Now here is an honest review of the DP2 Merrill..

I guess he never drank the cool aid.

http://fratkinphoto.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-sigma-and-dp2-merrill.html?m=1

Very funny! LOL

Read the thread with the Sutterbug review cited instead.

Eugene is a smart guy, but you wonder if he's got a chip on his shoulder. The first comment about the Bayer blur seems to be a dig—and coming with someone with his background, he's not too stupid to realize the differences in the technologies. Overall, the camera occasionally delights him but lets him down at other times. My guess is that maybe he'd find some more satisfaction learning to work on his photography skills, and less worrying about equipment.

In other words (as my pal Laurence is fond of saying), learn how to get the most out of your camera. Even if it's something other than a Sigma.

--
Jim

Just an opinionated sometimes user - hardly a "review."

Lin

--
learntomakeslidshows.net

This appears to be an opinionated blog and not a review. I didn't see any empirical performance data.

--
jcollier

The review? is full of all the old and tired cliques about why Foveon is a bad technology and Sigma cameras of old school with no real feature set.  But the most telling statement in the 'review'  was him saying about 20% of the photo on his blog were from Sigma cameras, while he only shot Sigma cameras about 1 or 2% of the time.  You would think that info would tell him something!

--
Cheers,
larryj
If you can see the light, you can photograph it
Quote from Myron Woods

LOL - I noticed that too, but since I've gone a few rounds with Eugene in the past and found him inflexible in his opinions, decided not to start up yet another bout which leads nowhere and wastes bandwidth.

Best regards,

Lin

--
learntomakeslidshows.net

This part he got right...

"I think I have an idea what it is that looks good for me, and I will try to be more precise than - oh, that special je ne sais quoin. One very distinct case is color reflections in the water or glass. This sounds insanely specific and of little use, but this is where I see the most of the difference, and when those images come out good they are great. While lights reflected in the water look good with any camera, none look as good as with Sigma. Most of the time reflections loose color and sharpness, but not with Sigma. You get those thin, brightly colored lines as if drawn with a pencil directly on the water. Look at the image from Singapore for example."

The tread I started here was to make this point.  I proved this to myself as being one of the main factors in the Foveon look.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371657

I wouldn't call him a professional "reviewer" ... he's an amateur photographer user of various brands with some comments on his blog. BTW he used to post here frequently, but I haven't noticed him around lately.

FWIW, I find his coloration on posted photos on the blog are... somewhat weird. Like he's trying to do HDR ..or use "Foveon blue" setting LOL. That's not what comes from the camera around the Pacific coast, Half Moon Bay, etc.  unless he's doing something really strange with his processing. He's based around Stanford Univ. area I recall (student? I don't remember). Also FWIW I shot directly into the sun with the DP2Merrill at Carmel at sunset and did not get 'spots.' He had to try really hard ... or pick the worst photo... to get that effect as on his blog.

FWIW too here are my photos from the same Pacific coast area last August. Many are DP2Merrill; others are Canon 5DII, couple with original DP1/DP2 cameras

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann/sets/72157631359840500/

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

A person makes a negative opinion about a camera and you feel the need to attack his skills as a photographer.

I'm not attacking his skills... or you. I'm just saying this isn't a "professional" reviewer. He's someone many of us know around here from many posts. (added: username chekist)

I said his coloration as posted on his blog to me looks weird, not what comes from the camera. That's true. I find the out-of-camera output rather cold, blue. Yes, it needs editing. But IMHO (and yes, I can express my opinion just like you claim you do) something is strange HDR-ish about his posted DP2Merrill photos.

You touted this as a fair " review," that's your opinion. I have a different opinion... it's not a professional review nor particularly accurate (and commented on his photos). So be it. Different opinions. I've processed some thousand + of DP2Merrill photos.... how many have you taken and processed?

Best regards, Sandy

http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

I cry and moan about the DP2 and SPP all the time and curse and swear when I come home without the shot, but at the end of the day I've never had a camera and lens that gives me the joy I get when a nail some shoots. I'm getting better using the Merrill and SPP and would love to see improvments in both, but there isn't anyting out there that comes close to maching it for me.

Weird review indeed.

You would think that taking 1 out of 100 pictures with a camera but having those pictures comprise 20 out of every 100 pics in your gallery would lead to a very different conclusion.

You would think....

I know, I know. I too "cry and moan"currently when trying to process files from Death Valley ... where there is NO white point in the scene and incidentally no blown out spot either to at least approximate white! Believe me, I know that files need editing. Overall color is not what my mind remembers and what I'm trying to achieve in my editing. Yet I agree, nothing gives me the sharpness and resolution and color SUBTLENESS I see with the Foveon sensors.... and I often have direct comparisons with Bayer/Canon 5DII output. There is just extraordinary detail coming from that little DP2Merrill box... and in my view less 'plastic-y' than what I see from the 5DII.

I must study Kendall's recent shots .... after a previous DV trip I literally printed a couple of Kendall's and put them up by my computer for trying to match his color. Those were from when we were on the dunes at the same time. This trip, we were on the dunes at slightly different times, except for one afternoon, when I think Kendall was off to the right of this view

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann/8421744698/in/set-72157632547398138

this is at sunset. The next day around overcast noon is actually tougher for me to process.

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

Sandy did you have the white balance difficulty with the older models?

Here's my personal opinion:

SD14, yes, most difficult to get right in color. by far. Incidentally, I simply gave up on trying to complete the editing on one set of redrocks.... and frustration with the color was in large measure why I bought the 5DII !

SD10, probably the 'best' ie most neutral color straight from the camera

SD9, I have one but never really used as much as the other cameras, so no comment.

DP1, probably more like the SD10 than the other DP cameras, though my DP1 tends to be rather magenta in color

DP2, 'colder' than DP1, but probably not as 'cold' (blue) as the DP2Merrill

The SD1 I used on loan at Death Valley seemed rather like the DP2Merrill, but probably not quite as 'cold' ... and I found I need to adjust the color too.

Usually I have little trouble editing to taste in SPP, including changing the white balance if necessary and editing the colorwheel. What is wickedly difficult for me on the Death Valley sets, and sometimes the US Southwest in general, is the lack of a WHITE spot reference anywhere in the photos.

The Pacific coast photos in contrast were relatively easy to edit (and I edited COLOR in both DP2Merrill AND 5DII) because most scenes had a white wave area on the breaking waves at the shoreline!

I find the 5DII usually more homogeneous, neutral, realistic in color than the Sigma RAW output. BUT I find 5DII lacks the sharp detail and looks really more 'digital' more plastic-y usually than the Sigma photos when I examine very close up (high magnification on computer).  BUT as David Millier and I have discussed extensively, I find I match cameras in prints up to 13x19 from even original DP (NOT Merrills) Sigma to Canon. But I can crop the higher resolution Canon whereas I cannot the original DPs. I expect that I will be able to extensively crop the DP2MERRILL output and SD1 but I haven't done these crops/prints yet. The ability to crop is very important in that the DPxMERRILL cameras are fixed mm. For example I think I can successfully crop this Zabriskie Point view and print large; whereas I could not have gone as large with a DP1/DP2original

I should get rid of some of the foreground in this DP2Merrill shot

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann/8380111449/in/set-72157632547398138

or here even crop out the people

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann/8380110841/in/set-72157632547398138/

it was kind of annoying having them in the foreground and I didn't have a tele- lens really with me other than the 28-70mmEX on the SD1. Here I avoided having the people in the SD1 shot

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann/8412842318/in/set-72157632547398138

I like this one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann/8412314517/in/set-72157632547398138

when you study the original size (or I even larger on my computer) you can see the TREES on the mountaintops miles away across Death Valley!

I have several sets from past years on flickr as well as on pbase

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

The tone of your post appears to be baiting. Is that your intent? Have you read other reviews of this camera and, if so, do you each equal merit? Or are some more meaningful than others?

--
Tony-S

I don't have a problem with anyone voicing their opinion about a product. It is what it is-- an opinion!

The statement that Sigma is an ODDBALL company with a cultish following discredits the review upfront.  I'm an independent mind, not a member of a cult and shoot with Bayer sensored cameras and also like many of my friends really like the Merrill sensored cameras DP2M,DP1M, SD1M etc.  Having shot extensively with Bayer sensored cameras and Sigma foveon technology, I find his comments about the "BLUR" that we magically attribute to bayer sensors to be amusing.

Do this simple test.  Take any raw Sigma Foveon image from a Merrill sensored camera--you can download the raws from dpreview.com.  Make sure that the sharpening is turned down -2 so you have a raw image that has not been sharpened.   Now import that image into SPP5.4 and don't do anything to it--just export same size it as a 16Bit .tiff file with the photopro colorspace. Import this image into Photoshop. Open this image to 100 percent. Duplicate it and open it as 200% in a second cascaded window.

Now import any Nikon D800 or Nikon D800E file raw into photoshop.  Look at these files at 100 percent and also 200 percent and look at how clear those image are and how much image detail you see at 200 percent.

Finally smart sharpen the Nikon image at 100 percent.  Look at the same images at 100 percent and 200 percent.

Now smart sharpen the Sigma images at 60 percent.  Sharpen at 100 percent.  Compare all the images from both systems.

Do this same method with Pentax KIIs.

What will you find?  You will find that native Sigma Merrill image exported at -2 sharpening which is supposed to provide an unsharpened raw image for you to start out with is sharper at 200 percent than any Bayer sensored image at 200 percent.  In fact a 100 percent view of the Nikon D800 compared to the Sigma SD1M  image blown up to 200 precent are strangely very similar in size and the Sigma is showing detail very similar to the Nikon even at 200 percent!---of course you start to see the pixels in the Sigma as you know we are pushing the limits of Sigma image---but it is very telling nontheless!

So the reviewer does a disservice refering to professionals like myself and other that use this technology--saying we are cultish?  Knocking a lens manufacturer for showing images from Professionals shooting with different cameras that they supply third party lenses for and is their bread and butter?  Making claims that there are only a few professional photographers shooting with Sigma cameras? ( Where is he getting these statistics to back up these claims?) These are unsubstantiated claims not basrd on fact.  Sigma sells Lenses---You better show professionals using Pentax, Sony, Canon and Nikon an 4/3 and all the brands that you sell third party lenses for!  That is called Marketing!

I admit that I shoot with Sigma lenses on my Bayer sensored cameras---I like value for my money and great optics.  I also admit that there is more image detail captured at the pixel level with a foveon merill series sigma camera than  with a Bayer sensor camera---no doubt about it.  However, I also know that I can sharpen the heck out of my Bayer sensored camera image and carefully nudge out image detail---something that those of us professional photographers have been doing for years?  So does that make me a member of a cult? No.  We make do with the tools that best suit our needs and finances etc.

I don't own 40 different brands of cameras and don't buy the newest thing out.  I'm not a camera collector or amateur, though I approach my love of photography with the same love I approached it when I was an amateur.  I like to completely master a camera before I move on to the next camera or decide to change brands.  I did change from shooting with Canon to Sony for the simple reason that I needed to have every lens image stabilized so I could handhold and shoot---I could have bought the excellent Pentax K5 as well--it is superb but I needed to produce 20x30 sized images or larger and that was pushing it a bit with the K5--it can be done,but not without some serious work.  Canon did not offer an image stabilized wide angle lens and I didn't want to shoot with zoom lenses to get wide angle shots--as the edges weren't sharp enough for me. So I painfully moved to Sony and while it has its limits and foibles, its a pretty good system for me which my neuromuscular issues.  Even carrying around a tripod is an issue now for me.  The DP2M is fantastic, but I must use a tripod with it or shoot in very bright light and very high shutter speeds to avoid blurring my images.  When Sigma offers an image stabilized prime wide angle lens---I'll move back to shooting with the SD1M series gladly. Photography is about what my needs are---not so much what brand the camera is. Even though the foveon sensor can produce images that I just can't reproduce with Bayer sensored cameras and I agree with the reviewer that how it captures reflections from water at night is better than any bayer image of reflections I've ever shot. So his review does have some good points too.

Now I can certainly go and purchase 40 different cameras and collect them and will get great shots with all of them as photography comes naturally to me--BUT there is no way I could truly master all 40 cameras, remember every menu location and settings unique to each camera to really bring out the best of what that camera offers. I can pull off some general rule stuff from my experience---but 40?

I respect the person's opinion, but I've found that starting an opinion about a camera trashing the brand or the manufacturer calling them ODD and its buyers cultish discredits the review upfront.

Gary Dean Mercer Clark

Why would you consider this honest?  Do you consider reviews that are far more positive about the DP2M to be dishonest?  Is this one "review" honest in your opinion because it contains a lot of criticism of Sigma in both their marketing and hardware?

--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

"In fact a 100 percent view of the Nikon D800 compared to the Sigma SD1M image blown up to 200 precent are strangely very similar in size and the Sigma is showing detail very similar to the Nikon even at 200 percent!--"

looking 100% to a 36mb gives you +/- the same view as 200% sigma .

this proofs that the sigma M , in resolution , is +/- equal to the NIKON but not more . and resolution is not the only image quality factor .

guido