The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sigma DP2 Merrill shots

gandolfi

Subscriber Member
I'm going to guess that DP2 Merrill will produce prints approaching twice the size of RX100 prints for similar quality.
G.
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
Quentin, if you also could do some words about the practical-every-day handling, also for deadly people, compared to the RX100 or perhaps a GRD, that would be really good.
I guess the Iso-range would be smaller? Up til 800 or 1600? and the AF would not be so fast(/accurate) or?
But one is willing to forsake to get some more and eye-opening/interesting quality. B&W from a RX100 looks a little dull or?
Thorkil
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm going to guess that DP2 Merrill will produce prints approaching twice the size of RX100 prints for similar quality.
G.
Ah, but how do you define twice the size . . . twice the length, or twice the area?

personally I'd be rather surprised if the difference were that great in either case, but we shall see!
 

gandolfi

Subscriber Member
Ah, but how do you define twice the size . . . twice the length, or twice the area?
Hi Jono,

'If two is the half of three what's the half of four.'

The harbour master in Jersey apparently doodled on this question with my Dad in about 1925. Unfortunately his workings out have been lost in the mists of time:).

Do I ever know what I MEAN??

I think I meant twice the length, or was it twice the area, my brain keeps buffering up!

I always liked the old Leonard Cohen poem.

"People who eat meat like to get their teeth into something,
People who don't eat meat like to get their teeth into something else,
If these thoughts interest you, even for a moment,
You are lost".

Cheers,

Gandolfi.

ps. Call that a poem? Doesn't even rhyme!
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Twice the size, as in 200% enlargement, means a 60mp file. See above - its large! It means 4 times the pixels. I would guess that the Merrill would certainly go to 30mp and look as good as a NEX-7 file at its native resolution (but would be a tad larger of course), but its just a guess. Also, there is more to this comparison than merely resolution. The 200% (60mp)enlargement I demoe'd above shows the potential.

Quentin
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
allow me to say some silly words.
No, it’s not about sharpness, its not about size (unless you have to print big).
Its about unusualnes, its about twist in the fine details, that’s makes the picture to an unusual one, that we are looking for.
B&W pictures are unusual in themselves, and therefore have gone some of the way. Colored pictures are not. And attempts by HDR or oversharpening makes them ugly. Some of the finest artists in the world was/are able to make those contradict-point or just another colour, you don't see, at a certain distance to what its trying to balance or to make it sparkle. Some do this intuitive, some by trying, until the balance arises. But it’s a balance with build in tension. And that is what matters.
What I mean, we are looking for the unusual, unusual sharp, or unusual rendering, 3-diamentional etc. look. And colour-wise our eye would also like to see something of that strange mixture its sometimes able to create itself, combined with the brain, create subjective feeling of light, modd out of the reality. Therefore a coloured picture is up against a hard competition. I don't know what’s happening with large-format cameras with ultra-sharp lenses, but they get something in them that makes a special glow and sparkling. I guess it might be the 3 colour layers in the foroven-sensor that do the job, colourwise, its mix the colours at the edges and in the shifting tones that are doing that sort of unexpected proces. And the result is that our eye catches it, and become interested in what’s going on here. And sometimes it look a bit weird. But then the taget is reached.
Thorkil
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
A touch of Shoreditch Usain, Sclater St, , courtesy of the talented Jimmy C, captured with the DP2 Merril



And further down in Redchurch St

 

Thorkil

Well-known member
allow me to say some silly words.:ROTFL:

Thorkil,

You say as many silly words as you like.

Your musings are always interesting and amusing:thumbup:

Cheers,

Gandolfi.
Thank you very much Gandolfi, sometimes one stick the head out, and then regret:)
Thank you for the pictures Quentin! allthough my eye just also looking for the "normal" colours above and besides her reed hair, to see the shine from the DP! :)
Thorkil
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I have done my first very, very rough test bewteen a NEX-7 with Zeiss 24mm lens and the Sigma DP2M, both at F3.2 and 100ISO, all sharpening turned of in Sigma Photo Pro, default settings for the NEX-7 in ACR, Sigma rezzed up to the exact same size as the NEX-7 file using standard Photoshop resizing and I would say it is very close, with perhaps the edge to the DP2M. Not a proper test so I won't publish the pics but will try a publishable comparison soon.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I have done my first very, very rough test bewteen a NEX-7 with Zeiss 24mm lens and the Sigma DP2M, both at F3.2 and 100ISO, all sharpening turned of in Sigma Photo Pro, default settings for the NEX-7 in ACR, Sigma rezzed up to the exact same size as the NEX-7 file using standard Photoshop resizing and I would say it is very close, with perhaps the edge to the DP2M. Not a proper test so I won't publish the pics but will try a publishable comparison soon.
Great stuff - do throw the RX100 into the mix - it may lose, but I'd like to see by how much. . . . and if you have an OMD with a suitable lens!
 

raist3d

Well-known member
The DP2M should give roughly a comparative quality to 1.75 to 2.25 times its pixel count in Bayer sensor terms. This means 26.25 to 33.75 megapixels. Yes I would expect the DP2M to do notably better than an RX100- though of course if you are printing 8x10 and doing web publishing it really doesn't matter on that end.

The Foveon in general still has a certain crispness to its colors though.

If your photography is done mostly in good light and at the lowest ISO's (100, 200), the DP2M is indeed a great proposition. You get a pocketable (or near so) tool that can give you ballpark medium format or near medium format quality, that's quite something.

From what I have seen of the shots so far in general, the lens of the DP2M is indeed improved over the DP2's- the DP2's had some weird ghosting bokeh when up close with some subjects- I have yet to see this issue with the DP2M.

Where the DP2m/Foveon falls apart is at high iso, low light, night shots that require higher iso. Here I would expect even the RX100 to do better. (Hell, even the Pentax Q seems to do somewhat better at the highest iso's in some situations). If your photography is in lower available light, a Foveon based camera isn't as hot.

I would say right now if I was a daylight photographer I would buy one *yesterday* and make that my main camera for my personal work.

- Raist
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
Please don't mention it to others :eek:, but these words, and Quentins shots (although I would not be able to do those things with the pictures IQ-wise) could make me definitely throw away DSLR's. The DP1M for the fine and enough-light situations, The Ricoh GXR+M for the-almost any situations with different M-lenses but not quit that special DP-Foveon-drawing, and a Ricoh-GRD as a good friend, you-are-always-with-me-in-the-pocket.
Thorkil
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Raist

That's the theory, but its not a linear comparison, because there are differences other than resolution to consider. My expectation (and broadly my "findings") has been around 2x, so roughly 30mp. But its not an exact science and modern mosaic or bayer sensors are excellent. The one thing my test is not is scientific!

I will redo the test today and upload something for the general amusement of all.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
OK, now check for yourselves :D...warning: all very large files, saved as jpegs at quality 11. Adobe RGB so may looked washed out.

Sigma DP2M uprezzed in Photoshop using Bicubic Automatic to 6000x4000, 100ISO, F8, tripod mounted, all sharpening turned off.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9806585/Sigma%20DPM2_6000x4000.jpg

Second, the same shot as above, but using the default sharpening settings in Sigma Photo Pro and all NR turned off

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9806585/Sigma%20DPM2_6000x4000-sharpened-when-decoded.jpg

Finally, NEX-7 at native resolution, Zeiss 24mm lens, slightly closer to subject to compensate for wider angle lens, tripod, decoded in Camera raw, PS6, at default settings.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9806585/NEX-7_native_resolution.jpg

Look at the fine wire mesh in the glass in the roof to the right of the chimney stack, which I think it quite revealing.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Raist

That's the theory, but its not a linear comparison, because there are differences other than resolution to consider. My expectation (and broadly my "findings") has been around 2x, so roughly 30mp. But its not an exact science and modern mosaic or bayer sensors are excellent. The one thing my test is not is scientific!
I think you and I are saying the same thing here :) That's why I gave a range on the resolution and why I mentioned the colors.

I will redo the test today and upload something for the general amusement of all.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Looks good Q - as does your lovely house . . . still, it's not enough to persuade me to use a pocket camera with one focal length - did you do the RX100 as well?
all the best
 
V

Vivek

Guest
OK, now check for yourselves :D...warning: all very large files, saved as jpegs at quality 11. Adobe RGB so may looked washed out.

Sigma DP2M uprezzed in Photoshop using Bicubic Automatic to 6000x4000, 100ISO, F8, tripod mounted, all sharpening turned off.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9806585/Sigma%20DPM2_6000x4000.jpg

Second, the same shot as above, but using the default sharpening settings in Sigma Photo Pro and all NR turned off

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9806585/Sigma%20DPM2_6000x4000-sharpened-when-decoded.jpg

Finally, NEX-7 at native resolution, Zeiss 24mm lens, slightly closer to subject to compensate for wider angle lens, tripod, decoded in Camera raw, PS6, at default settings.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9806585/NEX-7_native_resolution.jpg

Look at the fine wire mesh in the glass in the roof to the right of the chimney stack, which I think it quite revealing.
Could the comparison (NEX-7) better done at f/5.6 instead of f/8? Why go way past the diffraction?
 

Thorkil

Well-known member
I think the second picture from the DP2M is the best. And against the colour-separation, the drawing at the threes, the antenna, the top of the chimney with the metal-string-and roof is the best, and nex can't reach the quality of drawing and colours, and the way of sharpening the edges. Thanks.
Thorkil
(ps. as an architect, allow me to say, those british houses are very special, a sort of mixture of and sometimes with almost romantic fairy-tail-likenes, and with traditional/conservativ(which I do like) crafmanship in a very nice way.)
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Could the comparison (NEX-7) better done at f/5.6 instead of f/8? Why go way past the diffraction?
That, my dear Vivek, is why these comparisons are always contentious and also why I dont usually do them. Whose to say the same is not true of the DP2M? There is no science here.....;)
 
Top