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