I think its just on first impression, I've never seen as sharp 1:1 files.

However, I'm curious about real resolution when compared to traditional high resolution sensors.

dcjs wrote:
Why would you get a Sigma DP2m with its slow operation, crappy screen, crappy battery life, terrible post workflow, etc.

Maybe for the same reason you were raving about the SD1 files about 4 weeks ago.

Snap!

FlyPenFly wrote:
I think its just on first impression, I've never seen as sharp 1:1 files.

However, I'm curious about real resolution when compared to traditional high resolution sensors.

D/L a RAW from the DP2M, export to a TIF, then open in PS. You'll see what the fuzz is about.

corposant wrote:
D/L a RAW from the DP2M, export to a TIF, then open in PS. You'll see what the fuzz is about.


Fuzz? Was that a pun? The fuss is about the lack of fuzz(iness).

AhamB wrote:
corposant wrote:
D/L a RAW from the DP2M, export to a TIF, then open in PS. You'll see what the fuzz is about.


Fuzz? Was that a pun? The fuss is about the lack of fuzz(iness).

Heh, bad typo. Fuss, not fuzz. There is definitely NO fuzz at 1:1.

fuzzy wuzzy was a bear
fuzzy wuzzy had no hair
one day came a boy
with the new sigma meriil toy
on it went with a beep
but auto focus was so slow
fuzzy wuzzy fell asleep

but seriously great thread--lots of leads to follow.

@nanda no, just idaho

But it's one of the flavours of this month so the forum hysteria runs high.

+1. The camera gear-addled masses periodically transfer their frenzy from one new piece of equipment to another. The Sigma DP2 Merrill happens to be their current obsession.

John

That reminds me of an album....
"Hot Fuzz" by this band called "The Killerz".


I did peek at some of the available online output of the DP2 and it does look like a very impressive camera at low ISO.

corposant wrote:
AhamB wrote:
corposant wrote:
D/L a RAW from the DP2M, export to a TIF, then open in PS. You'll see what the fuzz is about.


Fuzz? Was that a pun? The fuss is about the lack of fuzz(iness).

Heh, bad typo. Fuss, not fuzz. There is definitely NO fuzz at 1:1.

sirimiri wrote:
That reminds me of an album....
"Hot Fuzz" by this band called "The Killerz".



You mean "The All-Of-Our-Songs-Sound-The-Samez?"

Hey now! I likez the Killerz! Really, I do, they write snazzy hookz. Mr. Flowers doez have an affected accent when singing, but hey, when performing, are we not performerz?

Speaking of which I think they are to burp out a new disc soon. I'll buy it, I admit it.

When you finally get "Merrilized" let's hang out. I mean, I don't mind talking with/to you but I really just wanna touch your DP2(M).

sirimiri wrote:
When you finally get "Merrilized" let's hang out. I mean, I don't mind talking with/to you but I really just wanna touch your DP2(M).

Jeez, sirimiri, such a gear whore. Fine, you can handle the Merrill. PS can I borrow your M7?

here's a treat on the gear frenzy back in the day:
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/29/162005837/instant-recounts-the-magic-of-polaroids

Here's a two shot stitch with the DP2 Merrill with some overlap of course. jpg level 7, completely unshapened, minimal processing.

I was out last night and shot 79 images, still have one bar on the battery gauge.

two shot stitch

DougDolde wrote:
Here's a two shot stitch with the DP2 Merrill with some overlap of course. jpg level 7, completely unshapened, minimal processing.

I was out last night and shot 79 images, still have one bar on the battery gauge.

two shot stitch

That's crazy good IQ...the sort of sharpness, color and tonality that's reminiscent of a nice big piece of chrome film on a light table. I don't think there is anything else digital that gives that look practically out of camera. It's also clearly noticeable at any size. For this type of use, these DP Merrill cameras are probably unbeatable.

Hmmm is it just me or does this look very digital. Like a digital maze pattern.

Sure it's digital. The DP2 is limited of course. Mainly in the area of longer than normal lenses. For wider you can always stitch. And you can get more dynamic range by bracketing then using Photomatix. Bracketing is set up very easily though it will only do up to +/- 2 stops plus a normal exposure.

I also have a Hasselblad H4D-31 and it isn't all that much better. Of course there's a lot more versatility including lens choices.

Those who are trying to find best between SLRs and Sigma DP-series should just pick one from AMAZON (great return policy).. and use for a month (Sigma )
The results are totally mind blowing and different (I am talking about 1st gen Sigma-Foveon combo). The waters (waves esp) and clouds were never so good...
I have modded my Sigma DP-1s to IR (full spectrum), and its going full throttle there too...
Set of my captures with Sigma..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asbalyan/sets/72157624733446099/with/7975098631/

Seems like, time to move to Merrill ... may after one price drop...

FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmmm is it just me or does this look very digital. Like a digital maze pattern.


I don't know that it is in the rocks without seeing them in person as that look is not uncommon with the texture I recall when seeing these sort of rocks in the past with fossilized type surfaces. That said, it's a fairly decent bet that the crunchiness in the brush is caused by sharpening, which would also accentuate the texture in the rock. With the Sigma raw software, even when it's set to 0, it still sharpens so many who use it set it to -1 or -2 to completely turn sharpening off and then sharpen with the better tools in PS.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmmm is it just me or does this look very digital. Like a digital maze pattern.


I don't know that it is in the rocks without seeing them in person as that look is not uncommon with the texture I recall when seeing these sort of rocks in the past with fossilized type surfaces. That said, it's a fairly decent bet that the crunchiness in the brush is caused by sharpening, which would also accentuate the texture in the rock. With the Sigma raw software, even when it's set to 0, it still sharpens so many who use it set it to -1 or -2 to completely turn sharpening off and then sharpen with the better tools in PS.

Doug can chime in himself on this, but having been to Joshua Tree many times myself, I can attest that the rocks do indeed look like this in person. They have a notable surface texture, with many small quartz (and feldspar) crystals about 2mm to 4mm across. It's rather famous for rock climbing.

(and now I want a dp2m... but I need a new desktop...)

Interesting note on the sharpening. Thanks for that heads-up, Tariq.

I'm with FPF. I'm seeing short perfectly horizontal and vertical lines (both in the rock texture and the bushes) that can only be artifacts, but ofc. this is pixel peeping of the worst kind. The sky is also pretty blotchy and posterized, but jpeg compression probably contributed to that. I agree that the tonality is very nice though.