I wonder how it fares with B&W male portraits, I bet they would look really good with stunning sharpness and clarity.

Threads like these (including the other DP2M thread) are so funny - looking at images is one thing, but commenting on usage (AF, build) based on Digilloyd's view...it is one person's opinion! If history is any guide, a couple people like Millsart will get their hands on it, crank out some ridiculously awesome images, and everybody will recant their criticisms (including Digilloyd too).

Millsart - don't make me look stupid here...we need some quality image posts...

mortyb wrote:
I wonder how it fares with B&W male portraits, I bet they would look really good with stunning sharpness and clarity.


I think it would be hit or miss, really depending on the subject, and how well that type of rendering suits them.

I don't think it would really be the camera of choice I'd use on things like the typical CEO portrait I do, but for shots of certain athletes with a lot of intensity or something, the clarity and depth could look pretty cool.

millsart wrote:


Its not a camera your going to carry or use all that often. Its something special you grab when you have a free Sunday afternoon, the weather is nice and you think you'll go out to view some fall color and to this really beautiful overlook you've been to before. It will produce, to say the least, a unique image that should be pretty fun to get back home and view/print.

.

I do not agree!
I shoot most of my photos at ISO 200 or less. I don't think this DP2M will be that limiting at all.

This photographer - see link - has basically agreed with me on this matter - he has graphed his use of ISO and it really coincides with my sense of what happens most of the time . I do not shoot a lot of night or low light shots - and when I do - I bring the right camera.


http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=933#more-933

I may have put this link up before but this is a full size image with the DP2, jpg level 7, no sharpening. But it is post processed.

Download

RickPerry wrote:

I do not agree!
I shoot most of my photos at ISO 200 or less. I don't think this DP2M will be that limiting at all.

This photographer - see link - has basically agreed with me on this matter - he has graphed his use of ISO and it really coincides with my sense of what happens most of the time . I do not shoot a lot of night or low light shots - and when I do - I bring the right camera.

http://www.littlebigtravelingcamera.com/?p=933#more-933



I think that by admitting that for low light or night shots you bring the "right" camera in itself is an admission of how rather limited the DP really is.

As I said in a previous post, how limited something is really depends on what you shoot, but speaking in generalities, the DP's are pretty limited because of their lack of decent high ISO performance.

Basically I'd rule out shooting anything indoors, anything in the evening etc, and given most people both live/work/relax indoors, and also are more likely to dine/socialize in the evenings, a daytime only camera is pretty limiting.

I'd say for $1000, a camera like the X100, which I used to have, is far more versatile, as it can not only take nice images during the day, but also fares nightly for nighttime shooting, indoor natural light etc.

Again though, it really depends on what you plan to use the camera for. Personally, I'd never plan to take the DP2M out for any evenings, or use it to shoot kids etc, and frankly that type of photography isn't really a big interest of mine anyways.

For me, I expect the camera to be on a tripod a majority of the time, so really good light, or not, its a rather moot point.

At least as far as this camera goes, otherwise, I'd say probably 50% of my photography with other cameras is at ISO800 and above. Its just when I prefer to shoot.

If I had the choice to attend, say a state fair, I'd much rather go in the evening, maybe get some sunset silhouette shots, but then otherwise I like the lights of the midway and rides and the overall ambiance of night shots.

Shooting in bright daytime sun just never really appeals to me, and when it does, usually I have an IR filter on the lens.

Foveon sensor is still being wild, untamed beast.Although Sigma acquired it almost 10 years ago but seem no camera body, no lens, no PP software are fully deserved.What we could get it's a part of this beast's ability- it can release all the strength only if it meet the right powerfull owner.

DougDolde wrote:
I may have put this link up before but this is a full size image with the DP2, jpg level 7, no sharpening. But it is post processed.

Download

there's that weird edge effect.

Thanks for providing some samples.

These are some unusual outlines... and the sky...

millsart wrote:
At the same time though, if your style of photography is to work from a tripod and carefully compose each shot, coming home with maybe 20-30 frames from a hike rather than 200-300, as its all too easy to blast away doing, with big batteries and huge capacity CF cards, then your probably not going to run into many issues with the camera.


what's the point of a small camera that's on a tripod all the time?

i actually quite like the output of the foveon a lot of the time, sadly the camera is unusable to me for anything other than landscape shooting (where it's only annoying). i'm not spending a grand on a camera that i can't take an unposed picture of a person with. i would think that by now sigma would have tried to address some of the major complaints about their cameras, but it appears they just keep on ignoring them.

sebboh wrote:
millsart wrote:
At the same time though, if your style of photography is to work from a tripod and carefully compose each shot, coming home with maybe 20-30 frames from a hike rather than 200-300, as its all too easy to blast away doing, with big batteries and huge capacity CF cards, then your probably not going to run into many issues with the camera.


what's the point of a small camera that's on a tripod all the time?

i actually quite like the output of the foveon a lot of the time, sadly the camera is unusable to me for anything other than landscape shooting (where it's only annoying). i'm not spending a grand on a camera that i can't take an unposed picture of a person with. i would think that by now sigma would have tried to address some of the major complaints about their cameras, but it appears they just keep on ignoring them.

Bla bla bla, these forums have become so mundane.

I am glad there is so much more to photography than this...

sebboh wrote:

what's the point of a small camera that's on a tripod all the time?

i actually quite like the output of the foveon a lot of the time, sadly the camera is unusable to me for anything other than landscape shooting (where it's only annoying). i'm not spending a grand on a camera that i can't take an unposed picture of a person with. i would think that by now sigma would have tried to address some of the major complaints about their cameras, but it appears they just keep on ignoring them.



Point is you can use a much smaller/lighter tripod, head, pack etc. Adds up to big difference and a more enjoyable hike, stroll, walk or whatever.

Some people of course hate tripods be they for a camera of any size, but I rather enjoying doing blends, long exposures, IR, pano's etc, so for me, its just the way I always end up working. Its not about the size/weight of the gear, but rather about the method.

I personally think Sigma seems to have a pretty big hit on their hands with these cameras given how hard they are to find and the attention they are getting from them.

Admittedly $1000 for a landscape only camera maybe is excessive for some, but I also spent nearly that (if not more adjusting for inflation) on my Toyo 4x5 CF field camera and that sure as heck ended up taking only a handful of landscape images a year, but was a lot of fun both shooting and working with my own type 55 postive/negative sheets

I'm certainly not made of money though, nor do I like to spend it foolishly, but had I the disposable income, I'd honestly like to have an Alpa/PhaseOne back for landscape shooting. Not realistic for me right now, but $999 for a unique little landscape camera ? Sure why not

I use a Gitzo 1541T with my Ebony 4x5

yeah, it'll work out well for a lot of people that mainly do landscape type shooting. i'm just bitter that they made a camera that would be great for me in size, image quality, and focal length (at a pretty reasonable price too) but barely improved the camera itself at all over the dp2, which i couldn't use for 15 min without wanting to stomp on.

I feel it shines even more with architecture and product shots than with landscapes. I made a lot of shots in medieval time churches with a little table top tripod pressed against the wall or columns.
The level of detail is absolutely incredible.

With landscape raws the software never gets the white balance right when set on auto. I use sunshine and correct from there, to get rid of cyan skys.
But this is not a problem of the sensor/camera but the software. Sigma really has to hire some good software developers or work closer together with Adobe, PhaseOne.

At the moment the software is the weakest point of the system. Really unfortunate because the sensor/lens combination is simply incredible. And the price is a real deal.

millsart wrote:
sebboh wrote:

what's the point of a small camera that's on a tripod all the time?

i actually quite like the output of the foveon a lot of the time, sadly the camera is unusable to me for anything other than landscape shooting (where it's only annoying). i'm not spending a grand on a camera that i can't take an unposed picture of a person with. i would think that by now sigma would have tried to address some of the major complaints about their cameras, but it appears they just keep on ignoring them.



Point is you can use a much smaller/lighter tripod, head, pack etc. Adds up to big difference and a more enjoyable hike, stroll, walk or whatever.

Some people of course hate tripods be they for a camera of any size, but I rather enjoying doing blends, long exposures, IR, pano's etc, so for me, its just the way I always end up working. Its not about the size/weight of the gear, but rather about the method.

I personally think Sigma seems to have a pretty big hit on their hands with these cameras given how hard they are to find and the attention they are getting from them.

Admittedly $1000 for a landscape only camera maybe is excessive for some, but I also spent nearly that (if not more adjusting for inflation) on my Toyo 4x5 CF field camera and that sure as heck ended up taking only a handful of landscape images a year, but was a lot of fun both shooting and working with my own type 55 postive/negative sheets

I'm certainly not made of money though, nor do I like to spend it foolishly, but had I the disposable income, I'd honestly like to have an Alpa/PhaseOne back for landscape shooting. Not realistic for me right now, but $999 for a unique little landscape camera ? Sure why not

millsart wrote:
Point is you can use a much smaller/lighter tripod, head, pack etc. Adds up to big difference and a more enjoyable hike, stroll, walk or whatever.

Some people of course hate tripods be they for a camera of any size, but I rather enjoying doing blends, long exposures, IR, pano's etc, so for me, its just the way I always end up working. Its not about the size/weight of the gear, but rather about the method.

I personally think Sigma seems to have a pretty big hit on their hands with these cameras given how hard they are to find and the attention they are getting from them.

Admittedly $1000 for a landscape only camera maybe is excessive for some, but I also spent nearly that (if not more adjusting for inflation) on my Toyo 4x5 CF field camera and that sure as heck ended up taking only a handful of landscape images a year, but was a lot of fun both shooting and working with my own type 55 postive/negative sheets

I'm certainly not made of money though, nor do I like to spend it foolishly, but had I the disposable income, I'd honestly like to have an Alpa/PhaseOne back for landscape shooting. Not realistic for me right now, but $999 for a unique little landscape camera ? Sure why not



What Sebboh probably meant was that if one does have to carry another camera anyway (since the Sigma is pretty worthless at "general application snapshooting"), you could spent that 1000$ on a lens in stead. If you own a 5D mk"something" or any other competent camera, 1000$ will buy you a pretty competent mid-angle landscape lens. That lens will also be usable on moving targets, targets you can't shoot from tripod, targets that need ISOs higher than 200, on shoots where you might need more than 100 images per battery, and so on.

I'm certain it's a very competent specialty camera, but as so many already have pointed out - it ONLY shines in a few select specialty cases. It pretty much sucks as a camera in most normal scenarios.

I think these Merrills are specialty cameras but, depending on what one shoots, they could represent an incredible bargain, particularly since it appears nothing short of a 36MP FF will be superior when these DP Merrills are used in their element. For some, that will make them a better choice than any current 24MP or less FF with any lens.

Not sure I really get all this tripod stuff, being someone who mostly shot ISO 100 or less film the majority of the time without a tripod for decades. Using the DP's in similar light should be no different. For all the other uses - high ISO/ low light, situations where fast AF is required and so on - my experience is that I don't often require anything greater than a conventional 12-16MP based camera but in situations where I really want more resolution, choices are slim and often very expensive. It does come down to each persons typical, individual use situation though. I'm certainly happy the DP Merrill's are an option. I should have one this week to see if it lives up to expectations.

philip_pj wrote:
Good you like it, and good on Sigma for the achievement, I hope they sell a lot of them. If it takes off as it deserves to, we may see higher Mp Bayer cameras rushed to market faster.

It will appeal to those who can overlook certain image characteristics in the search for the holy grail of ultimate 'sharpness'. Strangely, 3D is not enhanced, detail is very crunchy, colour is just surreal even compared with Velvia, OOF is not inviting, DR is very poor. It all seems somewhat out of control, like a newcomer's post processing learning phase. I almost get the feeling that the sensor 'sees too well', detail pops up where you least expect it, with little gradation or tonality. Image objects seem to lit from within almost.

Colour balance is off, drab tones co-exist with acid trip yellows; DOF cues do not seem to exist, distant twigs are as sharp as tiny foreground pebbles - and only image cues (such as the creek) work to counter this strong impression. The final appearance is of a graceless, almost crass postcard-like image with spy satellite level super definition!



+1

Here are some actual samples from a DP2M and the full review is the second link.

His review does not gloss over the shortcomings of this camera.

http://jlvalin.zenfolio.com/p743729886

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/sigma-dp2-merrill-camera/

theSuede wrote:
What Sebboh probably meant was that if one does have to carry another camera anyway (since the Sigma is pretty worthless at "general application snapshooting"), you could spent that 1000$ on a lens in stead. If you own a 5D mk"something" or any other competent camera, 1000$ will buy you a pretty competent mid-angle landscape lens. That lens will also be usable on moving targets, targets you can't shoot from tripod, targets that need ISOs higher than 200, on shoots where you might need more than 100 images per battery, and so on.

I'm certain it's a very competent specialty camera, but as so many already have pointed out - it ONLY shines in a few select specialty cases. It pretty much sucks as a camera in most normal scenarios.

yup. thanks for wording that better.