06-01-2017, 10:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2017, 10:25 AM by Brightcolours.)
And the images look very bad sometimes.
Example:
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/article...acr_2.jpeg
Or just very noisy in the red when it is not totally saturated (or that car has a very odd bad paint job):
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/article...2.acr.jpeg
- First, you see more noise than I could detect, I guess.
- Second, it's no native X3F file, but a DNG and processed in Lightroom. LR is not well-known fpr highest image quality, Adobe already messed up with Fuji files. If there is noise or bad paint job or whatever, I would be interested in comparing the source file - which is not possible, because I need to decide which RAW format the camera shall record. DNG just doubles the file-size... For this reason I really feel sorry that I Iost all test-shots because of a card- or user-problem. Would have been interesting to see what CaptureOne gets out of it.
- Third, it's no camera for you anyway
 you mentioned countless times the Foveon disadvantages, so why waste more time on it?
If you don't see the horrid noise left over from the heavy chroma noise reduction at ISO 100, let me help you. First, I agree that LR can be not great with many cameras. But you can convert DNG with a lot of software anyway.
Here is a 400% crop, so even tired old eyes or blurry monitored viewers can see the noisy mess left in the not saturated red:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Another image:
https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS619...554174.jpg
Even worse noisy crap at ISO 100:
That basically looks like ISO 6400 or so with heavy chromatic noise reduction and some luminance noise reduction after that-results from not a brilliant camera. This looks like what Panasonic Lumix cameras were critisized for a decade ago (noisy smeary mess).
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Also in this image, horrid and weird CA-like crap, not at the far edge of the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art:
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
I was not aware that that Sigma has such CA issue.
Why I look at these images? Because the IQ gets hyped a lot and often, so out of interest, obviously. Just like I look at all kinds of other camera related things.
Just many pretty bad images, IQ wise.
Are you sure you want only going in at 200%? Why stopping there, and not go to 400 or 1000%? 
Really, you're making something up not even Canon would deal better with. The same you're doing with all other samples? What and why do you want to look at files in 200%? If you need 200% to print or crop, you're already using the wrong system. No wonder I could not see noise - to me, 100% is what I max out. This pictures printed are 52 × 35 cm @300 dpi. Your screenshots would have double size and you're not thinking this comes without quality loss on a Bayer sensor?
I don't want to offend you, but I never ask a sensor to perform at more than 100%, I think that's entirely pointless.
Oh and of course the 35 mm has CA, it was the first ART lens 5 years ago. At that time there were no CA-free lenses around - it was just reduced pretty much.
Just look for yourself: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/79...fx?start=1
0.8 pixel at all apertures. I suspect, the Foveon sensor does show it better than AA filters in front of Bayer pattern.
BC, DPR already mentioned that this camera is not for everyone... Especially in this price range.
BTW JoJu had shared several raw files in the past with me to test print quality. I can assure you the prints came up very nice, the quality is there.
I am still puzzled why Sigma didn't take advantage of MFT mount to be able to sell more cameras.
And then after we all hear and see "amazing level of detail" none of the DP models released in the past have macro capabilities. I can say that DP3 Merrill with fully articulated rear screen would be a good candidate.
I wonder why they haven't already disappeared like other, more versatile cameras. Sure, the CEO of Sigma clearly states they are not making money with the cameras and nonetheless they keep up with Foveon sensors. Which, btw. are APS-C or APS-H and therefore too big for the tiny µ 4/3 mount. Sigma doesn't want to sell more cameras, I could guess, they are happy with few customers who know about most or all downsides, than more customers who keep complaining about the numberous lacks of state of the art quality. Target group for the sd Quattro/-H must have been existing Sigma sd-1/15 owners, who had to wait long for an updated camera. Compared to what they were using, the sd Quattro is a progress.
Sigma already has pretty cool lenses for the Sigma mount - where's an available 150-600 in two versions on µ 4/3 side? A 500/4? Alright, both pretty much useless in practice as the needed ISOs are beyond acceptable quality. But with 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8, µ 4/3 would need a 24-47/1.4 and a 67-134/1.4 to compete - and those lenses would have to be perfectly usable wide open.
Be it AF, the slow refresh rate of the displays, super poor battery life (still), every other ISO than 100, max 200 already belongs to "filmgrain simulations" or "abstract filters". These are a selection of the contra's.
Anyway, I just wish Fuji could have employ such caretaking interface designers like Sigma has: Better buttons, better and stiffer wheels, better user interface of software (on the camera). The ergonomics of the camera are well thought (one can argue why the EVF went so far to the right side).
Together with the grip it just feels right for my hands. And the grip (are you listening, Nikon?) really adds the (needed) battery power. Two more batteries, perfect fit without any wobble. Looks very exotic, to me it would be a completion.
06-02-2017, 05:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2017, 06:27 AM by Brightcolours.)
Quote:Are you sure you want only going in at 200%? Why stopping there, and not go to 400 or 1000%?
Really, you're making something up not even Canon would deal better with. The same you're doing with all other samples? What and why do you want to look at files in 200%? If you need 200% to print or crop, you're already using the wrong system. No wonder I could not see noise - to me, 100% is what I max out. This pictures printed are 52 × 35 cm @300 dpi. Your screenshots would have double size and you're not thinking this comes without quality loss on a Bayer sensor?
I don't want to offend you, but I never ask a sensor to perform at more than 100%, I think that's entirely pointless.
Oh and of course the 35 mm has CA, it was the first ART lens 5 years ago. At that time there were no CA-free lenses around - it was just reduced pretty much.
Just look for yourself: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/79...fx?start=1
0.8 pixel at all apertures. I suspect, the Foveon sensor does show it better than AA filters in front of Bayer pattern.
This is so silly. The noisy crap of those images is visible at 100% easily (ISO 100!!! mind you), yet you claim you don't see. To make it evidently clear, I give 400% crops, and you make a stupid post like that.
Claiming that foveon somehow would show CA better is just plain nonsense without any basis. And failing to atually look at the odd CA, and where from the frame it comes, is even more mind boggling. No, these "CA fringes" do not come from the extreme edges of a FF image. They come from more or less the central part of a 1.36x crop camera image, mostly. This is NOT "just normal CA". This is the camera inventing nonsense colours and messing up big time, due to the sensor structure and issues to figure out what the colour should have been.
To be honest and frank, the images show very bad IQ. That is honest. And true. And real. And yet, you claim it is fake news. Trumpian.
And then you have the audacity to troll with bringing up "Canon". Why? Because I have a Canon camera. Want to see Canon ISO 100 400% crops to compare? Ok, smaller sensor, so smaller pixels, ISO 100, Canon EOS 77D.
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Anywhere near similar noise crap? No.
Ok, then back to ignore mode again. You are simply not worth any discussion time, thank you for reminding me of that fact. So, you can have more time pixel peeping and debating cameras you will never buy. If you have no insight in your own stupidity, I don't need to waste any effort of talking.
|
