Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: DP1: have I got this right?

  1. #1
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    DP1: have I got this right?

    Like many others, I suspect, I have been looking at the Sigma DP1.
    My calculations suggest that, to obtain the same depth of field I get with my GRD II at f2.4 I would need to stop the DP1 down to f6.7 ( DOF of approximately 1.8m -> infinity). What's that? Three stops difference? The difference between 100 and 800 ISO?
    I have been experimenting making big inkjet prints from GRD II files, 80 cm on the short side at 200 DPI. This requires an interpolation of 230% and works pretty well. To obtain the same interpolated output size from the DP1, I need to increase the file size by 357%. Tests with downloaded sample files suggest that this is simply too much and that there is just not enough native resolution to allow such enlargements.
    Maths is not my strongpoint but it seems to me that, at least as far as resolution and DOF field goes, the DP1 is not going to be a "GRD II killer" as I have seen it foolishly called elsewhere. Have I got this right?

  2. #2
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    I haven't specifically checked your math, but it looks about right. I agree with you that it is incorrect to call the DP1 a GRD II killer, though to be honest I haven't heard anyone calling it exactly that. They do, however, compete; and I'm not exactly asking myself the same questions you're asking nor am I getting the exact same answers. I.e., do you regularly need the DOF you get with your GRD II at f/2.4, or would a little bit less DOF be okay and in some instances even preferable? To me, the answers are "yes" and "yes." The more relevant comparison to me is GRD II at f/2.4 and ISO 400 vs DP1 at f/4 and ISO 1200 (800 pushed 1/2 stop) since these are likely settings one would choose for similarly low light when the deepest DOF possible is not critical. With regards to matched large size output results, I hope to answer that soon when I compare the two cameras. Regards, Amin

  3. #3
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    The thing is that the GRD II's DOF can be used in "snap" mode to solve slow or inaccurate autofocus problems. This is not the case with the DP1. To that extent, I think I do need it.

  4. #4
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    With the DP1, if you manually focus to 4m, everything from 2m to infinity will be in focus at f/4. Not exactly the same but similar.

  5. #5
    Christi Mac
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    I totally agree Amin - to be honest I might find it quite irritating to get that much depth of field at F2.4. I frequently choose that kind of F setting to reduce my DoF.

  6. #6
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Here's a website for comparing the DOF for various cameras by focal length, f-stop, and distance: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html. It does the math for you.

    The DP1, GX100, GRD, and GRD2 are included on the list, so you would be able to do direct comparisons.

  7. #7
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    DavidE - that's where I got my info from :-)

    DOF requirements are obviously a question of personal taste and need...
    So what about the resolution issue?

  8. #8
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    The DP1 should out-resolve the GRD2 on a basic level, beyond depth-of-field. If this is something that's important to you say, fine detail in your intended focus point, for instance in a face that is only a small percentage of a frame, and also potentially less noise then it's worth it. For large prints, I've used Fred Miranda's up-rezzing actions in the past, which have given me pretty spectacular results using files from dSLR's and from the GX100.

    For anyone who is satisfied or overjoyed with his/her results from the GRD2, I don't see why the DP1 should be an issue, however good it turns out to be.

    David (Paul Carr), I do remember you voicing issues with your GRD2, in comparison to your G9. How's that going? I would think you'd get files a bit closer (not exactly close) in nature to your dSLR by using the DP1, if that's what you're looking for.

  9. #9
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    I should have assumed you would know about the DOF site, since we probably read the same sites: GetDPI, dpreview's Ricoh and Sigma forums, Ricoh Forum, etc. My theory is that there are just 100 people who hang out in all the Internet forums. We don't realize it, because we post under different names.

    I've also been wondering about this DOF/resolution issue. I like a strong DOF (Snap mode especially), yet I'm also interested in buying a DP1. I figure for some shots I'll have to use a longer exposure or higher ISO (more problematic) than I would have with my GRD2.

    I watched Ric Burns' documentary last night on Ansel Adams. He used an 8x10 view camera for much of his work where almost everything was in a tight focus. Did he have to use long exposures to attain an extreme DOF with such a large camera? I assume he probably picked up additional DOF by underexposuring in bright light and pushing it in the darkroom. With a fine-grained 8x10 image, he would have had a lot of latitude to bump up the brightness. He also had the advantage of shooting static landscapes that were often miles away from the camera.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidE View Post
    I should have assumed you would know about the DOF site, since we probably read the same sites: GetDPI, dpreview's Ricoh and Sigma forums, Ricoh Forum, etc. My theory is that there are just 100 people who hang out in all the Internet forums. We don't realize it, because we post under different names.

    I've also been wondering about this DOF/resolution issue. I like a strong DOF (Snap mode especially), yet I'm also interested in buying a DP1. I figure for some shots I'll have to use a longer exposure or higher ISO (more problematic) than I would have with my GRD2.

    I watched Ric Burns' documentary last night on Ansel Adams. He used an 8x10 view camera for much of his work where almost everything was in a tight focus. Did he have to use long exposures to attain an extreme DOF with such a large camera? I assume he probably picked up additional DOF by underexposuring in bright light and pushing it in the darkroom. With a fine-grained 8x10 image, he would have had a lot of latitude to bump up the brightness. He also had the advantage of shooting static landscapes that were often miles away from the camera.
    My understanding is that Ansel exposed for the Shadows and Developed for the highlights.
    Overexposed and Pulled his processing in brief.

  11. #11
    asabet
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ian7 View Post
    David (Paul Carr), I do remember you voicing issues with your GRD2, in comparison to your G9. How's that going? I would think you'd get files a bit closer (not exactly close) in nature to your dSLR by using the DP1, if that's what you're looking for.
    I remember those comments as well and would be very curious to hear the follow up from David.

  12. #12
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lili View Post
    My understanding is that Ansel exposed for the Shadows and Developed for the highlights.
    Overexposed and Pulled his processing in brief.
    You're probably right about that. My impression from the documentary (running on PBS, btw) is that he was more concerned with dynamic range than with DOF, though he was clearly able to achieve both.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidE View Post
    You're probably right about that. My impression from the documentary (running on PBS, btw) is that he was more concerned with dynamic range than with DOF, though he was clearly able to achieve both.
    With a Tripod, a necessity with 8X10, one doesn't worry *too* much about long exposures!

  14. #14
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    I had a number of "issues" with my GRD II.

    When I first got it, I had a great deal of difficulty processing the files to my satisfaction. I was using Lightroom at first and went on to experiment with Raw Developer, Capture One... . Still unhappy with the level of sharpness and noise I was getting, I tried another approach and investigated various sharpening and noise reduction workflows, separating these from my basic raw development. Bruce Fraser's book on the subject is very useful reading here. Now I do no sharpening and very little noise reduction in my raw developer (suddenly Lightroom is an option again), leaving this until a later stage, tailoring to image type and printing requirements. Output quality has improved enormously...

    Another "issue" was lens quality. I did some testing and convinced myself that I had a serious edge softness problem. The camera was returned to Ricoh for repair and came back with the problem unresolved so it had to be sent back again. I'm a bit reluctant to mention that because the service I had from Ricoh customer support was, actually, excellent: regular email updates (set by real people with real names!) on progress and a genuine effort to make a quick repair. Both times, the camera was dealt with within 24 hours and the second time Ricoh arranged for a free (to me) UPS collection. Of course, I still believe Ricoh has quality control problems - every camera I have had has needed either repair or replacement - but it's hard to fault this kind of service...

    My G9 is doing just fine but I find the lack of "snap" mode to be a real handicap. It does get used for stills a bit but generally only when I need a longer lens or when I have it readily to hand because I have been filming with it...

    Ansel Adams? A while ago I had access to a pile of his original prints in an important photographic collection. What struck me, on careful examination, was the lack of critical sharpness, especially considering the small enlargement ratio ( 10 x 8 to 16 x 20 inches isn't really much...). Ansel Adams fans, I'm not looking for a fight! (even though he's not my cup of tea: too pompous, too much gnarly nature, too old-fashioned for me...).

    DavidE - 100 people on all forums? Maybe, and when they're not doing that they're at home quietly reading Borges or Dick...
    Last edited by David Paul Carr; 18th March 2008 at 07:51.

  15. #15
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    Ansel Adams fans, I'm not looking for a fight! (even though he's not my cup of tea: too pompous, too much gnarly nature, too old-fashioned for me...).
    I'm not a fan, though I am interested in how he extended photographic parameters to achieve what he wanted. I'm more a fan of Cartier-Bresson, who tended to push in the opposite direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    DavidE - 100 people on all forums? Maybe, and when they're not doing that they're at home quietly reading Borges or Dick...
    Or looking at M.C. Escher prints to figure out what goes where. Or watching David Lynch films to sort out who is someone else.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    I admire Ansel's work, but feel much more in the work Brett Weston.

  17. #17
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Or who thinks they are someone else...
    Extending the theory, you all may of course simply be me answering my own posts...

  18. #18
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    Or who thinks they are someone else...
    Extending the theory, you all may of course simply be me answering my own posts...
    OK, what number am I thinking of?

    That's right! 42.

    How did you know that? Oh... we're all Douglas Adams fans.

    Small world.

  19. #19
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Ha! I also once had an opportunity to look through a box of Ansel Adams "master" prints as they were being prepared for an exhibition, and found them soft and in need of a good dust-spotting! The prints I saw definitely did not live up to all the hyperbole. But I'm not sure that's the end of the story; while I'm not a big fan, there's a largesse in his vision in the actual frames captured that kind of transcends any one particular print, even his own, or ego, even his own. (On DavidE's recommendation, I'll seek out that documentary.)

    Regarding the little cameras, as anyone keeping up around here has probably read ad nauseum, I've been experiencing yet another crisis of confidence in these small sensors, renewed ambivalence about devoting potentially important (to me) photographic moments to guessed-at snap-focus or slow autofocus, shutterlag, slow processing, and finally sub-par capture. Maybe I need to revisit my workflow I've had good luck as the beneficiary of David Paul Carr's experimentation but that won't make up for the lost shots, etc.

  20. #20
    Senior Member helenhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ian7 View Post
    Regarding the little cameras, as anyone keeping up around here has probably read ad nauseum, I've been experiencing yet another crisis of confidence in these small sensors, renewed ambivalence about devoting potentially important (to me) photographic moments to guessed-at snap-focus or slow autofocus, shutterlag, slow processing, and finally sub-par capture. Maybe I need to revisit my workflow I've had good luck as the beneficiary of David Paul Carr's experimentation but that won't make up for the lost shots, etc.
    Listen Doll
    LIGHTEN UP ....
    ART can be done in any FORM
    An enduring masterpiece can be etched into a wall with a crude rock
    or you can use the most refined Tools
    The Quality & Statement is in the Artist's Vision
    Obviously you haven't seen some of the GREAT MOMENTS
    captured here at DPI with the small sensor cameras
    Cheers ! Helen

  21. #21
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Well Helen, if you take cave etchings as a reference point, I guess those raw write and autofocus times just don't seem that long any more...

    I've just come back from three weeks working in West Africa. Before leaving (as you do in the comfort of your own home) I entertained the possibility of only shooting with compact cameras. I could do a really good job of justifying this to myself but, because my GRD II was still being repaired, it didn't happen and I went with a Canon DSLR and one mid-range zoom.

    If I look at what I have shot, 85% of it would have been impossible with any compact: most shots made at over 800 ISO, varying focal lengths required, far too bright to use an lcd to compose... And I don't think my GRD II would have survived the dust for more than one day...

    The GRD II would have been useful for some outdoor work where I wished to be a little more discreet or at certain events where I could have put it in "snap" mode, f6.7, and shot off-camera flash with a Pocket Wizard to trigger it.

    All to say that the fact that a camera can capture some great moments doesn't mean it can capture all of them consistently. No amount of artist's-statementing will conjour up a picture you couldn't take because there wasn't enough light or because you needed a faster shooting rate.

    Which doesn't mean I don't like my little Ricohs or that I have given up entirely on using them exclusively for a job one of these days... Just that I would probably feel a little more confident of my results with a Canon MkIII DS most of the time. And my main reason for wanting to use the Ricohs would be that they might - because of their limitations - coax me away from stale, habitual ways of shooting and thinking about photography rather than anything to do with image quality or ease of use.
    Last edited by David Paul Carr; 19th March 2008 at 01:40.

  22. #22
    Senior Member helenhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    DAVID PAUL CARR
    Michaelangelo often used a burnt stick to make sketches (I was not referring to primitive cave paintings but some of those were quite sophisticated & considered in the realm of ART)

    There are LIMITS to both worlds
    (i.e. small sensor cameras,dslr,medium format/etc)
    People can get skiddish with a big camera/lenses
    or maybe you don't get that image with your compact
    however it still gets down to the photographer/artist eye & expertise
    not just the type of gear he uses (and Yes gear can expand your possibilities)
    All the Best ! helen

  23. #23
    Senior Member helenhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    DAVID PAUL CARR
    Do Love your work by the way.......Cheers ! Helen

  24. #24
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Interesting turn this thread has taken.
    I submit that the tools very much influence how we see.
    If one ventures out with a DSLR and zoom, of course you return with very different images than if you'd gone out with a fixed focal length lens in a compact camera.
    Not better or worse; just different.
    Different Palette, different brushes.
    The limitations of the media and tools force a different way of seeing.
    And that can be a Good Thing.

  25. #25
    Senior Member helenhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    LiLi
    WELL SAID, BEAUTIFULLY PUT
    Cheers ! helen

    and bottom line : I was just abit disappointed with 7IAN7 'little camera .....ad nauseum remark / thats all
    Last edited by helenhill; 19th March 2008 at 05:21.

  26. #26
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Well put, David. As you may remember, I actually did go ahead and execute an entire four-day travel assignment in Paris using only the GX100. In the end I was happy with the results, but getting there was frustrating, many missed shots, many shots with dynamic range that rendered particular images unusable, etc.

    The argument about making people skittish with a big camera well I know that can be true. But I've found that a camera which focusses in one-tenth the time and gets the image the first time around can put people at ease too, or at least capture the image in less time than it takes for subjects to become uncomfortable about being photographed. And a rugged dSLR, to my mind, turns out to be an easier "carry around" simply because it doesn't require the cocoon of delicacy that these Ricohs demand (this from an artsy-fartsy delicate guy, not a bruiser press shooter punishing his cameras).

    Helen, believe it or not I'm pretty "light". I don't know about cave etchings, but I've spent my life making art by hand, and making photographs using all kinds of marginal cameras and film media. My father before me did amazing work and mural-size collages using a Minox spy camera. I'm not a "resolution" guy, if that's what you're implying. I've been a very enthusiastic supporter and early-adopter of these cameras and a lot of other gear that most "pros" would deem questionable.

    Ricoh and Sigma are manufacturing pro-priced small cameras, so I don't think it's a bad thing if some of us express our frustrations with these tools, in comparison to other digital cameras and also to their analog forbears, in hopes that they will eventually be improved.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidE View Post
    My theory is that there are just 100 people who hang out in all the Internet forums. We don't realize it, because we post under different names.
    Actually, Richard Feynman and John Wheeler, in a very early piece of work, proposed that the universe had only one electron in it. But because electrons could go both forward and backwards in time, we could see it going by many, many times. Maybe the 100 forum posters are really just one. Since they had to go backwards in time to start posting again in parallel, they perhaps are not aware of this.

    The analogy continues. Certainly some forum posters appear to be going in the wrong direction, and when a poster and a backwards-going anti-poster collide, they may annihilate each other, giving off only heat or sometimes light.

    sound plausible?

    scott

  28. #28
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    7ian7... agreement, as usual, and the cocooning point was very well made. I'm also of the opinion that when you actually start talking and building relationships with your subjects, explaining who you are, what you are trying to do, getting involved over time, the size of your camera doesn't really matter that much anymore. As I'm not really interested in doing street pictures of people I don't know or interact with, the often vaunted "stealth" qualities don't interest me so much either...
    Helen... thanks!

  29. #29
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    By the way, I would still like someone to address my original DP1 resolution question...

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    7ian7... agreement, as usual, and the cocooning point was very well made. I'm also of the opinion that when you actually start talking and building relationships with your subjects, explaining who you are, what you are trying to do, getting involved over time, the size of your camera doesn't really matter that much anymore. As I'm not really interested in doing street pictures of people I don't know or interact with, the often vaunted "stealth" qualities don't interest me so much either...
    Helen... thanks!
    David, I use several small sensor cameras not so much because of their "Stealth" qualities but rather other properties inherent in the format.
    1-The great Depth of Field even at wide apetures. It is very different from using my Hexar or even my Pentax. A new palette that I enjoy exploring
    2-They tend to be far more compact and light, making it easier to have with me in my daily life, a visual notebook as it were.
    3-Even my Fuji S6000fd, which is the same size as my K100D, is much lighter and, because of the small format, allows the use of a lens with tremendous zoom range and fairly fast aperture compared to an equivalent on the Pentax.
    4-The fixed lens means the Fuji, at least, is far less vulnerable to Dust

    True there are limitations, the Pentax, like all DSLR's focuses and shoots far faster.
    And I use it when appropo.
    But for the majority of my work, I am willing to work around the limitations.
    Others have differing requirements.
    And for them the small sensor cameras simply do not work.
    One Size Never fits All
    Last edited by Lili; 19th March 2008 at 07:33.

  31. #31
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    Certainly some forum posters appear to be going in the wrong direction, and when a poster and a backwards-going anti-poster collide, they may annihilate each other, giving off only heat or sometimes light.

    sound plausible?
    Yes, I think it's plausible. Apparently, I think anything is plausible -- even my accidentally taking a pretty good photo now and then, simply because the universe is in a cooperative mood. When I look at my good photos and bad photos, I can't come up with a more plausible explanation for the extreme difference.

  32. #32
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Lili, the finality of your "for them the small sensor cameras simply to do not work" line is a bit of an oversimplification of where I'm at with this.

    I don't mean to draw any line in the sand by voicing ambivalent feelings, and I reserve the right for my feelings to evolve.

    If I've in some way offended anyone by not being as consistent a Ricoh or small sensor cheerleader as others on the forum, I apologize. I don't mean to criticize anyone else's choices.

    Frankly, I'm surprised to be such a standout in this regard.

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ian7 View Post
    Lili, the finality of your "for them the small sensor cameras simply to do not work" line is a bit of an oversimplification of where I'm at with this.

    I don't mean to draw any line in the sand by voicing ambivalent feelings, and I reserve the right for my feelings to evolve.

    If I've in some way offended anyone by not being as consistent a Ricoh or small sensor cheerleader as others on the forum, I apologize. I don't mean to criticize anyone else's choices.

    Frankly, I'm surprised to be such a standout in this regard.
    Ian,
    No offence taken.
    Ever.
    As for my statement, I was not referrring to you at all, however there ARE some for whom the small sensor draw is not what they want.
    And that is just fine, if we all shot the same style it would be boring
    Different strokes, right?
    I like my Ricoh, very much.
    It is not perfect, however, and I am very aware of it.
    I truly worry about retracting lenses in both durability and access for dust.
    I would rather have a fixed and sealed lens barrell.
    As I said before, a digital Hexar AF, in size, ruggedness, control and optical quality would simply rock.
    Of course now I am converted to using the LCD primarily so this Ideal camera would not quite be the same as the Hexar.

  34. #34
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Lili, you can solve most of those problems by using the filter holder tube and a UV filter on your Ricoh...

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    Lili, you can solve most of those problems by using the filter holder tube and a UV filter on your Ricoh...
    Good suggestion David,
    I actually use that set up while doing my driving shots. Not for dust though.
    It protects extended lens from bumps and the hood keeps me from getting my left pinky finger nail into the upper left corner
    I kept wondering why I had 'vignetting' in only some shots and just there till I checked carefully.
    D'oh!!!

  36. #36
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    That's how mine stays set up, too, though I'm not convinced it's all that airtight. It does look cool.

    Guess what Lili, when I was going on about my conundrum the other day, a friend handed me a roll of Kodachrome 25 he's had in his freezer, and yesterday I loaded it in to my Hexar. It's the first film this camera has seen in a long, LONG time. I miss the preview, delete and frames-for-days of the modern era, but that camera is solid, silent and very fast. Now I have to ask my friend for the address of the one place left in America that processes Kodachrome.

    I'll report.

    Night, all.

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Lili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,527
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by 7ian7 View Post
    That's how mine stays set up, too, though I'm not convinced it's all that airtight. It does look cool.

    Guess what Lili, when I was going on about my conundrum the other day, a friend handed me a roll of Kodachrome 25 he's had in his freezer, and yesterday I loaded it in to my Hexar. It's the first film this camera has seen in a long, LONG time. I miss the preview, delete and frames-for-days of the modern era, but that camera is solid, silent and very fast. Now I have to ask my friend for the address of the one place left in America that processes Kodachrome.

    I'll report.

    Night, all.


    Oh, please scan if you can?

    I need to take my Hexar out again.....

  38. #38
    David Paul Carr
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Well I guess I didn't get much in the way of answers about resolution but I have found this :

    http://www.rytterfalk.com/2008/03/07...-for-download/

    and I suggest that anyone interested in the DP1 downloads the raw samples and the Sigma software...

    I still want to see how fast the camera focuses and writes its raw files but, as far as image quality goes, it looks to me as if we are very, very far beyond what the GRD II can produce...

  39. #39
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    I saw that too. Not surprising, really. I'm still hearing about frustrations with write-speed.

  40. #40
    ionianblues
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Paul Carr View Post
    By the way, I would still like someone to address my original DP1 resolution question...
    Hi everybody. This is my first post here.
    This is an interesting discussion... Have you seen these comparisons between the DP1 and Canon 30D?

    http://tamaken.seesaa.net/article/88997076.html
    http://tamaken.seesaa.net/article/89122788.html
    http://tamaken.seesaa.net/article/89246198.html

  41. #41
    Sean_Reid
    Guest

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidE View Post
    You're probably right about that. My impression from the documentary (running on PBS, btw) is that he was more concerned with dynamic range than with DOF, though he was clearly able to achieve both.
    If you're really interested in his approach, read "The Camera" and "The Negative", both by Adams, which are two of the best technical books on photography ever written.

    Cheers,

    Sean

  42. #42
    Senior Member DavidE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: DP1: have I got this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean_Reid View Post
    If you're really interested in his approach, read "The Camera" and "The Negative", both by Adams, which are two of the best technical books on photography ever written.
    Thanks, Sean, I'll take a look at them.

    This is good timing. I'm currently trying out LightZone, and -- as I understand it -- the ZoneMapper tool was influenced by Adams' Zone System.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •