Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
superevolvedfish
Junior MemberPosts: 49Gear list
Like?
Re: Q Looses the 3-D of the M?
In reply to Erational, 2 months ago

Erational wrote:

superevolvedfish wrote:

But standard Q high-res mode 1:1:4 is not so 3d as a M, so Q has more and less 3D than M depending on which mode.

Yours is one of the FIRST post to actually touch on the subject of my initial post. Thank-you superevolvedfish.

Was desiring that posters try and roughly quantify the subtle 3-D effect retained in the Q model. One early poster even postulated that the cameras have no 3-D-live effect whatsoever-as if so many of us are under some mass illusion.

Was hoping to skip the other facets of the Q vs. M debate in this tread and just focus on the relative attributes of 3-d-ness each model does/does not embody. NO SUCH LUCK. That's the thing with starting a post- you never know what direction your post will diverge. Silly me thinking people were tired of seeing the same debates hashed-out, when obviously people are just getting started about the Q/M Schism. I'm not psychic, but I foresee future unpleasant comments between posters over the Q vs. M debate.

The 3D effect is one of the attributes that I like most about my Merrills and is a sign of the high levels of micro contrast you get with a 1:1:1 sensor, so I didn't like the sound of the Q when it was announced it had a 4:1:1 sensor. But in the last few days I discovered it has a low-res 1:1:1 mode and so does the Merrill.

I always try to process my images to maximise the 3D pop, and I use my TV as a monitor, which happens to be a Pioneer 4280XD 8G Plasma which is one of the highest quality tv's ever made and well know for having amazing 3D pop when watching tv. I also 'check' images in the Apple store on their monitors, and the gold car photo does not look very 3D on an Apple screen for some reason.

The gold car photo posted on the first page is only 2712x1808=4.90Mp therefore most likely taken using the Q 1:1:1 low-res mode (exact resolution match), I think it looks the most 3D of maybe any image I've ever seen, and more so than anything I have shot with my Merrills, and so it should, I am very excited about this 1:1:1 Q mode! To be sure though we'd have to see an identical shot taken with an M and a Bayer.

I am really hoping someone with both a DP2M and DP2Q does a comparison between the Q and M 1:1:1 low-res modes (Merrill low-res mode = 3.66Mp), as it would be good to see a wide variety of images shot in those modes. I think the only valid comparison between Q & M should be in the low-res 1:1:1 modes as the 4:1:1-Q mode is a different animal entirely.

The other advantage of the low-res modes is you can use higher ISO's before noise is a problem.

I did a little experiment with my DP3M the other night when the light was starting to fail (9:20pm) and the low-res mode was very good at 400iso but the high res mode was unusable. Here is a test shot at iso400 DP3M low-res iso400 it was much darker than it looks from the photo.

I plan to do more testing with my Merrills to see if the low-res modes have more 3D pop than the high-res modes, unfortunately I can't afford a Q until the price falls to what the M is now

 superevolvedfish's gear list:superevolvedfish's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE EX 1500 Zoom Minolta DiMAGE EX 1500 Wide Canon PowerShot G1 X Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow