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

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of sculptormic's message #11228365 « Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it? »

  

sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.


""I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifact don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifacts.""

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

""Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.""

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

""To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.""

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

""Apparently? You should see a print!""

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

""May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7. If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.""

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

""This explains a lot ""

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

""Tja... can't show them on a monitor"".

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

""Whatever rings your bells....""

Cheers
Bernie


""Salute Michiel""



Dec 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.

""I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifact don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifacts.""

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

""Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.""

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

""To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.""

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

""Apparently? You should see a print!""

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

""May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7. If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.""

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

""This explains a lot ""

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

""Tja... can't show them on a monitor"".

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

""Whatever rings your bells....""

Cheers
Bernie


""Salute Michiel""



Dec 30, 2012 at 11:02 PM
sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.

""I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifact don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifacts.""

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

""Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.""

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

""To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.""

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

""Apparently? You should see a print!""

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

""May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7 If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.""

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

""This explains a lot ""

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

""Tja... can't show them on a monitor"".

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

""Whatever rings your bells....""

Cheers
Bernie


""Salute Michiel""



Dec 30, 2012 at 11:01 PM
sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.

""I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifect don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifects.""

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

""Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.""

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

""To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.""

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

""Apparently? You should see a print!""

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

""May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7 If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.""

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

""This explains a lot ""

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

""Tja... can't show them on a monitor"".

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

""Whatever rings your bells....""

Cheers
Bernie


""Salute Michiel""



Dec 30, 2012 at 10:59 PM
sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.

""I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifect don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifects.""

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

""Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.""

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

""To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.""

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

""Apparently? You should see a print!""

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

""May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7 If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.""

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

""This explains a lot ""

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

""Tja... can't show them on a monitor"".

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

""Whatever rings your bells....""

Cheers
Bernie



Dec 30, 2012 at 10:57 PM
sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.

""I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifect don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifects.""

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

""Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see my that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.""

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

""To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.""

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

""Apparently? You should see a print!""

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

""May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7 If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.""

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

""This explains a lot ""

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

""Tja... can't show them on a monitor"".

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

""Whatever rings your bells....""

Cheers
Bernie



Dec 30, 2012 at 10:57 PM
sculptormic
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it?


alba63 wrote:
While I haven't tried a dp2m, I have been (very recently only) very interested by it and browsed through a lot of threads in forums etc. and downloaded lots of samples, including a lot of full rez plus a few RAW files.
After my first enthousiasm and when I looked at the files on my calibrated and sharp monitor, I finally was not too impressed by what I saw. Not the camera side, that is clear, but the photographic results.

What I don't like in what I see:
1. General image impression is kind of like disturbed by overly enhanced tiny "detail specks" that give the files a rough, rippled look where my eyes are somehow lost in myriads of dots instead of what the photo actually shows.

I use a slide show of DP2 Merrill shot as a screensaver and some of them, the ones that are very detailed show the effect you discribe. Seen at 100% these artifect don't exist. The detail is just to high to be displayed on a 22 inch monitor without artifects.

2. When viewing in large view or even 100% view, lots of false detail and grid- like artefacts become visible. For larger objects (like any digital camera) things can look amazingly good, for smaller frequency detail the rendition gets different but not better than Bayer pattern files.

Well, I have to look better at 100% but I don't see what you discribe. I see my that my NEX images are somehow vaque with a veil, and you have to do a lot of PP to come near that sharpness and clearness.

3. Colour is "different"; often I find the dp2m colour to have low saturation which is basically ok, but what really disturbs me is a certain kind of tone mapping/ HDR look of the files.

To get the colours "right" can be hard. It is mostly a question to set the whitbalance point in SPP at exactly the right spot, which can be tricky. One can always correct more in Lightroom or ACR etc
For the rest the files often don't need much fine tuning.

In the end the idea of getting LF resolution in a compact camera format is too sweet, but my impression is that the Merrill is only apparently close to the large format.

Apparently? You should see a print!

I also must say that the better 20+ MP cameras with traditional bayer matrix, like my Canon 5dII or the Nex-7 generally don't make me want more sharpness or detail.

May be a question of taste but I am often, especially in the case of more exact work where you need sharpness, disapointend in the NEX-7 If you like nice OOF areas in your pictures, this is not this camera's speciality. Although even that is not to bad.

I respect to the limits of sensor resolution I might like the blurring approach of the classic digital cameras better than the rough filterless approach. But that may be personal preference. I used to shoot with the Kodak SLR/n and also with a Mamiya ZD (SLR version), and I liked the Mamiya files quite a bit (much better quality than the Kodak), but the lack of Bayer mask + no AA filter in the dp2m seems a bit over the top to me.

This explains a lot

Maybe some of those issues (like the fake HDR look) can and will be adressed by new RAW converters like Lightroom or others, until then I don't feel to much attracted to the merrill.

And it is true: I only looked to files on the monitor, no printing done.

Tja... can't show them on a monitor.

So sorry for being the devil's advocate here, I had high hopes after the first look at the Merrill, but in the end I don't think I would like the results this camera gives. (I don't care high ISO or all the bells and whistles Sigma does NOT give).

Whatever rings your bells....

Cheers
Bernie



Dec 30, 2012 at 10:49 PM



  Previous versions of sculptormic's message #11228365 « Sigma DP2 Merrill: Have any of you tried it? »