[JJ_SO]

I'm not talking about the artiness of those images. These are just samples after all.

However, the technical quality is often bad (image noise) even at low ISOs.

Given, there's only Photo Pro RAW converter around and maybe in a beta-state and also given, the screenshot was taken on a Mac, I have every compassion the photog didn't try more to reduce noise - each little move on a slider makes you waaaaaiiiitt  :mellow:

 

Honestly, I don't get it why you say "I'm slightly wondering why you are so stressed about the RAW question .." and only couple of posts later you're mentioning about noise, which takes very long to try the best "low noise setting". If so, then I think it would be also correct to complain about "out of camera JPGs" because I doubt any of those pictures is out of camera JPG.

 

Also, why on Earth are those JPGs so quickly saved on the dp 0? 8 sec for JPG or 10 sec for RAW sounds and is a long time - but 90 sec to open it?

[Brightcolours]

Not just to open the RAW file, but also to process it and do all the calculations to separate the colours from the recorded data? And I do not know with which tools they use to develop the software, maybe they mainly develop it on windows and use some cross platform tools to make it into a Mac application, making it very slow... Never actually seen their software "in action" the last few years.

[Klaus]

 

Honestly, I don't get it why you say "I'm slightly wondering why you are so stressed about the RAW question .." and only couple of posts later you're mentioning about noise, which takes very long to try the best "low noise setting".

 

I checked those images thereafter ... :-)

[JJ_SO]

I didn't check them carefully at all. It also seems the guy who took the pictures didn't have a lot of time to spend with the camera. Somehow I think, on a Sigma website they only allow good ones. Either that's a wrong idea, or the others were worse...

 

I have to admit, I never tried various noise settings on RAW converters generally. For that, I need to print to see if there's a change. Since noise to me is no big issue, because I try to get the lowest possible ISO and everything is better than film, I don't use time to fool around with those settings, other issues do annoy more.

[JJ_SO]

Yesterday I made a little comparison between A Fuji X-E2 with a Touit 12/2.8 and the Sigma dp 0 (14/4.0). Both were shot with f/8.  The Fuji with lowest ISO 200, the Sigma with lowest ISO 100 and before somebody is talking about equal ISO: I thought about, but using the Sigma with all it's limits is only a case for tripod and lowest possible ISO. Next time I include a D810 with 20/1.4 and 14-24... This comparison is just to illustrate why I still stick to Sigma although the software is close to crap and I might get better results using Capture One, increasing clarity and structure.

 

Here we go:



 



 



 



 



 



 

[Klaus]

The Fuji sample of the "bunker" shot looks very fishy to me.

At least the "bridge" should be tack sharp.

[JJ_SO]

You tried manual focussing with a wide angle on an X-E2? I mean, I could miss but at f/8? Both cameras were focused at the edge of the left tower. And I had to scale the 12 mm up so it could cover the 14 mm. This and the lower resolution of only 16 MP minus the crop are explanation enough for me.

 

I made another samples with Capture One and increased clarity and structure, but it remains a difference. I would expect better results from an X-Pro2 or X-T2

[obican]

Does Capture One support Sigma files? If so, I'd simply use that one instead. 

[JJ_SO]

:lol: I'm not aware of any other converter for Sigma quattro than Sigma's own. And I checked all of them. Sigma Merrills can be (faster) converted with Iridient - and that's about it. Not enough quattro owners yet. So, those two restrictions: only Sigma lenses available (which is no obstacle because they are excellent) an only one RAW-converter (alright on Windows, too slow on Mac) will keep me away for a while.

[obican]

Looks like Capture One doesn't support any Sigma camera at all. 

 

I've also found out that repair layer functions are not supported on Fuji X-Trans files. That's not good...