Thank you for this review. Personally, I don't find the Quattros as good as the Merrils in terms of image quality and, more importantly, in their post-processing potential. I own both the DP2M and DP1Q, and the latter pales into insignificance in comparison, especially when used in somewhat challenging higher dynamic range light. This is based on tens of thousands of photos taken mainly outdoors across Europe. But there's no point in ironing out the drawbacks of the Merril series either, because they're very real - it's very slow and consumes a battery in no time, so the Quattro clearly has its place. I still regret that they decided to go down the interpolation route, instead of continuing with the original Foveon design, where all layers have the same number of pixels.
So far, I have never taken the Merrills and the Quattro out with me at the same time! I should do this to gain a better insight for comparison. I agree with you regarding the original Foveon design - it's that uniqueness that has kept me with Sigma all these years. Thank you for watching and sharing.
The quattro doesn't loose colors in the shadows, same for the highlights (those do not clip hard btw, but in a progressive way and the highlight recovery option in SPP is damaging), the quattro series' metering seems to tend to overexpose images. I vastly prefer the softer look of the quattro sensor, especially combined with the crazy resolution of the S-Hi file output.
@@barmalini mostly not, it can happen if you try to go against some particular scenes natural exposure (it's still rare in my experience) or compensate a wrong exposure setting (highlights artifacts are only caused by the highlight correction setting in my experience). Banding/horizontal aliasing artifacts can be found on evenly lit surfaces even at 100 iso, that's the only true bummer these cameras present, I think resampling before printing is essential...
Thank you for this review. Personally, I don't find the Quattros as good as the Merrils in terms of image quality and, more importantly, in their post-processing potential. I own both the DP2M and DP1Q, and the latter pales into insignificance in comparison, especially when used in somewhat challenging higher dynamic range light. This is based on tens of thousands of photos taken mainly outdoors across Europe. But there's no point in ironing out the drawbacks of the Merril series either, because they're very real - it's very slow and consumes a battery in no time, so the Quattro clearly has its place.
I still regret that they decided to go down the interpolation route, instead of continuing with the original Foveon design, where all layers have the same number of pixels.
So far, I have never taken the Merrills and the Quattro out with me at the same time! I should do this to gain a better insight for comparison.
I agree with you regarding the original Foveon design - it's that uniqueness that has kept me with Sigma all these years.
Thank you for watching and sharing.
The quattro doesn't loose colors in the shadows, same for the highlights (those do not clip hard btw, but in a progressive way and the highlight recovery option in SPP is damaging), the quattro series' metering seems to tend to overexpose images. I vastly prefer the softer look of the quattro sensor, especially combined with the crazy resolution of the S-Hi file output.
@@rebours but quattro gives ugly green-magenta artifacts around highlights, in the darks and randomly on evenly lit surfaces
@@barmalini mostly not, it can happen if you try to go against some particular scenes natural exposure (it's still rare in my experience) or compensate a wrong exposure setting (highlights artifacts are only caused by the highlight correction setting in my experience). Banding/horizontal aliasing artifacts can be found on evenly lit surfaces even at 100 iso, that's the only true bummer these cameras present, I think resampling before printing is essential...
@@rebours Interesting - thank you for sharing this info.
And thanks for watching!