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!

Has anyone compared Sigma DP3M/DP2M vs. Fuji GFX 50s

Maxpace

Member
Sigma DP2M/DP3M vs. Fuji GFX50s

Has anyone compared the two cameras yet on Overall Image Quality: Acutance (for e.g. edge sharpness, micro-contrast etc.), pixel level quality, clarity/crispness of images, Fuji colors and medium-format "look".

Of course everyone here understands that they are completely different beasts...price, fixed vs. interchangeable lenses, on portability, weight, battery life, how cumbersome the X3F files are to process etc. I'm only focused on Image Quality.

For context, I plan to shoot portraits, landscapes, and some street...all slow considered shooting. I looked a few images from the Fuji and they were very sharp.

Bottomline is if the GFX yields a considerably higher image quality than the Sigma?

DP3M
Link to my Dp3M Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsjSY8X38

[/url]DP3M1113.jpg by maxx.pace, on Flickr[/IMG]

Fuji GFX 50s

Fuji GFX 50S by Seb Imagery, on Flickr

Have been away from Photography for a while till the GFX piqued my interest.

Many Thanks,
Max
 
Last edited:

ggibson

Well-known member
You could do a pseudo-comparison with the Merrill sensor and the GFX using DPReview's or Imaging Resource's comparison tools:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-sd-quattro-h/6

https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

If it's helpful, I have an A7rII and compared it to a DP2M that I had for a short time (since the GFX is probably slightly better than the A7rII). The only ~40mm equivalent on the Sony cam was my 24-240mm super zoom, so keep that in mind when you view this 100% crop:



There is certainly something a bit different in the way the Merrill images look, although with such a high-res Bayer sensor, the A7rII out-resolves it. For some shots, the Merrill look can really make images "pop", whereas others it is very harsh. For something like skin, I think Merrill makes people look older/weathered since it really amplifies texture. Your shot is a great example of how that can be a benefit to some images, but my wife is not a fan sometimes ;) I currently keep a DP3M when I want something different from Bayer. But Bayer cameras have so many other advantages (and shoot above ISO 100...), so the A7rII is the one I usually want.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
How deep are your pockets?

Mine are only shallow - I'll be sticking with the DP0Q, DP2M and DP3M.

Unless I pick some lottery winners....
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I own both. They are simply too different to compare. Both are excellent, but the GFX, you will not be surprised to hear, is the more versatile tool. Other than that, it is a matter of personal taste and shooting style. The Merrills are right in the mix for the right subjects.
 

lightnmagic

Well-known member
Being creative is more important than holding the finest piece.....(pardon but dont mean to boast here )in 2002 i won the National Geographic channel contest out of 92 countrys in the entire asian subcontinent by just knowing how to play with light in post processing.....i had the worst camera as you can imagine technology at that time.......when you can make more with less then you need to work for less and have more.....so the real question at hand is how do i increase my skill level?......thats what i hear when i see someone saying the hair was just not sharp enough by DP3m.......ask the right questions and will get the right results

reminds me of a story......a man was yelling fire, fire ....help . help.....5 men come to find a person is stuck in a pile of sh**....
so the 5 men said why did you say fire you are stuck in sh**.....the man replied if i said sh**, sh** would any of you have come to help me

so asking the right question will give the right results
 
Last edited:

Malina DZ

Member
I'm only focused on Image Quality.
As far as I understood, you are/have been shooting with DP3M/DP2M. Do you find them lacking IQ in any regard with your shooting style?

Bottomline is if the GFX yields a considerably higher image quality than the Sigma?
I haven't shot with GFX, just speculating... With a better SNR, wider DR, 14bit color, GFX sensor is capable of delivering a higher IQ consistently in a great variety of shooting circumstances, unlike the Merrill sensor is. Plus a vast exposure latitude for post processing, if needed, that Merrill lacks. I don't consider GFX IQ to be considerably higher when comparing shots at exposure settings favorable to Merrill cameras, e.g. iso100, f/4-5.6, judging by DPR comparison test scene (DP1M vs GFX 50S), and keeping in mind that DP1M lens is the weakest of the 3 DPMs from corner to corner.
 

Maxpace

Member
Thanks. Appreciate the responses. What I gathered is the following:

- The GFX will give significantly better results than the Merrills in a wide variety of situations.
- Even in the very narrow shooting parameters in which the Merrills excel (ISO 100, still subjects etc.), the GFX will likely be better, but maybe not significantly better.

@lightnmagic, point taken...ask not what your camera can do for you, ask what you can do with you camera :). I do want to experiment with the Merrills focusing just on modifying the light in a variety of ways in a photo shoot as well as still life to get the look i want. On post-processing, are there any structured online courses/books that you can recommend?

@Malina DZ: As far as I understood, you are/have been shooting with DP3M/DP2M. Do you find them lacking IQ in any regard with your shooting style?
- No, they're not lacking IQ within narrow confines. But I do want to get Merrill or higher than Merrill quality in a wide variety of shooting environments.

I'll try renting the GFX on an upcoming trip and actually see if I like the feel of shooting with it and the results I get. If I do, will post.
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I gave a rather facile response above.

For a long time I was thinking seriously about MF digital. In fact, it is the X1D which I would plump for, all other things being equal, as a former Hasseblad film shooter.

What has changed my mind is the massive increase in web media and the concomitant decrease in printed media. In fact, I've sold a number of photographs for use in magazines and newspapers and all of them have been from crop sensor cameras - in one case from my Ricoh GR. I've just sold my second most highest ever paid for photograph which comes from my Leica M8 and Elmarit 90/2.8 which I took about 10 years ago! That is a 10mpx image, just to remind you.

I really admire the portrait above taken with the DP3M. You could do a lot worse than continue in the Sigma family where you are already familiar with the cameras and their use than starting again in a totally different camera system.

On top of that: every now and then a camera comes along which defies its price point and image to produce amazing high quality images. In my opinion that is the DP3M (and the Ricoh GR).

LouisB
 

foveon

Member
....and keeping in mind that DP1M lens is the weakest of the 3 DPMs from corner to corner.
interesting, for me the old pre-M DP1 lense was of questionable quality, while the DP1m lense is excellent, in my experience the weakest ( but by far not weak ^^) is the lense of the DP3m, so maybe there is some sample variation.

Never shot digital MF but a lot of film, RB67 and C330 and 5x7, I stopped all that with arrive of the Merrills. the largest prints I can do myself are 24x36 and Merrill prints even that size I can look at from nearest distance.
Merrills just are amazing cameras.
 

Malina DZ

Member
...while the DP1m lense is excellent, in my experience the weakest ( but by far not weak ^^) is the lense of the DP3m, so maybe there is some sample variation...
There can always be a sample variation, but I rarely expect a wide angle lens to perform better across the frame than its mid/telephoto siblings. I don't have DP3M to compare directly to DP1M, but I find optyczne.pl test results quite reasonable.
DP1M: https://translate.google.com/transl...optyczne.pl/index.php?test=aparat&test_ap=227
Dp3M: https://translate.google.com/transl...P3_Merrill_Wst%C4%99p.html&edit-text=&act=url
 

lightnmagic

Well-known member
Thanks. Appreciate the responses. What I gathered is the following:



@lightnmagic, point taken...ask not what your camera can do for you, ask what you can do with you camera :). I do want to experiment with the Merrills focusing just on modifying the light in a variety of ways in a photo shoot as well as still life to get the look i want. On post-processing, are there any structured online courses/books that you can recommend?

sorry for the late reply..I wanted to show you rather than tell you what you can do with post processing.....I did all of this in Photoshop....no light box etc.......the images are from stock photography......any camera can capture the before shot........lighting is the challenge.....thats your edge..........it starts by learning the tools of Photoshop and lightroom.....learn that the rest will seem easy but if you try to do it all together it will seem overwhelming.....lot of people against post processing dont realize but the lines are blurring......cameras these days are processing as you take your shots....this world is based on inclusion like everything else......wish you all the best

before.jpgafter.jpg
 

lightnmagic

Well-known member
Thanks. Appreciate the responses. What I gathered is the following:


@lightnmagic, point taken...ask not what your camera can do for you, ask what you can do with you camera :). I do want to experiment with the Merrills focusing just on modifying the light in a variety of ways in a photo shoot as well as still life to get the look i want. On post-processing, are there any structured online courses/books that you can recommend?


Sorry for the late reply I wanted to show you what you can do with post processing....Before and after...it tool me about 2 hrs of editing .....learn the basic tools in PS and LightRoom the rest will seem easy ....so imagine the lighting you want and then use both your camera and your skills in processing to give your images that edge.....all the best

before.jpgafter_02.jpgafter_b&w.jpg
 
Last edited:

Maxpace

Member
@lightnmagic: Thanks a ton for your effort in your response. That image you posted definitely shows off your skills in post-processing.

@biglouis: Agree to your point about the megapixels not mattering as much in the impact of the final image as seen by the viewer.

More to point, I read the DPreview review of GFX, where they compare it to FF (Canon 5DS R, Sony A7R II, Nikon D810) and conclude that GFX users might not find the significant differences they are looking for in terms of tonality and sharpness as compared to FF. Other reviews I have read of the GFX are more flattering.

Appreciate if someone who has worked with both FF and GFX can provide their insights.

Max
 

biglouis

Well-known member
The one thing I do envy MF digital, or at least Hasselblad MF digital for is the dynamic range of the sensors.

I've seen some incredible examples of recovering shadows using the 50mpx sensor in Hasselblad digital backs.

But long before I would sell a kidney to own a GFX or X1D, I'd rather drain my already empty bank account for a CFV-50c so I could use Hasselblad film bodies and lenses (my favourite being the 50mm Distagon).

Someone told me that Hasselblad cannot keep up with the demand for the digital back for its film bodies. Sadly the asking price is around £10K in the UK which way beyond my grasp.

I should add that what actually caused disatisfaction to begin with the whole MF film workflow was getting my DP2M. When I looked at the IQ from the Merrill foveon sensor at 100% compared to my film scans I am afraid I began to question - eventually seriosuly - why I was lugging several kilos of kit with me when I could get better results - working within the same iso limitations of film (i.e. 100-400ASA) - using my DP2M.

I'd never go back to MF film now - mainly because the domestic scanner market is almost non-existent - but if I won the lottery tomorrow I would go back to a Hasselblad body and a CFV-50c.

LouisB

From my latest book:

Hasselblad 500CM, Distagon 50mm - Kodak Portra 400, December 2012 - Scanned on an Epson V700 and hours of pp in photoshop with the clone tool.


Sigma DP0Q, December 2016 - SPP-->LR6
 
Last edited:

lightnmagic

Well-known member
The one thing I do envy MF digital, or at least Hasselblad MF digital for is the dynamic range of the sensors.

I've seen some incredible examples of recovering shadows using the 50mpx sensor in Hasselblad digital backs.

If you did an HDR composite that would give you alot of pixel data to play with in post to bring out those shadows and mute the
overexposed areas....so maybe your ricoh gr for this one if a moving subject or handheld

Like your posts as a new member and you bring a positive vibe to this forum..Thank You
 
Top