I use Sigma's Software then Export to TIFF then import into Lightroom or other image program you prefer.
I have found If you take your time and don't try to rush the software, it works well enough.
Also I find it works better if you do not have too many photos in a folder.
Ah, I see. Do you find yourself adjusting any parameters (exposure, contrast, etc.) in the Sigma software or do you just use it as a means to convert to TIFF and then play with the parameters in other software?
Yes I do make adjustments as it is the only time you can effect the raw file.
I have tried just about everything and kept trying different settings.
You never know what you might learn.
For Example Some images actually benefit from negative sharpening.
same applies to the x3 fill, Exposure, etc..
I do my fine tuning and finishing in Lightroom though.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
Are any of the DP1/2 Merrill shooters thinking about "upgrading" to the Quattro(s)?
I've had my eye on this thread for some time and the tonality and structure I'm seeing from these photos are pehnom! I had a chance to play with a Quattro (the 50mm equiv I believe) at a Yodabashi in Japan a few months ago. Took the standard shot of the display and salesman, but nothing fancy and telling of the output since I couldn't take the camera home. :P
I've never used a DP Merrill either, but if I were to step foot in the Foevon for the first time, would you recommend one over the other (for any particular reason)? I know the Quattro is defnitely more expensive, so the DP's have that going for them. As far as I know, only one Quattro is out.
Thanks in advance! I hope to post here with photos after I get a Foveon of my own. ...Show more →
I think most days about not upgrading as such to a Quattro but to add it to the existing three Merrill's I have. Money is what is stopping me, or the fact I have stopped acquiring newer products when what I have is more than adequate and cannot justify another purchase. Would I jump straight too the Quattro if I did not have a Foveon camera at this point. Lets say I am so pleased I experienced the Merril's and hope to continue to for some time/ I've even contemplated buying another to double up the DP3, I like it so much I'd love to have another if it stopped working.
Only having experience with the Quattro raw files and not the camera itself I would have to reserve any judgement on the camera. It is very hard to know how good a camera is until you put it through your own work flow. How other come to the images final conclusion can be so different from how you approach it.
Personally I'd say here in the UK the Merrill's at £339 are a no brainer I guess they are equivalent to that price in the US, also if the equivalent focal length of 75mm is your cup of tea then the Dp3 does have a more unique quality of it's own. I personally thing it is down to the focal length and the lens itself. Liking short and long telephotos on my 5D I also like the what is happening with the DP3 and when it hits a sweet spot and the conditions are favourable, the light and subject matter the images are gorgeous. Viewed full size at home they are so much more telling than web size images, but of course that is so with all camera images.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
Thank you for your help and user experience intimistic!
I'm looking at the DP2 Merrill and DP3Merrill now, since they can be had for around $600 USD. I'm leaning more towards the DP3M...choices! Haha
I think this is a very good way to go.
I have the DP2M I bought before the DP3M was announced.
I would like to get the DP3M in the future money permitting.
If you use Lightroom you can sort your photos by lens used and see the total images taken at a set focal length might help you the see how much you use one particular focal length.
Here is a thought You could purchase the DP3M new.
And spend some time looking for the DP2M used as their are more DP2M's on the market.
If you buy both you will have 4 batteries and 2 chargers which is nice to have.
I'd suggest a DP2m for a first Sigma model. Its got the best used prices, by a fair margin, and having owned all 3, (which are all good of course) the most IQ "magic", which to some degree is likely helped by being a focal length which is easier to shoot handheld. Just a bit less demanding on technique than the 3, at least in my experience as someone who doesn't like to always use a tripod.
45mm is just a really versatile focal length too. Wide enough to take in a fair bit of a scene, yet long enough to give some isolation as well.
Just a nice introduction to the cameras and being able to pick one up for $450 or maybe less if you look around a bit makes it a total steal.
millsart wrote:
I'd suggest a DP2m for a first Sigma model. Its got the best used prices, by a fair margin, and having owned all 3, (which are all good of course) the most IQ "magic", which to some degree is likely helped by being a focal length which is easier to shoot handheld. Just a bit less demanding on technique than the 3, at least in my experience as someone who doesn't like to always use a tripod.
45mm is just a really versatile focal length too. Wide enough to take in a fair bit of a scene, yet long enough to give some isolation as well.
Just a nice introduction to the cameras and being able to pick one up for $450 or maybe less if you look around a bit makes it a total steal....Show more →
Not sure I'd go along with the Dp2 having the best IQ of the three. I've to date taken 23 thousand thousand images using the three DP Merrills. I would not judge a camera's IQ as suggested, by whether a tripod is used or not. It either has the best IQ or not. If a tripod is needed at times to achieve the best then use it, as it is required. Of course the longer focal length of the DP3 is slightly harder to handhold, but yet as they all have leaf shutters this helps a lot, as the shutter does not create any noticeable shock to degrade the image quality. The colours and rendition across the board for myself and I am aware of for many others within discussions are magical from the DP3, that extra focal length also achieves a much preferred isolation, creating a gorgeous bokeh along with it, when desired, from a 75mm equivalent f2.8 lens..
Having taken over twenty thousand images, the majority, about two thirds have been taken with the DP3 as it is by and far the camera I'd go for first for image quality, without a doubt as I know many other Merrill users are aware of, that is of course if the focal length can be used in any particular situation, which is often the case. Even if this at times required stitching. This is not to say the Dp2 Merrill is not outstanding, but the colours from the lens does not have the subtle transitions of the DP3 lens. On to the DP1 which is the weaker of all three camera's and why for the DP 1 Quattro, Sigma have for this camera alone redesigned the 19mm lens, in the hope to improve it as they themselves are aware of it's downfalls.
Having said all that Alpha_Geist, I'd always recommend to buy fixed lens camera for which focal length you'd find the most useful. Which is the reason I purchased all three as I new they would all have their uses.
juju1958 wrote:
I would not judge a camera's IQ as suggested, by whether a tripod is used or not. It either has the best IQ or not. If a tripod is needed at times to achieve the best then use it, as it is required.
In a perfect world, that advice works, but we often don't live in a perfect world. I know I probably should always use a tripod for the best results, but, I also know I should floss twice a day and avoid sweets etc.
Sometimes I'm just too lazy to want to deal with carrying a tripod around, again, knowing fully well its benefit.
I simply found that I can get a good deal more acceptably sharp shots shooting my DP2m handheld than I can the DP3m, provided I want to stick to ISO100 or 200, maybe 400 tops, at least for color work.
This isn't really Merrill specific though, as its true of any longer focal length and high resolution camera.
Believe it or not, but I actually sold my Sony A7r and switched to the A7, in part because the A7r was so revealing of camera shake from poor technique. Its 36meg sensor with no AA filter made it quite clear when I was trying to handhold it at too low of shutter speed.
Worked great on a tripod (at least with shorter focal lengths) but that isn't how I always want to shoot.
So for me, it comes down to DP3m usually needs a tripod, while the DP2m I can get away with far more handheld shooting.
If one is always going to use a tripod with their camera, then my advice need not apply, but if one may want to travel a bit lighter, or, is used to most other camera models, with great high ISO performance, IBIS etc, the DP3m, or any M for that matter, is a very different experience.
millsart wrote:
In a perfect world, that advice works, but we often don't live in a perfect world. I know I probably should always use a tripod for the best results, but, I also know I should floss twice a day and avoid sweets etc.
Sometimes I'm just too lazy to want to deal with carrying a tripod around, again, knowing fully well its benefit.
I simply found that I can get a good deal more acceptably sharp shots shooting my DP2m handheld than I can the DP3m, provided I want to stick to ISO100 or 200, maybe 400 tops, at least for color work.
This isn't really Merrill specific though, as its true of any longer focal length and high resolution camera.
Believe it or not, but I actually sold my Sony A7r and switched to the A7, in part because the A7r was so revealing of camera shake from poor technique. Its 36meg sensor with no AA filter made it quite clear when I was trying to handhold it at too low of shutter speed.
Worked great on a tripod (at least with shorter focal lengths) but that isn't how I always want to shoot.
So for me, it comes down to DP3m usually needs a tripod, while the DP2m I can get away with far more handheld shooting.
If one is always going to use a tripod with their camera, then my advice need not apply, but if one may want to travel a bit lighter, or, is used to most other camera models, with great high ISO performance, IBIS etc, the DP3m, or any M for that matter, is a very different experience. ...Show more →
Hi Millstart I respect your views and experience without hesitation and we do all have a different experience. I do though believe that the DP3 being the last of the three camera's given to the public, some eleven months after the previous DP1 & 2 that all the knowledge obtained, be it physical or or intellectual gained by building the DP1 & 2 was put into the DP3. I do admit I also like a short telephoto, that maybe of course influencing myself liking the colours so much more from the dp3.
Of late none, I am on crutches and find carrying a tripod too awkward. I used to use one on every occasion though and wish I still could.So very limied use at the moment. Not sure of the name of the Tripod, it is a small manfrotto, carbon, but very cheap for a tripod, I think I paid £60 without a head. I'd like to find an even smaller one that I could carry with crutches. I need the hight so those small gorilla pods are not of use. I don't mind it being fairly flimsy as the cameras are so light. Have been thinking of a small thin monopod with a small stand, must look into that some more.
But will try not to get a manfrotto again, before a year was up it is falling apart, Yes it was used a lot but never abused at all. Still usable , just.
What I am doing at the moment is to have the camera strap at such a length around my neck, that I pull the camera as tight as possible, without any shake. I can get quite low shutter speeds doing that. Otherwise finding somewhere to settle the camera down upon. I do miss it when not having the tripod as I like the procedure and the way it slows everything down.
