I've been shooting three frames with the DP2 Merrill. +2/0/-2 then outputting as 16 bit tiff with no corrections. I then fuse the three in Photomatix for a blended (not HDR) image. Here's one from Joshua Tree NP. No sharpening applied.

You can download the full rez version here.

Ordered one! Been siting on the fence, watching this conversation develop, reading all the reviews and debating with myself, finally decided it would make the ideal companion to my X100 and G1X and a portable alternative to my 5D3 for landscapes. I'll certainly be adding my comments to this thread as soon as it arrives.....

Luis Cunha wrote:
Is it possible (I canīt remenber; I havenīt yet a DP2M) to shoot both RAW and a small jpeg for the web at the same time?

Don't think anyone answered this yet so I'll take a stab:

I don't see any way to do this. It looks like there is no way to seperate the JPEG+RAW, as far as file size goes. You can change the file size, but it looks like the RAW and the JPEG sizes both change (I just tried to set the file size to small and the RAW and JPEG both ended up small). So, it doesn't look like there is a way to record seperate RAW and JPEG file sizes. Hope that helps.

About the banding: I've also seen some of the same banding on my DP2m. A lot of it has to do with exposure, but there are also time that the exposure has been correct but I still get some line in the image, and not always in the darkest areas. But in general, it's been a small and infrequent issue (especially since I basically lock my DP2m at ISO 100-200), but I can imagine how frustrated I would be if it showed up in a special image.

I agree with others that the DP2m exposure is very finicky. I've also discovered that despite the camera being VERY good at recovering highlights (even compaired to my DLSRs), pushing the exposure down can also introduce noise into the image, which is usually only an issue when you are pushing an image brighter than the original exposure. So, I've found that the cleanest pictures from the camera are usually slightly overexposed originally, but not too overexposed.

For example, even though the camera might be able to recover all the highlights in an EV+1 or EV+1.3 image, I actually get more noise in the image than if I take an EV+0.7 image. The noise I see in my images that are taken at EV+1.3 and then pushed down in SPP is about the same as if I take an image that is underexposed, EV-0.7, and then pushed up. It's strange behavior that I'm not used to, but I find that if I stay around +0.3 to +0.7, I end up with the cleanest images.

When I'm back in the USA for a while, I'll probably send my camera to Sigma to have the banding looked out. I sometimes see it show up even at ISO 400 in bright light and a well-exposed image. And I almost always see it at ISO 800+. But I've also found that the JPEGs show MUCH more banding than the RAW images show, at both low and high ISO. So, I've also learned to never judge the noise/banding in an image until I've processed the RAW.

Mostly, I wanted to say to Jede that I'm really enjoying your images and I hope you will continue to work out your issues with the camera and post images. I can imagine that the pictures must have incredible detail at full-size with all of the texture present in the scene, and even the web-size images are breathtaking.

More push pull with exposure and fill. Over done but fun.


0638 by cjrpostma, on Flickr

Overdone, yes it is, but it looks very cool.

sculptormic wrote:In general I am quiet a friendly guy and use these forums mererly for positive exchange of images and apparatus. Also I have better things to do like you.
You don't have to answer this (don't feel obliged but I am curious if the SPP advise Contas gave you did better your dog image?

Nice that I finally got the issue explained. No hard feelings! Misunderstandings have a tendency to cause misunderstandings I haven't tried to fix the dog image yet, as I've been busy taking new pics and spending some family time this weekend.

marcus riley wrote:
Mostly, I wanted to say to Jede that I'm really enjoying your images and I hope you will continue to work out your issues with the camera and post images. I can imagine that the pictures must have incredible detail at full-size with all of the texture present in the scene, and even the web-size images are breathtaking.

Thanks for the encouragement and valuable info based on your experiences. I've also ended up consulting the Sigma service network tomorrow, as this is really starting to disturb me.

This pic was taken today. The scene was already quite dark at 4 PM, and I knew what was going to happen with 25s exposure. Noise sliders in the middle, post processed in Silver Efex Pro. I'll try to do a cleaner version later. Top part of the sky and water are the worst parts. See for yourself. ISO100, f/8, 25s.



January flow (Flickr link) and full-size here

Yikes, that's a whole lot of banding right there.

Jede
And so very nice. What a space.
Do you have a tripod on a bridge?

If you wish to do it in Silver Efex you gonna need one regular and one +1 or +2 eV shot and merge them together. Silver Efex works a lot with tonal contrast and that really shows this kind of flaws in sensor.

You might try to break patterns with added noise.. They are more visible when photo is "clean".

Jede wrote:
sculptormic wrote:In general I am quiet a friendly guy and use these forums mererly for positive exchange of images and apparatus. Also I have better things to do like you.
You don't have to answer this (don't feel obliged but I am curious if the SPP advise Contas gave you did better your dog image?

Nice that I finally got the issue explained. No hard feelings! Misunderstandings have a tendency to cause misunderstandings I haven't tried to fix the dog image yet, as I've been busy taking new pics and spending some family time this weekend.

marcus riley wrote:
Mostly, I wanted to say to Jede that I'm really enjoying your images and I hope you will continue to work out your issues with the camera and post images. I can imagine that the pictures must have incredible detail at full-size with all of the texture present in the scene, and even the web-size images are breathtaking.

Thanks for the encouragement and valuable info based on your experiences. I've also ended up consulting the Sigma service network tomorrow, as this is really starting to disturb me.

This pic was taken today. The scene was already quite dark at 4 PM, and I knew what was going to happen with 25s exposure. Noise sliders in the middle, post processed in Silver Efex Pro. I'll try to do a cleaner version later. Top part of the sky and water are the worst parts. See for yourself. ISO100, f/8, 25s.



January flow (Flickr link) and full-size here

Again, it's a BEAUTIFUL image, but I definitely see the banding in the sky and water. I know that a lot of noise disappears when you print a picture, but 1. maybe you don't want to print, 2. this banding may not disappear. It would be an interesting test though to see what happens if printed. But I agree this is too much.

How much is the picture pushed/processed though? With the glow around the trees, it seems like there is at least some pushing. Can you see the banding in the original raw? USUALLY for me, if I'm shooting at ISO 100, I'll first try to process with Chroma and Banding noise options at the highest, and the Luminance on the second. That usually let's me keep the detail I want but also keeps the skys smooth.

I really hope you get it sorted out though. I feel like the kind of pictures you take fit this camera/sensor perfectly. If you wouldn't mind letting me privately take a look at the RAW (I promise not to post or share it anywhere), I'd love to take a look. Not because I know anything you don't already know, but to compare it to the banding I've seen from time to time on my DP2m.

Hang in there bro
Marcus

I'll send you my email if you be interested in sharing the RAW. I understand if you'd rather not.

inglis wrote:
And so very nice. What a space.
Do you have a tripod on a bridge?


Thank you. Yes, I used a tripod on a walking bridge, which was actually swinging a bit. No perfect stabilization possible there

Mescalamba wrote:
If you wish to do it in Silver Efex you gonna need one regular and one +1 or +2 eV shot and merge them together. Silver Efex works a lot with tonal contrast and that really shows this kind of flaws in sensor.

You might try to break patterns with added noise.. They are more visible when photo is "clean".


So it seems. Thanks for the bracketing tip, I'll be sure to try that! Silver Efex was a bit more forgiving on Fuji X100, but here it shows the flaws in original image very harshly. I thought of adding noise also, we'll see how it goes


marcus riley wrote:
How much is the picture pushed/processed though? With the glow around the trees, it seems like there is at least some pushing. Can you see the banding in the original raw? USUALLY for me, if I'm shooting at ISO 100, I'll first try to process with Chroma and Banding noise options at the highest, and the Luminance on the second. That usually let's me keep the detail I want but also keeps the skys smooth.

I really hope you get it sorted out though. I feel like the kind of pictures you take fit this camera/sensor perfectly. If you wouldn't mind letting me privately take a look at the RAW (I promise not to post or share it anywhere), I'd love to take a look. Not because I know anything you don't already know, but to compare it to the banding I've seen from time to time on my DP2m.

Hang in there bro
Marcus

I'll send you my email if you be interested in sharing the RAW. I understand if you'd rather not.

The picture was pushed a bit in Silver Efex, but the result happened mostly because the lines are there in converted tiff file also. I tried several presets just to see what is the effect, and basically the results were all disappointing. I can provide you with the raw file if you wish!

What needs to be done is to really pay attention with SPP noise removal and sharpness (thank you all for the comments and tips!). What I did on the second version was to use Chroma and Luminance noise sliders on the second highest and Banding noise on the highest setting. I set sharpness to -0,5, but kept the other settings the same (exposure +0,1 contrast -0,2 x3f fill +0,3). The lines can be seen, but to a much lesser extent.

Then I used Silver Efex, and while I couldn't remember the exact settings I used in the first image, found the result more pleasing this time. I tried the same settings with the original tiff file, and it was awful in comparison! Little less pushing here, but the latter file has a lot more room for that if wanted!


January flow, without banding and full resolution


Post processing is a bitch for long exposures. I really have to pay attention with SPP settings and the resulting tiff before continuing my workflow. So it's basically a two part preview process, as SPP doesn't support Retina displays. I've been too careful not to use too much noise removal in SPP, but I rather have an image less sharp than fighting with those lines in later phases of the workflow.

Ya, it looks a lot better, but I still see some banding, especially in the water. But it's much better, and I would feel comfortable showing that picture or printing it.

I agree that the workflow can be a pain sometimes. Especially because I found that SPP doesn't seem to be showing an accurate preview. I've seen other users stating that SPP actually seems to only show an 8bit image, even with a RAW file. This seems plausible to me because I've noticed that often things like sharpness and noise reduction look very different on the converted TIFF file than they did while I was adjusting it in SPP. I've recently found that sharpness and noise is a little hit-and-miss; I'll adjust it and then convert the file to see the real results, and possibly have to convert again if unhappy. So ya, kind of a pain.

I sent my email address over PM if you want to send the RAW image or a link to it.

Thanks again,
marcus

One more (from Silver Efex):


Puente_Alemanes por John Loves, en Flickr

Interesting comparison with an older Hassy digital and the Monochrome. The setup is not very controlled, but at least it's creating some discussion

DP2M in the snow. The high overall scene brightness fooled the auto exposure metering; these all came out ~1 stop too low. Next time I'll know to compensate ~+1.

Took the DP2M the Salton Sea Saturday. Still hoping for a DP0M with a 20mm equiv for the surreal landscapes that this area has.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/14/quick-comparison-leica-monochrom-sigma-dp2-merrill-and-hasselblad-39cf-by-michael-ma/

:-)
Strange test, but...

Luis Cunha wrote:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/01/14/quick-comparison-leica-monochrom-sigma-dp2-merrill-and-hasselblad-39cf-by-michael-ma/

:-)
Strange test, but...


Yeah, pretty pathetic test indeed. I have used that same Hasselblad for photographing art work - but with the 120 Macro and properly shot with strobe - and his results are nowhere near what that camera is capable of. There was clearly a user or equipment issue with that test (mis-focused, camera not stable, defective equipment, etc).

Is this website worth to follow?