FP vs DP Quattro

W

Whitten

Established
Local time
7:16 PM
Joined
Mar 4, 2023
Messages
73
I have a Leica M240 and a Sigma FP. There is something about the images the FP generates. I keep coming back to it, despite it's annoyances (which seems usual for Sigma). I used to own and use the DP2 and DP 3 Merrill. The images had lovely colours and were super sharp. Of course you couldn't shoot in low light and the screen was hard to see in bright light. I took the DP3 to Rome and was basically shooting blind the whole week. I was able to rely on auto-focus, but I couldn't even read the aperture and shutter values on the screen in the daylight.
I bought the expensive EVF for the FP (not L).
Now prices have come down on the DP Quattros I'm wondering about buying one for fun. Or maybe I should just stick to using my FP, maybe upgrade to an FP-L. Although the electronic shutter only really handicaps me.
Has anyone compared the DP Quattros to the FP/FP-L experience?
 
I too have an M240 and Fp, have just bought an sd quattro, not a dp quattro but an interesting comparison nevertheless, with the sensor being the same.
The first obvious difference is the Fp is amazing at high iso, the quattro raws are hopeless above iso100. The Fp has way more dynamic range than the quattro, noticeably so.
I'm finding the choice of lenses limiting on the dp quattro, obviously not a problem for the Fp.
The Fp evf is great the quattro evf is rubbish. Build quality of both is great.

I'm still exploring the image quality but they are closer than the internet would have you believe.
I'll add more when I've processed a few more images.
 
Annoyances with the fp?? I am happy with it. The flipscreen and/or the EVF fail, but I knew that, as I bought it. The loupe is too big.
The DP2 is very, very slow, so I don´t use it any more. The handling is a problem too. The pictures are excellent.
 
I've always been intrigued by the fp. Can the connaisseurs confirm that the fp has had a firmware update and is now compatible with the EVF-11 Viewfinder? Many thanks for your feedback, OtL
 
jankapp said:
Annoyances with the fp?? I am happy with it.
Click to expand...
Again, it's hard to use with just the screen. I bought the loupe, which hugely adds to the bulk. When the EVF came out I reluctantly bought it. It's £699. Just for reference you can buy a very good condition DP3 Quattro for £599.
With a hand grip and the EVF, the FP is now bulkier than my M240. The biggest issue is the electronic shutter, which fatally ruined many images of a live concert I was shooting. the colours were fantastic, the images sharp, but strong banding at a multitude of different shutter speeds and apertures. A Quattro has a mechanical leaf shutter.
 
Out to Lunch said:
I've always been intrigued by the fp. Can the connaisseurs confirm that the fp has had a firmware update and is now compatible with the EVF-11 Viewfinder? Many thanks for your feedback, OtL
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm using mine with the EVF. I'm not wild about it's connection to the body, and the fact the strap now connects to the EVF, not the body.
 
In short - the colours and detailed sharpness of my FP images still look better to me than my M240 (even using the same lens).
Is there any advantage to investing $600 or thereabouts in a NOS DP Quattro, or should I just stick to the FP and M240, maybe one day go for an FP-L or perhaps the mythical full frame Foveon Sigma yet to be announced?
I wonder if the FP and FP-L images are that much different to the Quattro?
 
Whitten said:
Again, it's hard to use with just the screen. I bought the loupe, which hugely adds to the bulk. When the EVF came out I reluctantly bought it. It's £699. Just for reference you can buy a very good condition DP3 Quattro for £599.
With a hand grip and the EVF, the FP is now bulkier than my M240. The biggest issue is the electronic shutter, which fatally ruined many images of a live concert I was shooting. the colours were fantastic, the images sharp, but strong banding at a multitude of different shutter speeds and apertures. A Quattro has a mechanical leaf shutter.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right. Most of the time I take pictures outside, there isn´t a problem.
An annoyance is the electronic shutter. That means with artificial light (modern light, not the bulbs) you should stay at around 1/100 sec or slower.
The frequency of the net of 50 Hertz is followed by the light sources: LED and fluorescent. Bulbs are glowing, there isn´t a problem.
Private light sources with direct current also are no problem, see enjoyyourcamera.

They made the screen very large, so the loupe has to be large. With a smaller screen, the loup could have been smaller. But in that case, the reviewers would have started crying: what a minuscule screen it has! And nobody would have bought the camera.
 
I have the dp3 quattro and the lvf for it. The lvf works great but it makes the camera quite big/bulky. I like the camera and the photos I've gotten from it but it's not the camera I reach for most of the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
halvmesyr said:
I have the dp3 quattro and the lvf for it. The lvf works great but it makes the camera quite big/bulky. I like the camera and the photos I've gotten from it but it's not the camera I reach for most of the time.
Click to expand...

You've just described the Sigma experience quite nicely. :LOL: That said I love mine. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jankapp said:
That means with artificial light (modern light, not the bulbs) you should stay at around 1/100 sec or slower.
The frequency of the net of 50 Hertz is followed by the light sources: LED and fluorescent. Bulbs are glowing, there isn´t a problem.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work.
I tried every shutter value at the concert and every shot had varying degrees of banding. It's impractical to have a shutter speed of 50 or even 60 sometimes. I tried staying under 100, I tried multiples of the LED pulse rate, none of which worked. It might work if you are in static lighting which has some natural light mixed in, but you can't shoot a concert where the LED lighting is continually changing in strength.
 
jankapp said:
They made the screen very large, so the loupe has to be large. With a smaller screen, the loup could have been smaller. But in that case, the reviewers would have started crying: what a minuscule screen it has! And nobody would have bought the camera.
Click to expand...
It really needs a built in EVF. They decided to prioritise the marketing line about being the smallest full frame camera in the market. But as soon as you add some necessary add-ons it isn't the smallest camera. I don't think many people HAVE bought it. It's received almost universally bad reviews from influencers. I bought mine quite discounted from an early adopter who hated the experience. It is probably my favourite camera based on the image results, but it IS also annoying to use.
 
Whitten said:
It doesn't work.
I tried every shutter value at the concert and every shot had varying degrees of banding. It's impractical to have a shutter speed of 50 or even 60 sometimes. I tried staying under 100, I tried multiples of the LED pulse rate, none of which worked. It might work if you are in static lighting which has some natural light mixed in, but you can't shoot a concert where the LED lighting is continually changing in strength.
Click to expand...
Look here please:
www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/330656-sigma-electronic-shutter

I tried this at home.
FP00226-320.jpg.c6fd1bc71a796a07a160bf4fbaf9945e.jpgFP00227-125.jpg.358377a5c9dd8147513656c7dd502ebe.jpgFP00228-80.jpg.30d145930dd04e9dbd11e2e9288fdda9.jpg
Perhaps the electronic shutter is still more critical with the spotlights of a theatre.
 
Last edited:
I know what the theory is. It is STILL an annoyance. It's not great to be shooting moving subjects at 50-60.
 

Attachments

  • _SDI1053.jpg
    _SDI1053.jpg
    759.9 KB · Views: 5
  • _SDI1055.jpg
    _SDI1055.jpg
    795.1 KB · Views: 5
in Europe, the net has a frequency of 50 Hz. In the case of the power consumption of a light source, the frequency is 100 times per second.
So in theory 1/100 sec would suffice. But the shutter plays a role too.

For this kind of work, it is not the camera to choose.
The feature would be the "global shutter", but I don´t know one with such a sensor electronic ......
 
Last edited:
That was my point. The images were crisp with great colours, but terrible banding.
I had a Leica CL with me too and the images didn't look quite as nice, but no banding.
So yeah, you're paying 1800 (euro, pound, dollar) for a camera you can't use except for daylight or with a fixed shutter of 50 or perhaps 100.
It is an annoyance to say the least. It is my favourite camera, other than the limitations.
 
Why using SPP? It's such a slow, clunky programme. The quality of the images I get from the FP has never been an issue for me, using Capture One. What benefits does SPP bring?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top