rbraun, I think your DP1 handled the highlights at the expense of completely destroying the shadows. I think the last of Steve Carlton's pictures better shows the DP1 holding highlights and shadows well. Does the SD14 sensor really offer better dynamic range than modern DSLRs? I hadn't read that before, but it is interesting.
Anyone try stitching shots from either the SD14 or the DP1?
I like the look of many of these images. Personally, though, I'd way way rather have a Panasonic G1 than a DP1. Anyone used both and compared the image quality?
jvarszegi wrote:
Does the SD14 sensor really offer better dynamic range than modern DSLRs?
No, DPR tested the DP1 (same sensor as SD14) at 11.5eV with max RAW highlight recovery. The Canon 50D is 11.6eV with max RAW highlight recovery.
Of course, as a *compact* camera the DP1 has much more dynamic range than other compact cameras because of its nice big sensor. But the SD14/DP1 sensor doesn't have any more dynamic range than other APS-C sized sensors.
Grant808 wrote:
Wow. That's a real selective presentation of the DPR DR tests. At ISO 100 where I would normally shoot HDR...the DP-1 tests at 8.8EV vs. the 50D at 8.3EV. Go figure.
In JPG mode. If you are shooting JPG why even bother getting a DP-1 or SD-14? Anyway, the question asked was does the *sensor* have more or less dynamic range and the only way to get close to measuring that is using the RAW file which are the numbers I quoted. In fact, really all the APS-C sized sensors have nearly the same dynamic range numbers when shooting RAW.
kwalsh wrote:
In JPG mode. If you are shooting JPG why even bother getting a DP-1 or SD-14? Anyway, the question asked was does the *sensor* have more or less dynamic range and the only way to get close to measuring that is using the RAW file which are the numbers I quoted. In fact, really all the APS-C sized sensors have nearly the same dynamic range numbers when shooting RAW.
BTW, I like your first image there!
Ken
Thanks, but I think it looks better at poster size and with the DP-1s red flare cleaned up The original is 5 shots wide in portait orientation.
I just mean that the 'native' data has more DR...which typcally means less tweaking in post. I only shoot RAW. The max RAW DR value is subjective. At the limits of the RAW files, the Sigma files are considerably more usable/workable to me. At least for files going to the extent of using noise masks to clean the shadows. I definitely do not 'expose to the right' for Sigma, like I try to with Canon. That's why I think it's really hard to compare accurately.
I guess what I'm saying is that people who have had more time shooting and processing Sigma files would rate max DR differently.
What's so great about it? Small size, outstanding lens, excellent IQ.
Shutter lag? Here is a series of shots of a baseball being pitched to my nephew. I caught three shots of the pitch, which were all taken within one second, according to the EXIF, and I was shooting RAW:
Very slightly revised it looks like. I'm sure a lot of people expected at least a wide angle version of the DP2 with its faster shot to shot time and image processing. That is not what this camera offers. At most, looks like they improved the IR filter to avoid the pattern that could show up in backlighting situations and when shooting into a light source. Love my DP-1 and I guess a slight upgrade is better than nothing at all. It just does not appear to be a very competitive move on Sigma's part given all the new large sensor, compact cameras hitting the streets these days.
I've had my DP1 for nearly a year now and I would never part with it. It definitely has some warts and quirks but it will also stun you with the quality of images it can produce. If you want a camera that will do "everything" well then stay away from it but if you want something - in a compact package - that forces you to slow down, think and be creative then the DP1 just might be for you...
I think the last of Steve Carlton's pictures better shows the DP1 holding highlights and shadows well. Does the SD14 sensor really offer better dynamic range than modern DSLRs? I hadn't read that before, but it is interesting. 
The original is 5 shots wide in portait orientation.