Originally Posted by Eric T
So which do you prefer, Quattro or Merrill? I haven't taken the plunge to Quattro yet. The Quattro images I have seen just don't inspire me as much as the Merrill images.
Am I missing something?
Not sure if u are..missing anything. How about I sumarize some aspects of both before I answer u. Btw I have not shot w/ the new fw update, so some of this could be different.
1 - if u like to print big, stick w/ the Merrill will give more resolution in color work, but the quattro because of the top blue channel may be able to do better in monochrome (I don't print big, so just a guess go b&w).
2 - until the Quattro version of the sd1 comes out, only Merrill has a interchangeable lens solution.
3 - the Quattro in large raw has the same interpolation issues as the shots I have seen from the Sony a7r but on the otherhand beats the 24 mp cameras..the Merrill has no such issue...
4 - the Quattro shot in small raw does not have this issue and will still beat a 24mp sesnor camera in MHO at cost of not being able to print large..give a 36 a run for its money in certain situations.
5 - small raw seems to be more accurate at pixel level and closer in terms of true color..
6 - Quattro is one stop better iso performance. If b&w, about 1.5 stops better.
7 - af speed is twice as fast, slight slower than Fuji xp1/xe1
8 - compared to Merrill, Quattro has more contrast, especially noticeable in b&w. As much as I like contrasty shots, I have learned to set contrast controls much lower to bring back tonal range.
9 - physical layout of Quattro vs Merrill is more personal --> u either like it! hate it or have adapted. Longer is not an issue for me.
10 - sd write speed is still slow but better than Merrill.
11 - jpg engine is so good that I can use the ooc jpgs over 90% of the time.
12 - Merrill does not have the newly announced sd0, I used thr Ricoh gr wide angle adapter on the dp1 to get that 21mm fov.
13 - LCD is quite a bit better.
14 - I still hate the stupid sd card door solution.
15 - I don't need a rrs grip on a Quattro. Thus lighter overall then my Merrill solution.
16 - awb seems to be a bit better. On the Merrill series, the dp3 seemed to have been the best.
17 - the weird over loaded magenta issue still happens on the Quattro, just a tad bit less often. I think this is still due to blue channel being so overloaded that there is bleed into the color channels below.
With all that said, neither the Merrill or Quattro is a one camera solution. The Quattro is close though.
Right now I would guess when a foveon solution is required, I tend to use Quattro about 70% of the time followed by dp or sd1 Merrill for the rest for the
- faster af speed
- higher iso
I shoot small raw over 90% of the time since I don't print big, the Merrill non large files just don't look as good to me. Small raw is Quattro version of the pseudo three stack color layer of the Merrill since the blue has to be averaged to get the equivelent info of the red and green color layers.
If I am going someplace I know I want to use a foveon solution, but there is mixed shooting involved, I tend to bring the Quattro plus the Sony a6000 for the af speed.. For pure landscape and still life work, the sd1 or dp Merrill cameras. One camera solution it tends to be the Fuji xt1...where I need the versatility.
I am currently waiting to c what they do w/ the sd1 Quattro. The sd series bodies are bigger and thus a better digital processing engine maybe implemented otherwise, I am not sure why they are taking so long to release it outside of some model specific Quattro sensor to body specific firmware changes like phase detection. If af speed of sd1 Quattro is better than Merrill version, I may pick this up and use my sd1m as a full spectrum camera (ir filter removed) for monochrome only work.
After all this not sure if I really answered your question..mainly trying to give the main reason I use Quattro most of the time, but why Merrill maybe better for other people.