Your Advice on Updating Sigma SDQ Firmware

wk7leung

I bought my Sigma SDQ this April 17. The firmware is the original one that came along as I purchased it.

The version now is already 1.05.

Thought of bringing it up to the latest version, but has been hesitating for fear that doing so, color cast problems will set in.

This hesitation stems from SDQ's predecessors, the SD1 and SD1m, where after updating, color cast happened as non-Sigma lenses were used on the camera body.

While I will be consulting Sigma Hong Kong on the matter, your advice is sought if you have been using Sigma SDQ.

Jason

1.05 brings DNG format and much faster AF to SDQ

Kalpanika x3f tools no longer work (at least at this moment)

if you don't use x3f tools, i think 1.05 is a good update. i don't think there is any difference on color cast either.

wk7leung

Jason 發表於 2017-5-11 00:41
1.05 brings DNG format and much faster AF to SDQ

Kalpanika x3f tools no longer work (at least at th ...

Thanks for the prompt reply

wk7leung

Jason 發表於 2017-5-11 00:41
1.05 brings DNG format and much faster AF to SDQ

Kalpanika x3f tools no longer work (at least at th ...

Have u tried deciphering X3f images via the DNG leeway? Some said it was way faster n the results were equally gd.

I depend on the default software Sigma provides. It occurs to me that the software is an all rounder to bring up superb images from RAW files.

Jason

i used x3f tools quite often, until it no longer supports firmware 1.05. I know they are working on a new version of x3f tools.

my workflow is: converting to DNG with x3f wrapper, than work on it on Capture One. the results are good.

if u want best result, SPP is still the only choice. but it is painfully slow.

wk7leung

A 1.05-versioned SDQ was coupled with a non-Sigma lens today. Color cast was non-existent.

kgv

One side question

When SDQH is used with a manual lens, "A" mode seems not working well, and I cannot change the slowest shutter speed, which is always at 1/30, and the picture is always over or under exposed ...

Have I missed out anything in setting?

wk7leung

kgv 發表於 2017-5-11 21:50
One side question

When SDQH is used with a manual lens, "A" mode seems not working well, and I cann ...

The '1/30 sec' issue is unbelievable on condition that the camera is set at the A mode. I am not using the QH version, but in my Q version, such a situation does not exist. I have been thinking that you might have forgotten to close the aperture of your manual lens down to reduce the amount of incident light, so your QH is not able to switch to a lower shutter speed. Or you have chosen a smaller aperture, but the aperture has been defective, so the closing down just doesn't work out in the lens.

By the way, is it an M42 lens that you have been using? Or is it a lens mounted onto your QH using a Nikon adapter? In both cases, really check it out for yourself whether the aperture is adjustable when it is mounted on the Sigma body.

In the case of an M42 lens, there is an auto aperture pin/rod at the rear end of the lens. That piece of thing has to be in real contact with the camera mount for it to be fully pressed down before the aperture of your M42 lens can be adjusted manually. If not, the aperture of your M42 lens will be fully open at all time, making it impossible for the camera to lower its shutter speed accordingly.

As regards exposure, plus or minus adjustment depends on the picture mode you choose. I have the feeling that if you are shooting with the landscape mode, you have to stop down by 2/3 of a stop or even a stop before you can attain shots of decent tonal contrast. Probably, that is because the colors and tonal contrast in the landscape mode is more toward a saturated one, so some sort of light cutting may do good to the resultant image. That is basically my perception of the resultant image based on the state of being of the rod and cone cells on my retina. Have to admit that I have come of age to be able to have rods and cones as promising as they were before. So, my judging of the color quality and tonal contrast of a shot is pretty much limited by the state of being of my eye. In other words, don't take my 'exposure cutting' suggestion for grant.

Anyway, I really got the feeling that it is a playsafe measure to cut exposure a little bit in a bit to strike for a better image. As a matter of fact, a shot of a slightly underexposed quality is more liable to be touched up to a good shot in post-treatment.

Hope I have hit the points you put up.