...and for myself, I would add that I'm mighty impressed by the DP1 Merrill and may just pick up the DP2 Merrill to join it. I think it's a tremendous bargain offering a very high IQ/ dollar ratio under the right shooting conditions/ situations.

douglasf13 wrote:
millsart wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Keep posting those great shots!

Looks like the DP2m is a limited use camera that absolutely excels at what it is good at.



Those are usually the most enjoyable type of camera's I've always found, just as driving a true sports car. Sure it may get poor mileage, can't fit the kids or groceries, and be a terrible choice for the 2 hour stop and go commute to work, but when your simply out on a great road for a Sunday drive and its not about the destination but getting there, there is nothing more fun.

I agree, but I'm not sure that it applies to something like the DP2M. From all that I've seen and read, the DP2M IS about the destination, because the camera itself is clunky and not particularly enjoyable to use, but it has fantastic output.

What you described sounds more like a Leica or something, to me.



douglasf13,
If you would have asked me about this a few weeks ago I would have agreed. But I have changed my mind. It is not only the output but I enjoy using this camera as well. It's menu system is better for me than any modern digital camera provides. In practice I only sometimes miss a viewfinder a la Nex 7 and a better battery consumption. I now seriously doubt if the new Leica M will be the camera I have been hoping for. Holding the new M will be no doubt a sensation, but how will the files compare to these layman's Merril's? My $3000 Super Elmar might still not give the results I hope for.

Herb

Herb1911 wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
millsart wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Keep posting those great shots!

Looks like the DP2m is a limited use camera that absolutely excels at what it is good at.



Those are usually the most enjoyable type of camera's I've always found, just as driving a true sports car. Sure it may get poor mileage, can't fit the kids or groceries, and be a terrible choice for the 2 hour stop and go commute to work, but when your simply out on a great road for a Sunday drive and its not about the destination but getting there, there is nothing more fun.

I agree, but I'm not sure that it applies to something like the DP2M. From all that I've seen and read, the DP2M IS about the destination, because the camera itself is clunky and not particularly enjoyable to use, but it has fantastic output.

What you described sounds more like a Leica or something, to me.



douglasf13,
If you would have asked me about this a few weeks ago I would have agreed. But I have changed my mind. It is not only the output but I enjoy using this camera as well. It's menu system is better for me than any modern digital camera provides. In practice I only sometimes miss a viewfinder a la Nex 7 and a better battery consumption. I now seriously doubt if the new Leica M will be the camera I have been hoping for. Holding the new M will be no doubt a sensation, but how will the files compare to these layman's Merril's? My $3000 Super Elmar might still not give the results I hope for.

Herb


Howdy, Herb. No doubt the output is getting rave reviews, but I just got rid of all of my little digital boxes because the experience was never that great for me, and those had viewfinders, tilt screens, fast operation, etc., so I can't imagine liking the DP2M even more in use. I even went to the X100 to try and improve my experience, but it still wasn't quite there. The general consensus with the DP2M seems to be that the IQ is worth it, despite its operation, but not the other way around.

douglasf13 wrote:
Herb1911 wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
millsart wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Keep posting those great shots!

Looks like the DP2m is a limited use camera that absolutely excels at what it is good at.



Those are usually the most enjoyable type of camera's I've always found, just as driving a true sports car. Sure it may get poor mileage, can't fit the kids or groceries, and be a terrible choice for the 2 hour stop and go commute to work, but when your simply out on a great road for a Sunday drive and its not about the destination but getting there, there is nothing more fun.

I agree, but I'm not sure that it applies to something like the DP2M. From all that I've seen and read, the DP2M IS about the destination, because the camera itself is clunky and not particularly enjoyable to use, but it has fantastic output.

What you described sounds more like a Leica or something, to me.



douglasf13,
If you would have asked me about this a few weeks ago I would have agreed. But I have changed my mind. It is not only the output but I enjoy using this camera as well. It's menu system is better for me than any modern digital camera provides. In practice I only sometimes miss a viewfinder a la Nex 7 and a better battery consumption. I now seriously doubt if the new Leica M will be the camera I have been hoping for. Holding the new M will be no doubt a sensation, but how will the files compare to these layman's Merril's? My $3000 Super Elmar might still not give the results I hope for.

Herb


Howdy, Herb. No doubt the output is getting rave reviews, but I just got rid of all of my little digital boxes because the experience was never that great for me, and those had viewfinders, tilt screens, fast operation, etc., so I can't imagine liking the DP2M even more in use. I even went to the X100 to try and improve my experience, but it still wasn't quite there. The general consensus with the DP2M seems to be that the IQ is worth it, despite its operation, but not the other way around.


Douglasf13,
Always take care with the general consensus
Herb

Herb1911 wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
Herb1911 wrote:
douglasf13 wrote:
millsart wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Keep posting those great shots!

Looks like the DP2m is a limited use camera that absolutely excels at what it is good at.



Those are usually the most enjoyable type of camera's I've always found, just as driving a true sports car. Sure it may get poor mileage, can't fit the kids or groceries, and be a terrible choice for the 2 hour stop and go commute to work, but when your simply out on a great road for a Sunday drive and its not about the destination but getting there, there is nothing more fun.

I agree, but I'm not sure that it applies to something like the DP2M. From all that I've seen and read, the DP2M IS about the destination, because the camera itself is clunky and not particularly enjoyable to use, but it has fantastic output.

What you described sounds more like a Leica or something, to me.



douglasf13,
If you would have asked me about this a few weeks ago I would have agreed. But I have changed my mind. It is not only the output but I enjoy using this camera as well. It's menu system is better for me than any modern digital camera provides. In practice I only sometimes miss a viewfinder a la Nex 7 and a better battery consumption. I now seriously doubt if the new Leica M will be the camera I have been hoping for. Holding the new M will be no doubt a sensation, but how will the files compare to these layman's Merril's? My $3000 Super Elmar might still not give the results I hope for.

Herb


Howdy, Herb. No doubt the output is getting rave reviews, but I just got rid of all of my little digital boxes because the experience was never that great for me, and those had viewfinders, tilt screens, fast operation, etc., so I can't imagine liking the DP2M even more in use. I even went to the X100 to try and improve my experience, but it still wasn't quite there. The general consensus with the DP2M seems to be that the IQ is worth it, despite its operation, but not the other way around.


Douglasf13,
Always take care with the general consensus
Herb

Oh, I hear ya. I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that using the DP2M is more pleasurable in operation than the NEX-7, OMD, X100, etc., let alone something like a Leica, because I've not seen anyone mention that, until your post. The no viewfinder/tilt LCD alone would make it difficult for me.

An intermission in the endless gossip over the by now wellknown pro's/con's of this camera.
I use it for it's output, point

sculptormic wrote:
An intermission in the endless gossip over the by now wellknown pro's/con's of this camera.

Discussing the pros and cons of this camera was the basis for this thread from the beginning. No need to get snippy.

douglasf13 wrote:
millsart wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Keep posting those great shots!

Looks like the DP2m is a limited use camera that absolutely excels at what it is good at.



Those are usually the most enjoyable type of camera's I've always found, just as driving a true sports car. Sure it may get poor mileage, can't fit the kids or groceries, and be a terrible choice for the 2 hour stop and go commute to work, but when your simply out on a great road for a Sunday drive and its not about the destination but getting there, there is nothing more fun.

I agree, but I'm not sure that it applies to something like the DP2M. From all that I've seen and read, the DP2M IS about the destination, because the camera itself is clunky and not particularly enjoyable to use, but it has fantastic output.

What you described sounds more like a Leica or something, to me.



Douglas,

I have the dp2m now for a few month, and I think it is a pleasure to use. The interface is very well thought out, much better than my Sony Nex5n. I rarely have to go into the menu. Most function are easy to reach over the wheel. It might have been better to include a grip into the body and this way have the space for a bigger battery. But it is not a big deal for me. I have 4 batteries with me. I got 2 a Ansmann Batteries for Panasonic, used a Dremel tool to grind the notch down a bit. They where €10 a piece. What I miss is a tilt screen and option for an EVF. I do have a pt4pano minikiss nodal point adapter permanently attached. It is custom made for the DP2M and hardly bigger than the camera.
http://pt4pano.com/de/products/restbestand-minikiss
A B+W 900 foldable rubber hood keeps it small.

Best way would be to buy one with the option to return it, and see yourself whether it fits for your specific purpose.

Seems that the author of the above image learn nothing from discussion.
I have to add to this green edge phenomenon happens when WA lens on Digital sensors is microlens. The main culprit is microlens, that lies right upper pixels, the sensor with out microlens or film aren't suffered from it.So if the manufacturers make tilting those edge's microlens may avoid this kind of vignetting.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hulyss Bowman wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The major issue with comparing the Sigma DP Merrills to the Sony RX1 is in overall utility. Throw in low light and/ or artificial light sources into the mix and the Sigma's are going to suck big time. So, the equivalency only holds up in bright, daylight type scenarios.


No The DP2m handle far better multiple light source than my D700 or Leica S2, period.

That would be a HUGE change if so. The original DP1 I owned was all but useless under tungsten and artificial light sources at higher ISO's.


Tariq
I did a series of shots in the BMW Museum under florescent light and ISO 100, the images where absolutely dead on using florescent in SPP. No further correction necessary. On the other hand, in daylight, I have to correct the white balance a bit to get rid of cyan tint in the skys, even with the latest version of SPP.

Hi champions,
Little help needed:
When i save as TIFF from SPP to my computer, the photos look darker than they look in SPP. In LR and in Mac preview they look similar but darker than SPP....

glacierpete wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hulyss Bowman wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The major issue with comparing the Sigma DP Merrills to the Sony RX1 is in overall utility. Throw in low light and/ or artificial light sources into the mix and the Sigma's are going to suck big time. So, the equivalency only holds up in bright, daylight type scenarios.


No The DP2m handle far better multiple light source than my D700 or Leica S2, period.

That would be a HUGE change if so. The original DP1 I owned was all but useless under tungsten and artificial light sources at higher ISO's.


Tariq
I did a series of shots in the BMW Museum under florescent light and ISO 100, the images where absolutely dead on using florescent in SPP. No further correction necessary. On the other hand, in daylight, I have to correct the white balance a bit to get rid of cyan tint in the skys, even with the latest version of SPP.


That's great to hear. I will have to shoot mine under Tungsten and see how it does. The DP1 failed terribly under tungsten.

nandadevieast wrote:
Hi champions,
Little help needed:
When i save as TIFF from SPP to my computer, the photos look darker than they look in SPP. In LR and in Mac preview they look similar but darker than SPP....


Sounds like a 1.8 vs 2.2 gamma setup issue in SPP maybe? The Mac used to use 1.8 long ago but now uses 2.2, just like PC's for gamma but I seem to recall SPP suggesting 1.8 still for the Mac, which would be like selecting the "Apple RGB 1.8" option. Might check the SPP preferences and be sure to choose either Adobe RGB or ProPhoto for your color profile. Both are 2.2 based. I use Adobe RGB and have not had any issues. Also, be sure you are using the most recent version of SPP, 5.4.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
nandadevieast wrote:
Hi champions,
Little help needed:
When i save as TIFF from SPP to my computer, the photos look darker than they look in SPP. In LR and in Mac preview they look similar but darker than SPP....


Sounds like a 1.8 vs 2.2 gamma setup issue in SPP maybe? The Mac used to use 1.8 long ago but now uses 2.2, just like PC's for gamma but I seem to recall SPP suggesting 1.8 still for the Mac, which would be like selecting the "Apple RGB 1.8" option. Might check the SPP preferences and be sure to choose either Adobe RGB or ProPhoto for your color profile. Both are 2.2 based. I use Adobe RGB and have not had any issues. Also, be sure you are using the most recent version of SPP, 5.4.

Tariq, thanks...
Just checked: SPP newest version has these options: Prophoto, Adobe rgb, Srgb 2.2...i tried all options with the same result. SPP preferences: i'm ticking the box which says save X3F settings in source, but that doesn't make a difference. I am doing -2 in sharpness and highlight recovery is anyway automatic.
Don't know what's wrong....

nandadevieast wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
nandadevieast wrote:
Hi champions,
Little help needed:
When i save as TIFF from SPP to my computer, the photos look darker than they look in SPP. In LR and in Mac preview they look similar but darker than SPP....


Sounds like a 1.8 vs 2.2 gamma setup issue in SPP maybe? The Mac used to use 1.8 long ago but now uses 2.2, just like PC's for gamma but I seem to recall SPP suggesting 1.8 still for the Mac, which would be like selecting the "Apple RGB 1.8" option. Might check the SPP preferences and be sure to choose either Adobe RGB or ProPhoto for your color profile. Both are 2.2 based. I use Adobe RGB and have not had any issues. Also, be sure you are using the most recent version of SPP, 5.4.

Tariq, thanks...
Just checked: SPP newest version has these options: Prophoto, Adobe rgb, Srgb 2.2...i tried all options with the same result. SPP preferences: i'm ticking the box which says save X3F settings in source, but that doesn't make a difference. I am doing -2 in sharpness and highlight recovery is anyway automatic.
Don't know what's wrong....


That's odd. I don't have the "save X3F settings to source" checked when saving but I doubt that would make any difference. You could have corrupted preferences for SPP so you could delete the SPP preferences and see if that fixes things. You can find them in User>Library>Preferences>com.sigmaphoto... just delete all the sigmaphoto ones and restart SPP. Otherwise, I don't know.

Tariq, will do.
If nothing happens, will just brighten the image
What is the behavior of fill light function? It seems to affect the image overall, not just lighten the shadows...am i right? When do you use it? I found it does something very interesting to the image...

millsart wrote:
pingflood wrote:
Keep posting those great shots!

Looks like the DP2m is a limited use camera that absolutely excels at what it is good at.



Those are usually the most enjoyable type of camera's I've always found, just as driving a true sports car. Sure it may get poor mileage, can't fit the kids or groceries, and be a terrible choice for the 2 hour stop and go commute to work, but when your simply out on a great road for a Sunday drive and its not about the destination but getting there, there is nothing more fun.

Yep, but that also means it can't be your only camera. You'll need to take the DP to use when it excels and another one to use when it's out of its comfort zone. Miata for Sundays and Camery for weekdays.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

.

contas wrote:
Seems that the author of the above image learn nothing from discussion.


I don't think you are able to judge me on my learning process
Actually I find this thread rather interesting and I did learn a lot of interesting things about this camera in this thread. Especially about the colourhandling and about working with this camera and the PP possibilitys of it.
And how to deal with the rather quirky SPP program. I especially like the effort Herb put in here about colourhandling in post processing.
Especially for someone like me who is stronger on the creative side then on the technical side of things.

@ Douglas; That the camera has no EVF and no tilting screen is a fact. Still it is possible that this camera has virtues in handling, although it may be look like it is designed like a brick.
I prefer this well designed brick above a lot of other over designed point and shoot cameras.
I sort of like the straightforwardness of it and that continous in the interface and the direct buttons for the adjustments you need the most.
Behind the point and shoot image of this camera lies actually a pocket sized MF quality camera.
I consider these DP Merrill cameras as an experiment and as very innovatory, mainly because of the Foveon sensor, with it's amazing output.
And I hope it is the beginning of a very promising development. It is very revealing to see the files of this camera/sensor as of a veil has been taken of. And in reach of many people for this price.
And then we have not even spoken about the outstanding Sigma lens. Which is even better then the, before you turned into a happy Leica owner, by you so admired “Sigmarit” lenses for the NEX series.
It is not a camera for casual shooters.

I am also a big fan of an EVF and tilting screens but this camera has so much going for it, image wise, that I can live with it. I do wish they soon share there X3F files with Adobe.

If the bricklike design and the lack of an EVF or tilting screen blocks someone from using this camera is fine, but I hoped we surpassed that stage of the discussions. No need for endlessly repeating it for the sake of having a discussion.

Michiel

BTW Here is a link to a very interesting (experienced) user's review. Informative and well written.
http://blog.dominik.ca/