lightroom/Capture One workflow? I know, at least for me, that has been a stopping point for picking up one of the P&S versions. If they worked with Adobe and got it added to their supported RAWs, I wouldn't be surprised if it helped sell a few more cameras.
It is too much of a niche product for Adobe to deal with, they had a hard enough with the pipeline for the Fuji, the Sigma is a whole different world. The non Adobe workflow is not a big problem for me, I can get decent tifs from SPP most of the time, but sometimes there are highlights where is should be able to recover them but it doesn't and that causes strange color artifacting. That is my biggest beef with it. The speed is reasonable now on a decent system, they did make a lot of in roads to that in newer versions.
The other drawback to the Sigma is the higher ISO have a lot of noise in them. When it works, it can work great and you get great resolution and color with them.
A couple of snapshots from a drive from last weekend with the DP2Q. These are processed in SPP and very little else was done to them.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1633/25157233526_4c1ec8fa5b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ek4p4C)_SDI0947 (https://flic.kr/p/Ek4p4C) by Alan Smallbone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/aps-photo/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1598/24556992143_bfefc9098d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dq21dg)old road (https://flic.kr/p/Dq21dg) by Alan Smallbone (https://www.flickr.com/photos/aps-photo/), on Flickr
Alan
-
How many of us
this is not for us - this is for Foveon aficionados ... that's totally different mindset
-
Alan, IIRC, have we not crossed paths in Merrill threads? In case you have owned a Merrill, what are your impressions about the Quattro, especially compared to the Merrill?
As an aside, I have looked at samples from A7RII, DP0Q/2Q etc and the Quattro seems to be resolve better. This has not been a very comprehensive search for samples and I also understand that the A7RII performance depends on the lenses. The reason I bring this up is because in my head the A7RII was a Merrill like camera that could do all ISOs etc.
But after looking at samples, I started fantasizing about the Quattro, and now, with the SDQ and SDQh, I have an alternative to the A7rII.
Hopefully, the press doesn't write off the SDQ and the SDQh, but reviews them thoroughly instead.
-
this is not for us - this is for Foveon aficionados ... that's totally different mindset
Meh, I'm not sure if that is true or not. And I doubt either of us are in a position to truly know, unless you sit in the Sigma boardroom.
My point was, if they want to grow market share, they need to get their product to work more seamlessly in the majority of workflows. If they are happy with their niche, why make an adapter for your glass to also work on E mount?
-
Alan, IIRC, have we not crossed paths in Merrill threads? In case you have owned a Merrill, what are your impressions about the Quattro, especially compared to the Merrill?
As an aside, I have looked at samples from A7RII, DP0Q/2Q etc and the Quattro seems to be resolve better. This has not been a very comprehensive search for samples and I also understand that the A7RII performance depends on the lenses. The reason I bring this up is because in my head the A7RII was a Merrill like camera that could do all ISOs etc.
But after looking at samples, I started fantasizing about the Quattro, and now, with the SDQ and SDQh, I have an alternative to the A7rII.
Hopefully, the press doesn't write off the SDQ and the SDQh, but reviews them thoroughly instead.
Yes I think we have crossed paths. I also have a DP3M. The Quattro files do not have that huge microcontrast that the Merrills have but I think in most cases you can get that look with a little bit of processing. I got the Sigmas because of the resolving, it really does great when it is well exposed. I think you really need to be careful on things like the focus point and stability when shooting. I have kind of lusted after the Dp0Q because of the lens and it is a wider angle than the DP2Q I have, and especially since the price has dropped, the Quattros are $700 at B&H. The Quattros are much faster shooting than the Merrills, battery lasts longer and ISO performance is better. With the Quattro I can get away with 1600ISO for a monochrome image and work with color at up to 800 if carefully exposed. The extra battery life is great, so much better than the Merrill. The funky design too some getting used to on the Quattros, the LVF viewfinder attachment is a must have for the Quattros, especially outdoors.
I have not shot the Sonys so hard for me to compare them, not really interested in the Sony lineup and the earlier Sonys I never liked the interface. I will probably rent the new Sigma when it comes out with a lens and give it try. It would be nice if Sigma did the try before you buy with the new cameras like they did with the DP2Q, I did that and that is what got me to buy it.
To me the Quattro is a supplemental camera, it is great for certain shots and the results when it is "on" are fantastic and print big, the shots above have great resolution, the small individual flowers in the front are nice and sharp as are the details on the oak tree silhouette on the hill on the ridge line. Hard to get that resolution with other cameras though certainly doable but not for the price point of the Q. The Quattro is also easy to carry, I will sometimes go back to using a photo vest when out shooting and throw the Quattro in a pocket and have the Fuji around my neck with a lens or two in pockets and that is great fun. So for the price point as a supplemental camera the Quattro is great.
The thing with the new ILC from Sigma is it is buying into a whole new system and I am little more hesitant to do that, just because of overall cost, size and having to buy new heavier lenses. I have gotten so used to the Fuji and great lenses in a lightweight package. So it may tempt me more to the DP0Q now with the lower costs and have the two different focal lengths and save a ton of money.
If you can rent one and try it, it does have a learning curve exposure wise and getting used to the handling. SPP is free to download to process the files. although the new firmware and SPP have improved the exposure and color and looks like it also reduced the noise levels, but I have not tested it thoroughly it only came out late last week.
The Sigma crowd on forums is kind of unique they are obsessed with pixel peeping and micro contrast, I get it but that is not all there is to photography.
Alan
-
Here is a link that has some good photos of the camera...
The pictures remind me of Michael's article of a few years ago explaining that photographers have noses.
-
Meh, I'm not sure if that is true or not. And I doubt either of us are in a position to truly know, unless you sit in the Sigma boardroom.
My point was, if they want to grow market share, they need to get their product to work more seamlessly in the majority of workflows. If they are happy with their niche, why make an adapter for your glass to also work on E mount?
From the interviews I have seen they highly regard their employees more like older more traditional Japanese companies so they "value" their work greatly and having someone else work on a project or to "perfect" what they think they already do well, kind of goes against their grain. This is all pure speculation on my part. I think they think their workflow is adequate and just needs tweaking.
They have also stated in the interviews, that they are doing the camera because it interests them and they are not counting on them to be big income, their lenses are for that and they have certainly improved their lenses. The camera are more of side project just to do it.
Alan
-
I've heard of (A)rt lenses but what's the SGV series ?
Designed to take advantage of SGV lenses with great IQ
sd Quattro H (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sd-quattro-h-camera?utm_source=Sigma+Corp+of+America&utm_campaign=0b3c26970f-SIGMA_Feb_2016_2_19_talent-shine&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34bfa8ccd3-0b3c26970f-50845397)
-
Thanks for your impressions. I am nideed tempted by the DP0Q more than the others.
Thanks for the walk-through on Sigma processing but I do own the DP2M and I'm painfully aware of the Merrill generation's shortcomings.
Hopefully the SDQ/h address the shortcomings mentioned by you for the Quattro generation.
Yes I think we have crossed paths. I also have a DP3M. The Quattro files do not have that huge microcontrast that the Merrills have but I think in most cases you can get that look with a little bit of processing. I got the Sigmas because of the resolving, it really does great when it is well exposed. I think you really need to be careful on things like the focus point and stability when shooting. I have kind of lusted after the Dp0Q because of the lens and it is a wider angle than the DP2Q I have, and especially since the price has dropped, the Quattros are $700 at B&H. The Quattros are much faster shooting than the Merrills, battery lasts longer and ISO performance is better. With the Quattro I can get away with 1600ISO for a monochrome image and work with color at up to 800 if carefully exposed. The extra battery life is great, so much better than the Merrill. The funky design too some getting used to on the Quattros, the LVF viewfinder attachment is a must have for the Quattros, especially outdoors.
I have not shot the Sonys so hard for me to compare them, not really interested in the Sony lineup and the earlier Sonys I never liked the interface. I will probably rent the new Sigma when it comes out with a lens and give it try. It would be nice if Sigma did the try before you buy with the new cameras like they did with the DP2Q, I did that and that is what got me to buy it.
To me the Quattro is a supplemental camera, it is great for certain shots and the results when it is "on" are fantastic and print big, the shots above have great resolution, the small individual flowers in the front are nice and sharp as are the details on the oak tree silhouette on the hill on the ridge line. Hard to get that resolution with other cameras though certainly doable but not for the price point of the Q. The Quattro is also easy to carry, I will sometimes go back to using a photo vest when out shooting and throw the Quattro in a pocket and have the Fuji around my neck with a lens or two in pockets and that is great fun. So for the price point as a supplemental camera the Quattro is great.
The thing with the new ILC from Sigma is it is buying into a whole new system and I am little more hesitant to do that, just because of overall cost, size and having to buy new heavier lenses. I have gotten so used to the Fuji and great lenses in a lightweight package. So it may tempt me more to the DP0Q now with the lower costs and have the two different focal lengths and save a ton of money.
If you can rent one and try it, it does have a learning curve exposure wise and getting used to the handling. SPP is free to download to process the files. although the new firmware and SPP have improved the exposure and color and looks like it also reduced the noise levels, but I have not tested it thoroughly it only came out late last week.
The Sigma crowd on forums is kind of unique they are obsessed with pixel peeping and micro contrast, I get it but that is not all there is to photography.
Alan
-
They have also stated in the interviews, that they are doing the camera because it interests them
because Yamaki is not a hired for stock options manager in a public company...
-
Tempting as a former DP2m and current DP2q owner, but I am probably not going to buy Sigma mount lenses just for this camera.
I already own the 20 and 35mm f1.4 in F mount...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
because Yamaki is not a hired for stock options manager in a public company...
It was also a dream of his father's to be a camera manufacturer.....
Alan
-
I've heard of (A)rt lenses but what's the SGV series ?
sd Quattro H (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sd-quattro-h-camera?utm_source=Sigma+Corp+of+America&utm_campaign=0b3c26970f-SIGMA_Feb_2016_2_19_talent-shine&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34bfa8ccd3-0b3c26970f-50845397)
SGV lenses are Sigma Global Vision series, i.e. "Art" "Contemporary" & "Sport"
-
It was also a dream of his father's to be a camera manufacturer.....
right, but the way company owned makes it possible for him to continue
-
Why, oh, why put a failed SA mount on these? As an example of how little interest there is in SA mount lenses, B+H DOESN'T STOCK most of them... This is the same B+H that WILL stock such things as the Canon 800 MM f5.6L ($13,000) AND the $8000 Sigma 300-800mm zoom in Canon mount. The $1700 Arca Cube tripod head? No problem - B+H stocks four versions! The Sigma SA lenses? 37 "available", but even B+H stocks less than ten. The ONLY other mount I can find where B+H doesn't try to stock everything is some of the more obscure Leica S medium format lenses (they DO try to keep all Pentax and Hasselblad MF lenses, plus the more common Leica S lenses, in stock).
These cameras will fail because of an obscure mount and Sigma Photo Pro! If they could put any standard mount (Canon, Nikon, Sony E, Fuji X, even Pentax - I don't mention Micro 43 only because the sensor is too big) on them, and convince somebody to work with the raw files (Adobe or Capture One), they'd be very interesting. Realistically, they'd want to do a Canon or Nikon mount, because the mirrorless mounts would actually discourage people from using Sigma lenses (none in X mount, limited selection in E mount so far). If their image quality turns out to be like other Sigmas (superb at low ISOs, limited ability to raise ISO), they could have some very nice landscape (and a few other disciplines) cameras, but not with an impossible lens mount and no software...
-
I am wondering why they pulled a Pentax and retained the SA mount though. They shortened the flange distance on their compact cameras, why not here?
I think you partly answer your own question:
Would open up other adapted lenses to their system.
And Sigma is primarily a lens maker, so it has good reason to favor customers buying and using its lenses rather than making yet another tool for using lenses from Canon or Nikon. Also, Sigma might not be ready to commit to designing and producing an extensive system of mirrorless lenses in yet another mount, and it is probably best for marketing purposes for a camera to have a good array of "native" lenses, meaning ones that do not need an adaptor.
More on adaptors: I like the idea, but have read many people express concern that adaptors could degrade image quality, if only due to the risk of misalignment (plus the false belief of some people that adaptors involve extra optical elements). This might be a misguided fear, but if it is widespread, it is one that design decisions need to take in to account.
Why not 35mm format, to make the most of the Art lenses???
In addition to other factors mentioned above, the usual cost and process complexity barrier due to the need for on-sensor stitching to make larger sensors still applies. The new larger "H" sensor size of 26.6×17.9mm still fits a bit under the field size limit of 33x26mm imposed by all suitable fab equipment, while 36x24mm does not. I do not know how much extra space is needed on the sensor chip around the actual "imaging" part, but maybe Sigma is already at this fab size limit with that 26.6mm image width.
-
These cameras will fail
These cameras are first of all targeting their existing fan base - those people who still shooting SD-1 and the likes... the size of the market is too small to introduce specific Sigma mirrorless mount and at the moment Sigma does not see that as a justifiable expense (to make new Sigma lenses in a new mount)... as for the 3rd party open mounts like E-mount where Sigma participates they still can do this anytime if they see some sense in it
-
If B+H isn't stocking the vast majority of Sigma's SA-mount lenses (including many under $1000), I'd assume that "fan base" is something like hundreds of owners, maybe a few thousand at the most in North America. B+H stocks full medium format lens lines that cater to user bases in the low thousands, and they stock ultratelephotos and tilt/shift lenses that sell hundreds of copies worldwide annually, so the decision NOT to stock the SA line indicates that the demand is almost nonexistent. Almost the only other lenses they refuse to stock and sell as special order only (rather than running out of - they can't get enough of certain brand-new lenses, but they mark those as "more coming soon", rather than "special order") are large format lenses, and the vast majority of demand for those is filled by used lenses!
-
Why do we assume that because B&H stocks a few of those lenses today, they can't stock more of those in the future?
If this camera is compelling enough, they might start moving SA mount lenses in higher volumes.
Looking at the SD1/M and the SD9/10/14/15, I'm not surprised at the lack of the SA mount lenses.
Keeping the SA mount for their own cameras is the logical choice, which itself is, admittedly, not something Sigma is known for ;)
They are the same company that does lens mount conversions, so there is a glimmer of hope for those expecting other mounts to show up on this body.
-
I agree and disagree... I agree wholeheartedly that the reason the SA mount hasn't sold at all is that the bodies haven't been compelling, and that if these bodies were really compelling, the lenses would start to move.
The caveat to this is that the SA line is already thought of by dealers as a failure, and that is a large and complex line to stock, with many overlapping lenses (Sigma bolts an SA mount on anything they make in Canon and Nikon mounts - at least in theory -I suspect there are a few that have NEVER SOLD A COPY (300-800 f5.6 zoom anyone? It's theoretically available in SA mount, but at $8000 and limited production even in Canon and Nikon mounts, is the only SA version in existence one that Sigma takes to trade shows?)). Nobody's going to stock that 300-800 (or worse yet, the $26,000 200-500mm f2.8, also supposedly made in SA-mount), but how's a dealer to choose between an 18-200,18-250 and 18-300? Equally confusingly, there's a 17-50 and a 17-70, plus an 8-16,10-20 and 12-24 and two separate 150-600 lenses (plus a 50-500). Only a few primes are available (although some of those are the desirable ART lenses)...
The SA mount itself turns out to be an odd hybrid - it's pretty much a Pentax K bayonet, but with the flange focal distance and electronic contacts of a Canon EF mount. My guess is that an SA mount lens is actually an EF lens, with the SA mount plate bolted on at the last second (if you swap the mount plate from a SA lens onto a Canon lens, it'll mount to a Sigma body, and everything except image stabilization will work). Sigma probably doesn't really stock many of the lenses supposedly available in SA - they just put a plate on an EF version that's made in quantity when someone orders one...
When Fuji introduced a new lens line incompatible with anyone else, they presented dealers with only three (four rather quickly, when the zoom hit) lenses to stock, and the lenses were well chosen to complement the bodies. There are now 20+ lenses, but there are also a million bodies out there to put them on, with a couple hundred thousand added every year. If you're a dealer wanting to stock the new SA bodies, you have to choose from an array of lenses to carry, and you may not make the same selections your customers do... I suspect many will just carry the 17-70 Contemporary as a "kit lens", and say "anything else is special order, although there's quite a bit to choose from". Any other strategy involves stocking lenses that may well not sell.
-
Quattro owners who have used Merrills, how does the Quattro generation Sigma Photo Pro perform in stability? The Merrill generation SPP (5.5) gives me fits because it crashes after about ten minutes of use on an admittedly 5 year old top-spec MacBookPro with 8G RAM. I have been pruning back the hard disc to more reasonable amounts of space, and I haven't seen an improvement in stability. No, I am NOT nostalgic for old MS Windows operating systems. I don't like having the computer crash or develop the eternal spinning beach ball.
I think that this new development would be of some interest if there were EF and F mount options, or a generic option to which one could add the electronic pass-through adapter of one's choice. Sigma is offering mount changes on lenses - why not offer options on the CAMERAS?
-
From what I have read, Sigma would have loved to just use the Canon EOS mount, but Canon and it patents prevent that, so Sigma SA mount is as close as it could legally get.
-
Hi NancyP, you might try having less x3f files in the same sub folder (like under 100) to see if that reduces the crashes.
As for the Quattro SPP developing, I've had one crash that caused the x3f file to become corrupted but thankfully I was able to recover since the SPP left a backup version in the folder but appended it with an additional extension that had to removed in order for the file to be read by SPP.
Overall, from my initial tests with DP2Q, and up through the versions, they are still not extracting the maximum amount of luminance resolution data from the top layer, this difference is small enough that most people will not miss it, but why they have not addressed it, in light of the fact the linearized DNGs from the third party developers were able to get this data is beyond me. Also, the linearized DNGs did not fail in the blown highlight rendering that SPP chooses to adopt, again, why there is no progress on this, I do not know.
-
I admire Sigma for keep trying, they have proud on what they do, and that is great. But the typical photographer/consumer is very conservative, we don't change just "because".
The product may be awesome, but if the rest of the ecosystem does not follow with robust support (image processing, reduced quirkiness), the adoption rates will be small. And that may be fine, if they are not targeting "mass market"; and no doubt it will serve the purposes of some photographers.
Personally, I would love to try one of these and see what it is all about, but I can't remember the last time I have actually saw a Sigma camera here in Lisbon, at shops that cater for pros... lenses, yeah, one can find them abundantly, but cameras, no way.
Similar to the Ricoh GXR concept? Great in theory, but in the end, didn't really caught on.
-
Don't forget, if you have a invested in a few Art series lenses, you can get the mount changed to SA by Sigma USA for a small fee. I guess they can change it back too!
-
Thanks. I find that I do best with fewer than 10 to 15 images per folder. I should just segment my downloads into folders with 10 each, then cull, then group the keepers into new folders of 10.
Everything about this camera (Merrill) is like a film camera - set up carefully, plan to shoot as few frames as absolutely needed, not to save money but to save aggravation. And maybe I ought to try one of the other RAW editors that can do faster preview of RAW files to do the first cull.
-
For speed viewing purposes, you could also try exporting the jpeg using "Convert to JPEG" under the file menu . It extracts the camera rendered jpeg for that x3f, so it is much much faster.
-
I am a bit confused by these two cameras... :(
I like the concept of the larger sensor APS-H camera and am wondering if the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 zoom would cover it, as well as the newly announced 50-100mm 1.8 zoom..
Although technically only meant to cover the smaller APS-C format, often zooms seem to have a wider image circle...
Any idea if these two will cover the larger APS-H sized sensor?
-
If their existing DC lens compatibility chart is anything to go by, then we could reference the Canon EOS 1D Mark IV (APS-H) and we see only the Sigma 4.5 mm circle fish-eye is fully compatible:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lens-resources/dc-lens-compatability-chart
DC lenses: Theses are special lenses that are designated for interchangeable lens type SLR digital cameras because the lens image circle is designated to correspond to the size of the image sensors of most interchangeable lens type digital SLR cameras.
The specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras.
• An image sensor element larger than than those corresponding to APS-C cannot be used in digital cameras or 35mm film cameras. If such an element is used vignetting will occur for digital cameras.
-
Thanks for that information, much appreciated!
Yep, I guess it does look that way, although sometimes listed specs are different to the reality of a product when used in real world testing...
Guess we will have to wait and see...
Would also love to know how much of a dynamic range improvement this might possibly have?
-
Thanks. I find that I do best with fewer than 10 to 15 images per folder. I should just segment my downloads into folders with 10 each, then cull, then group the keepers into new folders of 10.
Everything about this camera (Merrill) is like a film camera - set up carefully, plan to shoot as few frames as absolutely needed, not to save money but to save aggravation. And maybe I ought to try one of the other RAW editors that can do faster preview of RAW files to do the first cull.
Nancy have you tried the latest SPP with your Merrill files? The latest version is quite stable and faster than previous versions. It is still not great but it works. I use it with both the Quattro and Merrill files. However once you convert or save to the X3f the settings you cannot edit on the V5, the headers change. So what I would do is make copies of the original and try it with latest version of SPP and see how you like it. I large numbers of files in a directory and not crashed. In fact I have not had it crash for a long long time, I think since the original version with Quattro support. I think the only thing lacking is better highlight recovery. I can live with it, but I am hoping that they continue to fix it, they are making improvements. The latest firmware for the Quattros with the new SPP is better and better color.
Alan
-
Hi All,
It's certainly an interesting company. Admirable and profoundly puzzling. I've found the DP2 Quattro to be both an extraordinary tool and an unforgiving process for making good fotos. If it were a person I'd say it's a stern task master !
Thanks Alan for all the Foveon knowledge. Your first foto is especially enjoyable.
Richard
-
Quattro owners who have used Merrills, how does the Quattro generation Sigma Photo Pro perform in stability? The Merrill generation SPP (5.5) gives me fits because it crashes after about ten minutes of use on an admittedly 5 year old top-spec MacBookPro with 8G RAM. I have been pruning back the hard disc to more reasonable amounts of space, and I haven't seen an improvement in stability. No, I am NOT nostalgic for old MS Windows operating systems. I don't like having the computer crash or develop the eternal spinning beach ball.
I think that this new development would be of some interest if there were EF and F mount options, or a generic option to which one could add the electronic pass-through adapter of one's choice. Sigma is offering mount changes on lenses - why not offer options on the CAMERAS?
Just out of curiosity, have your Merrills been updated to the latest firmware?
-
I haven't really looked for firmware for a good year, so probably not. I assumed that once Quattro came out, Merrills wouldn't be getting updates.
-
Thanks, Alan, I will save my files as is, on a separate drive, then try uploading SPP 6 and testing it on a few duplicate files.
-
To go a bit off topic I wonder could Sigma style sensors actually be a problem for Mirrorless in the future? if this tech did end up being the future then the small flange distance is suddenly going to become a significant disadvantage.
-
Oopsie! First I get my lazy *ss in gear ::) and update my OS, THEN I try SPP 6.3...........................
-
To go a bit off topic I wonder could Sigma style sensors actually be a problem for Mirrorless in the future? if this tech did end up being the future then the small flange distance is suddenly going to become a significant disadvantage.
Doesn't pose a problem at all for their DP series.....
-
Doesn't pose a problem at all for their DP series.....
There fixed lens APSC cameras though and those lenses are quite large for their specs, especially the new 20mm equivalent.
I spose it depends what format your talking about, I would guess something like m43 might have much less of a problem but the FE system might well be unable to use such a sensor.
-
There fixed lens APSC cameras though and those lenses are quite large for their specs, especially the new 20mm equivalent.
I spose it depends what format your talking about, I would guess something like m43 might have much less of a problem but the FE system might well be unable to use such a sensor.
I'm just saying the distance from the rear of the lens to the sensor is quite short and there is no problem. The DP2M and Q have quite small lenses.
-
... I wonder could Sigma style sensors actually be a problem for Mirrorless in the future? if this tech did end up being the future then the small flange distance is suddenly going to become a significant disadvantage.
Not really:
1) Nothing about a shorter flange distance forces lens designs to have rear elements close to the focal plane; it just adds more options to lens designs
2) The flexibility allows some useful new design options for highly telecentric designs – ones with the light striking all parts of the focal plane close to perpendicular. Some telecentric lens designs in use have the rear lens element extremely close to the focal plane, such as with the zoom lenses used in some fixed lens digital cameras. In technical terms, the exit pupil can be well forward of the rear lens element.
The only down-side I see to short flange distance is that some lens bodies get longer, adding extra "empty tubing" between the rear lens element and the lens mount.
-
Not really:
1) Nothing about a shorter flange distance forces lens designs to have rear elements close to the focal plane; it just adds more options to lens designs
2) The flexibility allows some useful new design options for highly telecentric designs – ones with the light striking all parts of the focal plane close to perpendicular. Some telecentric lens designs in use have the rear lens element extremely close to the focal plane, such as with the zoom lenses used in some fixed lens digital cameras. In technical terms, the exit pupil can be well forward of the rear lens element.
The only down-side I see to short flange distance is that some lens bodies get longer, adding extra "empty tubing" between the rear lens element and the lens mount.
That's true but it would likely entail something like the FE system having to release a new collection of larger lenses to work with such a sensor.
Again as well fixed lens camera seem to have less of an issue when it comes to light angles, I would guess because they can include large rear elements.
-
That's true but it would likely entail something like the FE system having to release a new collection of larger lenses to work with such a sensor.
Again as well fixed lens camera seem to have less of an issue when it comes to light angles, I would guess because they can include large rear elements.
If you mean new lenses covering the 36x24mm frame, agreed: although recent lenses for 35mm format SLRs tend to have high exit pupils that make them work well with digital cameras, and so would function fine with an adaptor, I expect at some new native lenses for any new mirrorless mount would be needed to make the system sufficiently marketable.
I also agree that fixed lens digital cameras seem to offer very good opticla performance — due I think ,to the great flexibility in lens design, allowing for example large rear elements that sit very close to the sensor.
My fantasy future lens mount is somewhat shalllow but mote importantly is rather wide, for maximum optical design flexibility. But that goes against the current (and for me slightly misguided) emphasis in mirrorless systems on _body_ compactness as a major selling point.