The 'unbeatable' DP2x

Started Dec 8, 2011 | Discussions
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
The 'unbeatable' DP2x
Dec 8, 2011

I would never say that, would I?

Colour:

and BW:

(Late October rose in the vineyards)

Sigma DP2x
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
SigmaChrome
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,067Gear list
Like?
Images not found [nt]
In reply to mrkr, Dec 9, 2011
-- hide signature --

Regards,

Vitée

Capture all the light and colour!

http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries

 SigmaChrome's gear list:SigmaChrome's gear list
Sigma DP1 Sigma DP2 Merrill Sony RX100 Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma SD14 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
petr marek
Regular MemberPosts: 169
Like?
Re: The 'unbeatable' DP2x
In reply to mrkr, Dec 10, 2011

Something went wrong, images not found... Are you working for Sigma - unbeatable failure?:)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
My mistake - here we go again:
In reply to mrkr, Dec 11, 2011

In my opinion the two pictures show some of the strengts of the DP2x:
subtle colours and great BW tonality and a great lens, for instance.

And a 'clarity', in want of a better word, which I find very appealing.

And all that in a small and easy to carry package.

Shot in RAW, btw.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nancy and Pete Spader
Senior MemberPosts: 2,040
Like?
Re: The 'unbeatable' DP2x
In reply to mrkr, Dec 11, 2011

These pictures do indeed show the strengths of the DP2x cameras. Great resolution and the ability to capture subtle shifts in color are two of the impressive things this camera has. And both the color and monochrome shots focus on different things nicely. Your composition highlights the flower well by contrasting it with the OOF hedge in the background.

Unfortunately, the pictures fail for me because the way the flower hangs into the frame I have this feeling it needs stronger support and I find this distracting. This is a compositional matter and so the pictures do the job of showing off the strengths of the camera well despite my personal, and perhaps idiosyncratic, reaction.

Thanks for sharing these with us. I look forward to seeing more of your pictures.

Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
I wonder how you like this composition then
In reply to Nancy and Pete Spader, Dec 11, 2011

Unfortunately, the pictures fail for me because the way the flower hangs into the frame I have this feeling it needs stronger support and I find this distracting. This is a compositional matter and so the pictures do the job of showing off the strengths of the camera well despite my personal, and perhaps idiosyncratic, reaction.

Again, DP2x, shot in RAW, on a cold late October day:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nancy and Pete Spader
Senior MemberPosts: 2,040
Like?
Re: I wonder how you like this composition then
In reply to mrkr, Dec 11, 2011

First of all, I do not have the problem I had withe the other picture, probably because I can see that the stems are supporting the flower and bud heads adequately. The bend of the stems holding the two buds helps this. (Incidentally, my reaction to the other picture indicates a breakdown of the normal “suspension of reality” needed to experience any picture as a picture on my part. Indeed it took a while for me to realize why I was reacting badly to the other picture which, as I said, had many good compositional elements in it.)

Beyond that the composition works well for me. You use DOF effectively to focus on me on the flower and the buds and the contrast between what is in focus and what is not gives a sense of the relative position of the flower head and the buds to each other, with all of them contrasted with the more OOF background.

The flower is balanced nicely against the buds as well. I like the sense of direction you get from the stems of the buds, especially the back one. The back bud also intersects the swath of light green in the background well.

What I like most is the striking colors of the flower and buds against the more subdued greens of the leaves and background. Again it helps focus me on the flower and buds

This picture works for me and I like it.

I have a question for you. Are the elements I like elements you were deliberately putting into the picture or were you concentrating on other things?

The latter case often occurs. When I taught Aesthetics, we tested the main “theories” of the nature of art by looking at various examples of works of art that have had a good reputation over time. One of things we noticed was that the works of art thatwere given the best and most stable judgments over time often showed elements from a number of theories. (They had great formal elements, we all had the same emotional reaction, etc.)

Again, thanks for sharing your work.

Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Pete, here my answer to your question
In reply to Nancy and Pete Spader, Dec 12, 2011

I have a question for you. Are the elements I like elements you were deliberately putting into the picture or were you concentrating on other things?

I was indeed very careful to get the composition right, with the emphasis on the flower and the buds out of focus in the background.

What I wanted to capture were the colours and, if you look closer, the frozen white water crystals on the flower.

Again I believe that the DP2x did a very nice job at capturing this; if I look at the original I'm more than happy with the level of details it allowed me to capture.

Interestingly your reaction to the composition of the firt picture (in colour and BW) confirms that I was right about my composition (which again I was careful with to get right): the rose was a very late October rose, slowly losing support from its stem and succumbing to its fate - when I walked by a week or so later, all the petals were gone (and on that day the light also).

Cheers

Michael

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Last flower shot with the DP2x
In reply to mrkr, Dec 12, 2011

For this shot I did some more post processing, including the vignetting and a very small amount of grain.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nancy and Pete Spader
Senior MemberPosts: 2,040
Like?
Re: Pete, here my answer to your question
In reply to mrkr, Dec 12, 2011

Thank you for your answer to my question, Michael. It is often hard to know if you are understanding what the photographer is trying to do with a particular composition, and I am pleased to see I was not completely off track.

The ice crystals were an excellent element of the picture. I did not comment on them since I judged them to more part of the content than the composition, though that distinction is not as clear edged as I would like. Nancy noticed them immediately and approved of them. Given her experience taking pictures of flowers she knows how hard it is to find flowers with frost or ice crystals on them.

It is interesting the element I took to be a distraction was actually a key element you were deliberately including to help evoke the feeling you wanted to convey. Now that I know this I look at the picture with completely new eyes, so to speak. It now works very well indeed.

Which raises a question we used to debate in my class and is debated by photographs all the time. How much should you know about the intent of the creator of a work of art. Some people say you should not even include a title, since that biases your reaction and the perfect work of art should not need even a title for it to convey the creators intent. Others suggest the intent is irrelevant.

I think the intent is important and I think it is a matter of degree when you come to adding help to understand your intent as a crator. If the viewer needs to read a long essay before the work of art makes any sense, then the creator has failed, but some help to “position” the work is, I believe, legitimate, and a title often is all you need. Furthermore, you can never be sure you will convey your intent, or understand what you are looking at, no matter how careful you are as a creator or open-minded you are as a viewer.

Finally, I agree with you that the DP2 does an excellent job of giving you detail to work with. As I mentioned before, the ability to match the lens to the sensor that only having to deal with a single lens and focal length allowed Sigma to create a very effective way of “catching light.” Indeed, the DP series may be their best cameras in that regard.

Your pictures do a very good job of evoking what you want them to convey. Thanks for sharing them with us.

Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nancy and Pete Spader
Senior MemberPosts: 2,040
Like?
Re: Last flower shot with the DP2x
In reply to mrkr, Dec 12, 2011

This last flower picture is very effective. I will only comment on one element of the composition, the use of "grain." Again, since in digital photography grain is usually noise, some people feel it is always a defect in a picture. It is not, it can be a very effective tool in conveying a special feeling.

The fact that in the days of film many people user grain deliberately should have alerted people that it is not always a defect.

Thanks for sharing this last flower picture with us.

Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
guzzibreva1
Contributing MemberPosts: 907
Like?
Re: Last flower shot with the DP2x
In reply to Nancy and Pete Spader, Dec 12, 2011

I am convinced that the magic of the DP series cameras are the lenses. Obviously engineered to play well with the Foveon chip.
No compromises made in the design to be compatible with other cameras.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nancy and Pete Spader
Senior MemberPosts: 2,040
Like?
No compromise lens on the DP series cameras
In reply to guzzibreva1, Dec 12, 2011

Good point, but I think the "compromises" needed to make a camera compatible with a whole range of other lens at different focal lengths is just as bad. Most of us love the flexibility of changing lens, and people are looking forward to DP size Sigma/Foveon cameras that will take "interchangeable" lens, but I suspect many people do not realize you pay a price for that flexibility.

The present DP series does not pay that price. The lens and sensor are perfectly tuned to each other (I expect the tuing is on the side of the lens). The results is the optimal image possible with the lens and sensor.

Which is why I made the rather bold statement that the DP series of cameras may be, in this regard, producing the best images of any Sigma camera. I say "in this regard" because I expect there may be lens of better quality, and the SD1 series of sensors has higher resolution (at other costs), so absolute judgments are not appropriate (they rarely are anywhere IMO), but I am very impressed with both our DP1 and DP2 (and the later DP cameras are reported to be even better in some ways).

This is why I am not surprised when Michael and others praise these cameras so highly.

Pete

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads