I spent spring break in Yosemite, and used the opportunity to test out my new Sigma DP2 Merrill. I'm a longtime Canon shooter, and enjoy my Fuji X100 as well. But the buzz surrounding the Sigma foveon sensor and the "46MP" Merrill cameras finally got to me. I brought both the Sigma and my 5D3 to Yosemite and thought I would post a couple comparison shots.
Below are some non-scientific comparison shots using both the DP2M and the 5D3 with 16-35mm L II lens. As a reminder, the cost of the Sigma DP2M is $800, the Canon kit roughly $4750.
In general, I found the uncropped 5D3 shots more pleasing to the eye, which is the ultimate priority, but the resolving power of the Sigma is pretty amazing. My main challenge with the Sigma IQ involves color rendering, for which I favor Canon.
The main point of the following images is for general IQ comparisons, and more specifically for the amazing detail the Sigma can provide.
Very interesting, but I'm not sure how much can be concluded from the detail shots...the significantly different effective focal lengths would be putting the 5DIII at a significant disadvantage for resolution...and the Sigma Merrills have significant resolution at the pixel level. I'm not really clear how the shots were taken; i.e. how was the similar framing achieved with the 5DIII @ 31mm vs the Sigma at ~50mm 'effective' focal length? Am I missing something here?
p.1 #10 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
ulrikft2 wrote:
Comparing 30mm on crop AND fullframe pretty much makes the comparison void, no?
I'm unsure how these shots were made but there does not appear to be a big difference in FOV. I would assume that he moved forward or backward to get the framing similar, which in and of itself throws another variable into the equation. Yet, the difference in resolution is very significant.
p.1 #11 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
I am not surprised by the Canon crop, but on the other hand the 16-35 is not as good a lens as the Sigma 30mm, and f/11 is stopped down enough to at least wonder how much of the resolution was lost to diffraction.
A much better comparison would be a Zeiss Planar 50mm at f/8 and the Sigma at f/5.6 or so.
p.1 #12 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
carstenw wrote:
I am not surprised by the Canon crop, but on the other hand the 16-35 is not as good a lens as the Sigma 30mm, and f/11 is stopped down enough to at least wonder how much of the resolution was lost to diffraction.
A much better comparison would be a Zeiss Planar 50mm at f/8 and the Sigma at f/5.6 or so.
p.1 #13 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
Give or take a little on focal length. Give or take some on F stop. Resolution differences to this extent is not minor, it is massive. Lens resolution? Yes that is a huge factor. The 16-35 is not an awful lens, far from the best but not bad at all. A m4/3 16mb sensor, diffraction kicks in very early, but even on those sensors not to this extent at f11, so I would not put it all down to diffraction, if any at all.
This post is not the only post that supports the capabilities of the Merrills to give such clarity. There is post after post across the net. The Merrill up against the MF, D800E, or whatever. The Merrill not only appears to be but is a phenomenal camera as far as the sensor goes, I don't see how it can be argued otherwise.
Having looked for months at images and used the raw files, it is very impressive.
We all know to the extent that the lens can have on any given sensor to get the best. The Merrills also have what seems to be lenses out of the top draw, with it being matched to the sensor.
A great combination for the discerning photographer.
p.1 #15 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
In some comparisons (unscientific) I did between my 5D Mark II/Sigma 35mm F1.4 and Sigma DP2 Merrill, the results were closer than those shown here. But the DP2 Merrill still won, especially worth noting was the bayer demosaic patterns in the 5D II shot in some of the areas of fine detail. Again it was unscientific as the Merrill had some advantage right off the bat as I didn't account for the focal length difference between the Sigma 35mm and the Merrill's 45mm.
It was enough to convince me that I wasn't losing anything in terms of resolution by using the Merrill. If I did a more controlled test, I think the Merrill would still be as good or better. I have to say I enjoy pixel peeping with the Merrill...still astounds me at times.
p.1 #16 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
The resolution of the Merrills is fantastic, but my problem with foveon is it's colors. You often get this gray/greenish tint. I've owned the DP2 in the past and I'm still seeing it in a lot of Merrill photos now.
p.1 #17 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
Yes, greenish blues seems to be a particular problem in skies. The DP3M seems to be better, but apparently shares the same hardware, so there is some hope?
p.1 #18 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
CVickery wrote:
Very interesting, but I'm not sure how much can be concluded from the detail shots...the significantly different effective focal lengths would be putting the 5DIII at a significant disadvantage for resolution...and the Sigma Merrills have significant resolution at the pixel level. I'm not really clear how the shots were taken; i.e. how was the similar framing achieved with the 5DIII @ 31mm vs the Sigma at ~50mm 'effective' focal length? Am I missing something here?
As I said, this was an unscientific comparison. It is guilty of all the testing flaws (except sharpening) referenced in the post. I was mainly there to hike the trails and be in the landscape. That said, I took A LOT of comparison images using same technique from same spots, and even given the focal length differences (31mm to effective 45mm), the results were very consistent: The Sigma always provides more detail, well beyond what a traditional dslr sensor delivers. And keep in mind, it's only $800. That said, the color issues mentioned are my main concern. I'm not saying that high level of detail makes a superior camera, as it may not be that important to many, but I found it to be a fairly impressive difference, especially if you are looking to make large prints.
p.1 #20 · Sigma DP2M v Canon 5D3 - resolving power
jfwoodman wrote:
As I said, this was an unscientific comparison. It is guilty of all the testing flaws (except sharpening) referenced in the post. I was mainly there to hike the trails and be in the landscape. That said, I took A LOT of comparison images using same technique from same spots, and even given the focal length differences (31mm to effective 45mm), the results were very consistent: The Sigma always provides more detail, well beyond what a traditional dslr sensor delivers. And keep in mind, it's only $800. That said, the color issues mentioned are my main concern. I'm not saying that high level of detail makes a superior camera, as it may not be that important to many, but I found it to be a fairly impressive difference, especially if you are looking to make large prints.
I understand what you were saying and was not intending to imply this was or should have been a more precise comparison. I('m sorry if it came across that way.
What I was trying to point out is that at 100% it is pretty much a given that a Foveon sensor will outperform a Bayer sensor for detail. If you look back there were similar comparisons with the DP1... the nature of differences between the sensors leads to this result. In addition, the effective focal length differences put the 5DIII at a further disadvantage...so the results aren't surprising.
