Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 82 83 end

El Presidente
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

A few from a morning spent Ballooning in Napa, CA are at www.picabroad.com

As others point out, keep it at 100-200 asa in natural daylight and it's on a par with my D800 or M9 with the very best glass.

My poor OM-D, even with the Olympus 75mm 1.8 is just not in the same league.

Oct 05, 2012 at 03:57 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

El Presidente wrote:
A few from a morning spent Ballooning in Napa, CA are at www.picabroad.com

As others point out, keep it at 100-200 asa in natural daylight and it's on a par with my D800 or M9 with the very best glass.

My poor OM-D, even with the Olympus 75mm 1.8 is just not in the same league.

Fine pictures, fine colors and very fine B & W, but I do not agree, that you can not get the same details with the E-M5 and the 75mm f/1.8.

But I can not get it with Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 or Olympus 45mm f/1.8 on E-M5 , in that I agree.

Of course I can also get it with my D3x and the right lens, but this is a very heavy camera, and this here can stay in a pocket, and that counts a lot.

----

But the button line for me is, that I want this camera, even it is not so versatile as most others, but it has really something, and this "something" I want,

....but I do not want crashes on my pc.s after few conversions, (as Steve Huff and Lloyd Chambers both got and wrote it independently), so I am looking forward to read if this is only a mac-problem ?

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:06 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

I used to own an EM-5 and think while it has pretty good per pixel sharpness (m4/3 has come a long way) its simply not going to match the DP's, any more than its going to match a M9 or D800e.

Its not going to be bad, but I just don't see how a 16meg sensor with AA filter is going to be able to match an X3 sensor or other AA-less cameras.

If the EM-5 could be argued as matching the detail of the DP2M, then it could also be argued that other 16 meg sensors, such as the Fuji XE-1/XPro can also match the detail of the DP2M doesn't it ?

Based on samples I've seen, that is simply not the case.

Realistically, if a EM-5, or XPro or NEX5n or any other 16meg sensor could match the X3, then why on earth would anyone be talking about/buying the Merrill's ?

EM-5 has a better LCD that is a touch screen and that tilts, a nice EVF, fast AF, great IBIS, excellent battery life, ability to change lenses, you name it.

Its on better camera in every possible measure than the DP2M, except for the issue of IQ

Its that big jump in IQ though that makes people willing to live with what is otherwise a pretty poor camera.

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:18 PM

El Presidente
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Sigma Photo 5 works fine on my PC laptop - no crashes so far.

However it takes several minutes to start as it seems to read all the pictures in the folder from scratch each time it runs.

It is also not very intuitive (read - badly written), but it does the job - I convert in bulk to 60mb tiffs and then finish off in Lightroom.

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:19 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #5 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

The Nex-7 with the Sigma 30 vs. the DP2M is the more interesting comparison, to me, since we're talking about similar lenses and similar potential resolution. The two certainly render differently straight out of the box, but are all of the usage trade offs worth it for the Sigma's rendering, and how close can the Nex-7 file get once both files have been worked on a little?

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:25 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #6 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

millsart wrote:
I used to own an EM-5 and think while it has pretty good per pixel sharpness (m4/3 has come a long way) its simply not going to match the DP's, any more than its going to match a M9 or D800e.

Its not going to be bad, but I just don't see how a 16meg sensor with AA filter is going to be able to match an X3 sensor or other AA-less cameras.

If the EM-5 could be argued as matching the detail of the DP2M, then it could also be argued that other 16 meg sensors, such as the Fuji XE-1/XPro can also match the detail of the DP2M doesn't it ?

Based on samples I've seen, that is simply not the case.

Realistically, if a EM-5, or XPro or NEX5n or any other 16meg sensor could match the X3, then why on earth would anyone be talking about/buying the Merrill's ?

EM-5 has a better LCD that is a touch screen and that tilts, a nice EVF, fast AF, great IBIS, excellent battery life, ability to change lenses, you name it.

Its on better camera in every possible measure than the DP2M, except for the issue of IQ

Its that big jump in IQ though that makes people willing to live with what is otherwise a pretty poor camera.

How can you compare the E-M5 mounted with the 75mm-er, that is brand new, if you do not have the camera, and then write it in the way you did ?

But this lens is nothing but fantastic, I was one of the first to get it, and it can compare with the mighty Nikon 200mm f/2.0VR exept for continous shooting, but that is also more of a camera-"thing")

Here is one test, but you can find many more, and they all say the same. As I recall SLRGear wrote it was one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tryed, and the lens means a lot, as you of course know.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/22/review-the-olympus-zd-751-8-for-micro-four-thirds/

----

About the true resolution: We can argue about that for many years, but printing out huge is what count for me.

Edited on Oct 05, 2012 at 04:49 PM · View previous versions

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:45 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

El Presidente wrote:
Sigma Photo 5 works fine on my PC laptop - no crashes so far.

However it takes several minutes to start as it seems to read all the pictures in the folder from scratch each time it runs.

It is also not very intuitive (read - badly written), but it does the job - I convert in bulk to 60mb tiffs and then finish off in Lightroom.

Thank you very much.

------

Can you not set it to NOT read all the pictures ?

I will use it the same way - conversion of the RAW, perhaps WB and then go to CS6 or NX2.

Edited on Oct 05, 2012 at 04:56 PM · View previous versions

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:48 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

I had the camera and a good collection of m4/3 glass as well as a host of various adapted lens. I am very familiar with the output of the EM-5 and shot it extensively.

Are you suggesting that simply by putting a 75mm f1.8 onto a m4/3 camera it can magically turn it into a D800e/M9 rival ?

With a lens like the otherwise quite nice 25mm f1.4 its just another 16meg sensor, but with a 75mm f1.8 is suddenly can resolve far greater than its resolution suggest

Oct 05, 2012 at 04:51 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

millsart wrote:

Are you suggesting that simply by putting a 75mm f1.8 onto a m4/3 camera it can magically turn it into a D800e/M9 rival ?

Why do you make your own history of what people think ? And you are so wrong in asking about that

-----

Pixels is not all, there is a lot more to that than pixels, I have 22 huge prnts from D700 and from other cameras with more pixels hanging, and the D700-prints have more clarity or crispandness, than from the other cameras, even they have higher resolution

I see it the same way as Ming Thein in his review of the D600, where he wrote:

"Over the last few months, I’ve received no end of emails from prospective upgraders asking if the D800 was the camera for them; my answer is a resounding no. If you need the level of image quality this camera can deliver, you’ll know it, and you won’t need to ask me. If you don’t, and you buy it, you might be surprised that it doesn’t quite deliver the same pixel-level crispness as the D700 or D3"

----

Perhaps it is the better pixel density, perhaps it is what Thom Hogan wrote, that the D3/D700 highlighs was better, or a combination about that.

---

But Perhaps this can help you:

""This is because the Foveon solution uses 3 layers of 4800x3200 pixels, stacked on top of each other, with each photodiode capturing all of the RGB data. Sigma and Foveon claim that this results in better looking colour images straight out of the camera when compared to a CCD/CMOS sensor. (My black) Whilst this may be true, from the user's point of view the final image is 4800x3200 pixels in size, a little bigger than a 15 megapixel photo, which limits how big you can print or crop the native image without interpolating it in Adobe Photoshop or another application.""

From:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_dp2_merrill_review/

As I wrote, it is the prints that counts for me

But let us stop now, if that does not help -I do not want a never ending story

Oct 05, 2012 at 05:05 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #10 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Kibsgaard wrote:
I see it the same way as Ming Thein in his review of the D600, where he wrote:

"Over the last few months, I’ve received no end of emails from prospective upgraders asking if the D800 was the camera for them; my answer is a resounding no. If you need the level of image quality this camera can deliver, you’ll know it, and you won’t need to ask me. If you don’t, and you buy it, you might be surprised that it doesn’t quite deliver the same pixel-level crispness as the D700 or D3"

Careful not to take things out of context. Ming Thein's point was not that the D800 are softer at the pixel level than the D700/D3, but that it is much harder to make the most the camera, due to the high resolution. With sufficient care, the D800 delivers files which are noticeably sharper than the D700/D3 at the pixel level. I own both D3 (probably my favourite camera ever) and the D800, btw.

Oct 05, 2012 at 05:27 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

carstenw wrote:
Kibsgaard wrote:
I see it the same way as Ming Thein in his review of the D600, where he wrote:

"Over the last few months, I’ve received no end of emails from prospective upgraders asking if the D800 was the camera for them; my answer is a resounding no. If you need the level of image quality this camera can deliver, you’ll know it, and you won’t need to ask me. If you don’t, and you buy it, you might be surprised that it doesn’t quite deliver the same pixel-level crispness as the D700 or D3"

Careful not to take things out of context. Ming Thein's point was not that the D800 are softer at the pixel level than the D700/D3, but that it is much harder to make the most the camera, due to the high resolution. With sufficient care, the D800 delivers files which are noticeably sharper than the D700/D3 at the pixel level. I own both D3 (probably my favourite camera ever) and the D800, btw.

I have never thought that he meant that the D800 are softer at the pixel level than the D700/D3,

He wrote very clear:

"pixel-level crispness" and that is what I quote, so........yes you have to be careful not to take things out of context = Agree very much.

And then we can argue a lot about crispness or clarity - there is a thread about that on NIkon Cafe.

I tryed an interpretation, and it is only an interpretation = D3/700 has the biggest pixels in the DSLR.s history, and then Thom Hogan has another point, so perhaps this is the "thing" together ?

But of course the lens matters a lot for this also, and you can see from the pictures from MingThein (the link is above) what this lens can do, and I have it myself, and I have shot with all the goodies from Nikon, but this lens is really doing somethng for your pictures.

And again: For me it is the final print, that matters, and as the review (photograpjyblog)shows, you can not say, when printing, that this camera here has so many pixels as the "true" high reslution cameras, like D800, but our fellow brough that into this discussion.

Edited on Oct 05, 2012 at 05:48 PM · View previous versions

Oct 05, 2012 at 05:43 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Kibsgaard wrote:
"pixel-level crispness" and that is what I quote, so........yes you have to be careful not to take things out of context = Agree very much.

Oct 05, 2012 at 05:48 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #13 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

carstenw wrote:
Kibsgaard wrote:
"pixel-level crispness" and that is what I quote, so........yes you have to be careful not to take things out of context = Agree very much.

What is this, escape by obscurity? Please define crispness.

I tryed an interpretation, and it is only an interpretation = D3/700 has the biggest pixels in the DSLR.s history

Well, no, they don't.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but your arguments are unconvincing.

I can say, that you need to admit, that you misunderstood me, because I have never thought, never said, never written, what you wrote above (softness) , and I am not sure, that it is so convincing to write wrong things and not admitting it , but please ask MinThein what he means with crispness. He has a fine blog

I call it cripsness or clarity, and I can not write it better in English, but if you need to argue about words there is a thread about it on Nikon Cafe,

But I am interested in this:

I tryed an interpretation, and it is only an interpretation = D3/700 has the biggest pixels in the DSLR.s history

"Well, no, they don't."

I am seriously interested.

That is what I know, but you are welcome to correctt me, if this is wrong,

DX

D40 6mp - 7.9 micron CCD

D40x 10 mp- 6.1 micron CCD

D60 10 mp- 6.1 micron CCD

D200 10 mp- 6.1 micron CCD

D300 12 mp- 5.5 micron CMOS

D3100 14mp- 4.94 micron CMOS

D5100: 16mp-4.78 micron CMOS

D7000: 16mp-4.78 micron CMOS

FX

D3/D700 12 mp - 8.5 micron CMOS (the "biggest" pixels ever)

D3x: 24 MP 5.94 microns CMOS

D4: 16MP 7.3-micron pixels CMOS

D800: 36 MP 4.88 microns CMOS

Canon 1DX = 18 mp 6.95 micron pixels, CMOS (1.25 microns larger than the 1DMKIV and 0.55 microns bigger than the 5DMKII's pixels).

.

Oct 05, 2012 at 06:09 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Nikon came late to the fullframe game, so they're not a great point of reference for pixel size. For starters, the Contax N digital had a 6mp, fullframe CCD, which I believe puts the pixel size around 12 or so microns:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

The Nikon D1 had a pixel pitch of 11.8 microns:

The EOS-1D had a pixel pitch of 11.5 microns:

The EOS-D30 had a pixel pitch of 10.5 microns:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

The EOS-1Ds had a pixel pitch of 8.8 microns:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Oct 05, 2012 at 06:20 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Okay now I'm really not following you....

Another poster said they felt their DPM2 had an output of fine detail that their other gear couldn't touch, among that gear was m4/3 with a 75mm f1.8.

You then stated that you disagree with that claim, which can only be taken to mean that you DO think m4/3 with the 75mm f1.8 matches the DP2M in regards to rendering fine levels of detail. Correct ??

You now make the claim that your D700, with its 12 meg sensor (which I know quite well by the way as I've owned a D700, along with still having a couple D3s bodies) can produce prints with a "crispness" that other camera's can't match even with much higher resolution.

Now, again here I have to disagree with you. D700 was a nice camera, but I've shot, and printed, the same subject matter taken with the D700 and also with the D800e, and I for one see a big difference in the rendering of fine detail in the prints at 16x24 and 20x30 sizes, which are my common output sizes.

I simply don't know how to explain your answers other than you must have some sort of magic dust on your sensors because these claims just not only don't hold up to my own experiences with all the gear in question, or my understanding of physics in general.

How a 16meg m4/3 Olympus EM-5 is able to match a camera like a M9 with its AA filter, or the DP2M, or basically anything else above its resolution I don't understand. Put a good lens on it like the 75mm f1.8 and it magically gains resolution ??

Why then doesn't the Fuji X series, which doesn't have an AA filter do this with a good lens ??

There is apparently something magical about the EM-5 when paired with the 75mm that allows it to make resolution out of thin air ??

Same goes for the D700. I've owned it, I've printed it plenty, and I'm still working with what is basically the same sensor daily in my D3s's and I see no magical cripsness or clarity to it, especially not compared to prints from my D800.

Now the D800 is rather demanding on glass, and also technique. Using good glass though, and a solid tripod though its output shows a visible difference over what I used to get from the D700

Even at a basic level, saying a 12meg sensor with an average strength AA filter can somehow match or exceed a 36meg sensor without an AA filter, when glass is not the limiting factor just doesn't make sense.

If you enjoy your EM-5 and your D700, thats fantastic, but the EM-5, nor the D700 is the resolution/crispness champ in this current day and age.

Again, both good cameras, and both can produce nice images, but unless I had some total duds, neither of them blew me away in terms of IQ

Kibsgaard wrote:
millsart wrote:

Are you suggesting that simply by putting a 75mm f1.8 onto a m4/3 camera it can magically turn it into a D800e/M9 rival ?

Why do you make your own history of what people think ? And you are so wrong in asking about that

-----

Pixels is not all, there is a lot more to that than pixels, I have 22 huge prnts from D700 and from other cameras with more pixels hanging, and the D700-prints have more clarity or crispandness, than from the other cameras, even they have higher resolution

Oct 05, 2012 at 06:44 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #16 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

douglasf13 wrote:
Nikon came late to the fullframe game, so they're not a great point of reference for pixel size. For starters, the Contax N digital had a 6mp, fullframe CCD, which I believe puts the pixel size around 12 or so microns:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

The Nikon D1 had a pixel pitch of 11.8 microns:

The EOS-1D had a pixel pitch of 11.5 microns:

The EOS-D30 had a pixel pitch of 10.5 microns:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

The EOS-1Ds had a pixel pitch of 8.8 microns:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Either way, who cares? Assuming like sensor technology, more/smaller pixels is a good thing at like output size, unless you're trying to save hard drive space or speed up a camera's internal processing for things like higher fps.

Thank you, I did not know that, because I read the other from a site, and trusted it.

Thanks again -interesting.

Oct 05, 2012 at 07:06 PM

Hulyss Bowman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #17 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

.

Edited on Nov 27, 2012 at 01:09 PM · View previous versions

Oct 05, 2012 at 07:09 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #18 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

millsart wrote:
Okay now I'm really not following you....

Another poster said they felt their DPM2 had an output of fine detail that their other gear couldn't touch, among that gear was m4/3 with a 75mm f1.8.

You then stated that you disagree with that claim, which can only be taken to mean that you DO think m4/3 with the 75mm f1.8 matches the DP2M in regards to rendering fine levels of detail. Correct ??

You now make the claim that your D700, with its 12 meg sensor (which I know quite well by the way as I've owned a D700, along with still having a couple D3s bodies) can produce prints with a "crispness" that other camera's can't match even with much higher resolution.

Now, again here I have to disagree with you. D700 was a nice camera, but I've shot, and printed, the same subject matter taken with the D700 and also with the D800e, and I for one see a big difference in the rendering of fine detail in the prints at 16x24 and 20x30 sizes, which are my common output sizes.

I simply don't know how to explain your answers other than you must have some sort of magic dust on your sensors because these claims just not only don't hold up to my own experiences with all the gear in question, or my understanding of physics in general.

How a 16meg m4/3 Olympus EM-5 is able to match a camera like a M9 with its AA filter, or the DP2M, or basically anything else above its resolution I don't understand. Put a good lens on it like the 75mm f1.8 and it magically gains resolution ??

Why then doesn't the Fuji X series, which doesn't have an AA filter do this with a good lens ??

There is apparently something magical about the EM-5 when paired with the 75mm that allows it to make resolution out of thin air ??

Same goes for the D700. I've owned it, I've printed it plenty, and I'm still working with what is basically the same sensor daily in my D3s's and I see no magical cripsness or clarity to it, especially not compared to prints from my D800.

Now the D800 is rather demanding on glass, and also technique. Using good glass though, and a solid tripod though its output shows a visible difference over what I used to get from the D700

Even at a basic level, saying a 12meg sensor with an average strength AA filter can somehow match or exceed a 36meg sensor without an AA filter, when glass is not the limiting factor just doesn't make sense.

If you enjoy your EM-5 and your D700, thats fantastic, but the EM-5, nor the D700 is the resolution/crispness champ in this current day and age.

Again, both good cameras, and both can produce nice images, but unless I had some total duds, neither of them blew me away in terms of IQ

Kibsgaard wrote:
millsart wrote:

Are you suggesting that simply by putting a 75mm f1.8 onto a m4/3 camera it can magically turn it into a D800e/M9 rival ?

Why do you make your own history of what people think ? And you are so wrong in asking about that

-----

Pixels is not all, there is a lot more to that than pixels, I have 22 huge prnts from D700 and from other cameras with more pixels hanging, and the D700-prints have more clarity or crispandness, than from the other cameras, even they have higher resolution

You could not stop

Oct 05, 2012 at 07:12 PM

Kibsgaard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #19 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

"Another poster said they felt their DPM2 had an output of fine detail that their other gear couldn't touch, among that gear was m4/3 with a 75mm f1.8."

He did not write that he "felt", but what about saying, that I "feel" the opposite, can you then stop ?

"You then stated that you disagree with that claim, which can only be taken to mean that you DO think m4/3 with the 75mm f1.8 matches the DP2M in regards to rendering fine levels of detail. Correct ??"

No this is not the whole story. Read my post again, and try to find out what I try to say.

On another forum others could - even English is not my native language.

But a small clue to you is: I look at the prints and you compare the resolution from D800 vs. the DP Merrill, but please read the test from Photography blog, and you will see, that you can not.

crispness, clarity or brillance or whatever word you use, but perhaps this can help you

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/photoshop-and-other-software/sharpening-techniques.html?start=1

The link is about doing sharpness,but he has an interesting thing here, that perhaps can help a little bit in what I am trying to point to:

""Top lenses often have a level of brilliance that gives an image snap and sparkle that lower-priced lenses can’t match, even though a given lower-priced lens may have similar resolution (sharpness).""

And so have some cameras, the resolution is not all, but of course it counts, so it is not easy, and of course complicated, but again: I agree so very much with MingThein about the certain crispness from D3/D700, but you do certainly not have to agree, and we do not see the same.

I think we shall stop now.

Oct 05, 2012 at 07:19 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #20 · Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?

Kibsgaard, hvis du hellere vil forklare det paa Dansk, saa kan jeg godt oversaette det for dig.

---

I still don't know what magical property you claim for the D700/D3. I have shot with a D3 almost exclusively for something like 2.5 years now, and it has been an awesome camera, probably my favourite of all time. With my Zeiss lenses I have made some awesome photos, and gotten lots of sharpness, more than enough for what I need. However, the D800 is a major step up in sharpness, even at the pixel level, even on the rear LCD, and of course, especially in large prints. I have barely touched my D3 since the D800 arrived, and really ought to sell it. This implicit comparison is of course with the same subject material, the same lenses, the same processing...

Oct 05, 2012 at 09:27 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 82 83 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 … 82 83 end