The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....

Started Apr 30, 2013 | Discussions
fongg
Regular MemberPosts: 280Gear list
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to hexxthalion, May 3, 2013

hexxthalion wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

...is that I cant look at my Bayer images the same way anymore.   I took my X100 with me to Suzhou because I wanted to have a wide angle lens available.   Images off that camera, which I used to love, just dont do it for me anymore.  Not even close.

Sigh.........

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

I hear you!!!! Went to Palermo 3 weeks ago, took with me DP2M, X-Pro1 with 18mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses, Leica M6 with Voight 50mm f/1.5.

Used all cameras, 2 rolls from M6, cca 100 photos from DP2M and roughly 500 from Fuji.

The subjects which I captured with both Fuji and Sigma can't be compared at all. It's not just sheer amount of detail, it's also different 'look'.

Details from Sigma come out so naturally looking (I haven't had a need to use sharpening on photos from Sigma yet) where Fuji files, even though brilliant, need some sharpening but then the results don't look as natural as those from Sigma.

But I have now very well balanced gear for pretty much most of the situations - Sigma for hi-res captures and portraiture, Fuji for high ISO/low light and Leica for fun

Good to hear that.  I myself use Leica M9P+21/35/50 lenses and DP3M.  Different focal lengths serve different purposes, and I love them all.  Have I ever compared if the little monster DP3M or the DP Merrill series can replace my Leica?  Never.  Why need to?  Just don't see how people here are so technical minded, trying to comparing DP Merrill against D800E!?!?  Each has its own area to shine or to be ashamed.  Cameras are used to take photos, and photography is about arts, not science.  Why not just post more photos here to show others how good one is using its gears to take good photos, instead of arguing about how much they know about their gears.  There are people who can shoot wonderful shots barely with an iPhone, and there are also people who take shxtty photos even with a Leica S2.  Then what?  Totally pointless.

 fongg's gear list:fongg's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Ricoh GR Canon EOS 7D Leica M9-P Fujifilm X-T1
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jstop
Regular MemberPosts: 160
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to DMillier, May 3, 2013

I guess some of you can understand my sheer frustration with Sigma Hence I am resigned to getting a Bayer, although it is not my first choice. I was actually directing my post at Sigma management, and yes, I did own a Sigma DP 1s not long ago, but sold it rather quickly.

The Merrills that Sigma unveiled last year,gave me some hope that things might progress in an upward motion, but as I said, I KNOW this process is going to take a VERY long time, and I am NOT going to wait for Sigma. This year, you can bet all your money that the crickets will be chirping at Sigma, and most likely next year, and the next year...and the next year....

Give it 3-4 years before any major upgrade, IF ever.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zxaar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,460
Like?
Re: There's no need for that, you are missing the point
In reply to victorgv, May 3, 2013

victorgv wrote:

My point was not that sigma is better my point was that even when you reduce size to quarter of original you can still see a difference . Both images were from RAW only sd1 used old version of SPP never versions are much better . Another point scaling for sigma should introduce more artifacts because pixels are not alined in scaled versus unscaled image.

Care to show me that difference with the image I posted of K-5. You can chose 3-4 crops from different part of the scene and put side by side and show that sigma is superior. Take original from my gallery that is resized to what size you used.

There is not a single place where sigma is superior to K-5 IIs in this comparison.

Raist3d wrote:

You picked a lab shot illuminated with a lab light at dpreview at the lowest ISO.  The issue is not whether the Sigma can do better or about the same as a Nikon D800E, but that, such won't be always the case and both cameras have domains where they excel.

It's the unilateral mantra that the Foveon is unilaterally better the myth I am pointing out.  Both have tradeoffs.  And I am talking not from theory but from experience.

Want to see an extreme? How about a case where a Pentax Q does better color than a Sigma DP3M?  Does that mean the Q is better than the Sigma?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51368557

Your experiment hardly proves anything honestly, except that in the very particular (and artificial) situation and set of conditions you picked the Sigma apparently does a little better (were these also two raws or is the Nikon a JPEG?).

I am pretty sure if both cameras were shot at ISO 400 in mixed light it would be also pretty easy tp pick which one is which

victorgv wrote:

Just stupid experiment these two images resized down sd1 and d800e from dpreview d800e one is half size and sd1 resized to the same dimensions (it should put sd1 to disadvantage i think).

one of the images was adjusted saturation,exposure contrast and tint (not very good job just dont tear me apart please ) so they will look more similar. Still pretty easy to guess wich one is sigma and wich one is d800e.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,819Gear list
Like?
I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to DMillier, May 3, 2013

DMillier wrote:

Dramatic?  Is it really a "dramatic" improvement?

Let's say the Merrill is equivalent to a 30MP Bayer. That's (roughly) a doubling of pixel count over a regular 16MP sensor. Sounds a lot, but how big a difference does it make?  Surprisingly little, I find.

To be sure it's an improvement, but my working rule of thumb after many upgrades is that it is not worth upgrading (for improved resolution) for anything less than a doubling of pixel count. Significantly less and the improvement is only really visible with severe pixel peeping, while a doubling is enough for the improvement to be readily discernable.

So yes, the Merrill offers an easily noticeable improvement in detail over a regular 16MP, but I wouldn't call it "dramatic", I'd call it "worthwhile". Like the D800 really, yes it's better than 16 and 24MP cameras, but the improvement is a lot less in practice than the raw numbers might trick you into expecting.

A future improved D800 would provide an interesting conundrum. It might offer say 50MP and that sounds really  impressive, but it would likely be an invisible improvement except under some pretty idealised shooting conditions.

-- hide signature --

Hi David,

I think "Dramatic" is not an exaggeration for the difference between a good 16 megapixel Bayer image and a DP2 Merrill image. Here's a little non-scientific example which I find to be pretty typical when comparing my Nikon D7000 (excellent 16 megapixel sensor) with my DP2 Merrill. Sure one could argue till the cows come home about this specific example concerning RAW conversion versus jpg, etc., etc., but this really is pretty typical in my experience.

Link to example

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Karlsson
Forum ProPosts: 21,088Gear list
Like?
Re: I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to Lin Evans, May 3, 2013

Lin Evans wrote:

I think "Dramatic" is not an exaggeration for the difference between a good 16 megapixel Bayer image and a DP2 Merrill image. Here's a little non-scientific example which I find to be pretty typical when comparing my Nikon D7000 (excellent 16 megapixel sensor) with my DP2 Merrill. Sure one could argue till the cows come home about this specific example concerning RAW conversion versus jpg, etc., etc., but this really is pretty typical in my experience.

It does not look typical too me. I have commented in the thread.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Quattro Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,969
Like?
Re: I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to Lin Evans, May 3, 2013

I have no problem with the idea that the Merrill records more detail than a 16MP Bayer. I'm even happy to accept the 30mp equivalent figure people like to quote as a working hypothesis. I'm glad you've provided photos to illustrate it, evidence is a worth a thousand arguments.  But... I find I can't trust this example. It looks too extreme to me and is utterly unlike any results I've ever seen elsewhere.  Looking at the exif you can maybe begin to see why:

- Raw vs jpeg

- F5.6 vs f11

- 30mm vs 20mm

- Almost perfect lens vs what?

I think you successfully make the point that the DP2m is more detailed than the D7000 and I won't argue with that but this example grossly exaggerates by how much.

If we assume this competition started off pitting a 30MP (equivalent) vs 16MP sensor, your choice of lens for the D7000 turns that into 41MP vs 16MP, your choice of f11 on a 22mm lens will demolish sharpness and your use of jpg vs raw is another handicap.  The mysterious Qimage sharpening routines are another complication.

I think overall the result is to confuse rather than to illuminate and given this is the internet will like get spread all over the place as misinformation.  I think we both agree on the superiority of the Merrill but this was ill-advised.

I think a more useful exercise is the one I did comparing prints of different sizes from the RX200, DP2m and D800. I used test shots supplied by Mr Blissfly and it was only in prints larger than 30 x 20 inches that I could detect any difference at all between the detail of the three cameras.  I have the prints here with me now.

best

Dave

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to jstop, May 3, 2013

jstop wrote:

I guess some of you can understand my sheer frustration with Sigma Hence I am resigned to getting a Bayer, although it is not my first choice. I was actually directing my post at Sigma management, and yes, I did own a Sigma DP 1s not long ago, but sold it rather quickly.

The Merrills that Sigma unveiled last year,gave me some hope that things might progress in an upward motion, but as I said, I KNOW this process is going to take a VERY long time, and I am NOT going to wait for Sigma. This year, you can bet all your money that the crickets will be chirping at Sigma, and most likely next year, and the next year...and the next year....

Give it 3-4 years before any major upgrade, IF ever.

I guess it is good that you are going to move on then, to a happy place.

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

 rattymouse's gear list:rattymouse's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F10 Zoom Fujifilm FinePix F20 Zoom Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X10 +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,819Gear list
Like?
Re: I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to DMillier, May 3, 2013

Hi David,

I wouldn't expect you to like the results and to find myriad "faults" with my conclusions and/or methodology. But the bottom line is, that as I said, it wasn't a "test." It is what it is, a simple observation.

I didn't choose F11, the camera's firmware did that. The frame was taken in "program" mode. The exposure, aperture and shutter speed were all chosen by the firmware so this represents a very "typical" D7000 shot. I applied exactly the same amount of "sharpening" with the same tool to each image so any "mysterious" variable was distributed to each in precisely the same way.

I've already commented that Nikon jpgs are notorious for being "soft." Could I have made the Nikon image ultimately sharper and with slightly more detail by shooting in RAW, converting and carefully manipulating the variables as far as focal length, aperture, etc.? Sure. But then it would not have been "typically" what an average user could "expect."  The majority of people using the D7000 will put the camera in "P" mode and press the shutter.

I fail to understand how you think that changing the focal length on the Nikon can magically make the sensor on the DP2 M a 41 megapixel sensor. That makes no sense to me, sorry. The focal length difference is minimal in terms of the geographical fields of view between the two images. Does it have "some" effect on sharpness and resolution? Yes, some - but were I to attempt to do a "test" between the two cameras, it probably wouldn't represent the real world results which ordinary users can expect.

What was shown is exactly what a typical user would see. I think the word "dramatic" difference obtains here. The comparison is a 14 megapixel Foveon sensor against a very good 16 megapixel Bayer sensor. I don't think the differences are "grossly exaggerated" at all in my experience. I shoot thousands of images with the D7000 and am very familiar with what it can and can't do. Is the lens on the DP2 M better than the lens on the Nikon? Undoubtedly. Could the best available lens for the D7000 do better? Undoubtedly. Could carefully choosing the aperture, shooting in RAW and converting and careful post processing of the Nikon substantially improve the result? Undoubtedly. But the purpose of posting the images was to demonstrate what "typically" a user can expect. That's why I converted the DP2 M totally in "default" X3F mode. I tweaked the Nikon image to get the best from it that I could get. I find the differences fairly typical - that's my experience and my opinion. As I said, I believe the differences are "dramatic" in my experience.

Best regards,

Lin

DMillier wrote:

I have no problem with the idea that the Merrill records more detail than a 16MP Bayer. I'm even happy to accept the 30mp equivalent figure people like to quote as a working hypothesis. I'm glad you've provided photos to illustrate it, evidence is a worth a thousand arguments.  But... I find I can't trust this example. It looks too extreme to me and is utterly unlike any results I've ever seen elsewhere.  Looking at the exif you can maybe begin to see why:

- Raw vs jpeg

- F5.6 vs f11

- 30mm vs 20mm

- Almost perfect lens vs what?

I think you successfully make the point that the DP2m is more detailed than the D7000 and I won't argue with that but this example grossly exaggerates by how much.

If we assume this competition started off pitting a 30MP (equivalent) vs 16MP sensor, your choice of lens for the D7000 turns that into 41MP vs 16MP, your choice of f11 on a 22mm lens will demolish sharpness and your use of jpg vs raw is another handicap.  The mysterious Qimage sharpening routines are another complication.

I think overall the result is to confuse rather than to illuminate and given this is the internet will like get spread all over the place as misinformation.  I think we both agree on the superiority of the Merrill but this was ill-advised.

I think a more useful exercise is the one I did comparing prints of different sizes from the RX200, DP2m and D800. I used test shots supplied by Mr Blissfly and it was only in prints larger than 30 x 20 inches that I could detect any difference at all between the detail of the three cameras.  I have the prints here with me now.

best

Dave

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Karlsson
Forum ProPosts: 21,088Gear list
Like?
Re: I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to Lin Evans, May 3, 2013

Thanx for explaining your thinking behind the comparison.

I understand now what you tried to show.

Not what I thought. But its not without merit.

There are more than technical difference to the result a camera gives.

I am tired now and aiming for my bed. I shall sleep on it Can't decide if this new knowledge is profound or not.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Quattro Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 33,352Gear list
Like?
Then we are talking about different things (n/t)
In reply to victorgv, May 3, 2013

victorgv wrote:

My point was not that sigma is better my point was that even when you reduce size to quarter of original you can still see a difference . Both images were from RAW only sd1 used old version of SPP never versions are much better . Another point scaling for sigma should introduce more artifacts because pixels are not alined in scaled versus unscaled image.

Raist3d wrote:

You picked a lab shot illuminated with a lab light at dpreview at the lowest ISO.  The issue is not whether the Sigma can do better or about the same as a Nikon D800E, but that, such won't be always the case and both cameras have domains where they excel.

It's the unilateral mantra that the Foveon is unilaterally better the myth I am pointing out.  Both have tradeoffs.  And I am talking not from theory but from experience.

Want to see an extreme? How about a case where a Pentax Q does better color than a Sigma DP3M?  Does that mean the Q is better than the Sigma?

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51368557

Your experiment hardly proves anything honestly, except that in the very particular (and artificial) situation and set of conditions you picked the Sigma apparently does a little better (were these also two raws or is the Nikon a JPEG?).

I am pretty sure if both cameras were shot at ISO 400 in mixed light it would be also pretty easy tp pick which one is which

victorgv wrote:

Just stupid experiment these two images resized down sd1 and d800e from dpreview d800e one is half size and sd1 resized to the same dimensions (it should put sd1 to disadvantage i think).

one of the images was adjusted saturation,exposure contrast and tint (not very good job just dont tear me apart please ) so they will look more similar. Still pretty easy to guess wich one is sigma and wich one is d800e.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DMillier
Forum ProPosts: 17,969
Like?
Re: I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to Lin Evans, May 3, 2013

This has nothing to do with whether I like the results or not. It's whether I believe what you showed is an accurate portrayal of what you would gain if you swapped out a D7000 for a DP2m.

- Do I believe that the DP2m has significantly more resolution? Yes I do. But I still don't believe this comparison is representative.

(The 41MP equivalent comment came from the multiplying 30MP equivalent by 30mm/22mm, the relative difference in lens magnification used).

-The DP2m is a bit better than 24MP cams and 24Mp cams are a bit better than 16MP cams (not a lot better). The two improvements together would be significant. But not like your comparisons.

You should be getting results with similar differences to say a 450D and NEX5 - that is, quite a noticeable and worthwhile improvement. That would be in line with my own tests and the differences other sources have shown (including Imaging resource). However, your comparison is  showing ridiculous amount of difference. If it were accurate, why isn't the DP2m wiping out the D800 in every comparison instead of looking slightly worse? And why aren't we seeing the same kind results between the D800 and 16MP cameras? There is an inconsistency somewhere.

Why not decide this is a bit dubious and work up another pair of shots, equalising the settings and using completely standard processing so we can see more accurately the degree of improvement you get from the DP2m? It's still going to be a worthwhile upgrade.

ps

I've mentioned this before, but now that I have a shift lens for my NEX, I can experiment with flat stitching a wide range of resolutions. It's quite counterintuitive but there is a lot smaller difference in print quality between a 16MP image and a 40MP image than you would imagine from the numbers, Unless you print huge it makes hardly any difference...

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richard stone
Senior MemberPosts: 1,618
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to fongg, May 3, 2013

And I think we (meaning all of us...) can say it is "good," not bad, when someone is excited or pleased with a camera and they enjoy using it.

Even if they have what "we" (meaning a few people who really can't see any benefit from Foveon sensors) might consider an inflated idea of its performance or results, etc. "We" (the few) might be wrong. (!) "We" (the few) might have different ideas about what makes a good image. "We" (the few, again...) might be incapable of "seeing" anything outside of what "we" like as a good image. Imagine that. (!)

This is in part the issue of people liking what they know....

And even more significantly, a camera that the user enjoys is going to get used more? Probably. Is this going to add significantly to the "art" and "beauty" in the world? Maybe not, considering the general level of photographic-style images in general, but it is at least possible. Meanwhile, the owner/user is pleased, and enjoys his camera, and that at least brings more joy into the world, not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is people telling the happy user that the camera he or she appreciates is really not very good.

Meanwhile, I am firmly convinced that some people simply cannot (or is it will not?) "see" any difference between Bayer images and those taken with a Foveon sensor, and I think they are mostly blind, but still, and indeed in part because they cannot see the difference, more to be pitied than scorned. No amount of arguing, no amount of well produced sample images, will convince them to open their eyes or their minds.

But Bayer cameras have their place, and I own several. They work great for snapshots.

And after all, this is a "gear" forum, and not one dedicated to "art" and composition, and even more significantly, this is the Sigma forum, so if a poster doesn't think the Sigmas are any good, maybe they should be posting in the forum where they actually like the camera in question? Think how that might improve their enjoyment of life. Or maybe they just like to argue and hold contrarian positions? Which is the more likely truth.

Richard

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Enir4
Senior MemberPosts: 2,098Gear list
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to rattymouse, May 3, 2013

You just made me spend 843 euros. That's not friendly.

Enrique

 Enir4's gear list:Enir4's gear list
Fujifilm X30 Fujifilm X100T Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F4-5.6 OIS +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,819Gear list
Like?
Re: I think "Dramatic" is not an over-reaching descriptive...
In reply to DMillier, May 4, 2013

DMillier wrote:

This has nothing to do with whether I like the results or not. It's whether I believe what you showed is an accurate portrayal of what you would gain if you swapped out a D7000 for a DP2m.

- Do I believe that the DP2m has significantly more resolution? Yes I do. But I still don't believe this comparison is representative.

(The 41MP equivalent comment came from the multiplying 30MP equivalent by 30mm/22mm, the relative difference in lens magnification used).

-The DP2m is a bit better than 24MP cams and 24Mp cams are a bit better than 16MP cams (not a lot better). The two improvements together would be significant. But not like your comparisons.

That's not my experience...

You should be getting results with similar differences to say a 450D and NEX5 - that is, quite a noticeable and worthwhile improvement. That would be in line with my own tests and the differences other sources have shown (including Imaging resource). However, your comparison is  showing ridiculous amount of difference. If it were accurate, why isn't the DP2m wiping out the D800 in every comparison instead of looking slightly worse?

Who says it's "looking worse?" I see at least one D800e user here on this forum putting his D800e on ebay after getting the DP M series cameras. One would logically "assume" that is not because he finds the DP M cameras "looking worse?" Again you draw conclusions based on rigorous testing and not from real world use experience. There are bicycles which can, under ideal controlled circumstances reach speeds of well over 80 miles per hour. This is not to say that you or I could get on one along with a group of our friends on their bicycles and duplicate those laboratory controlled experiences. What I'm doing is showing real world photography experience with the two cameras, not trying to create a laboratory experiment to wring the ultimate from each.

And why aren't we seeing the same kind results between the D800 and 16MP cameras? There is an inconsistency somewhere.

How many D800's have you compared to 16 mp cameras? I believe what I've seen indeed does depict quite a "dramatic" difference between the D800 and 16 mp cameras.

Why not decide this is a bit dubious and work up another pair of shots, equalising the settings and using completely standard processing so we can see more accurately the degree of improvement you get from the DP2m? It's still going to be a worthwhile upgrade.

Why? There are plenty of "tests" which you can look at which optimize the various cameras and lenses. What they "don't show" and what my post did show, is what a typical user will see rather than what careful preparation, lighting, aperture, lens choice and so on will show. What do you believe constitutes "completely standard processing?" Is there really any such thing? If there is I'm not aware of it.

ps

I've mentioned this before, but now that I have a shift lens for my NEX, I can experiment with flat stitching a wide range of resolutions. It's quite counterintuitive but there is a lot smaller difference in print quality between a 16MP image and a 40MP image than you would imagine from the numbers, Unless you print huge it makes hardly any difference...

Which "40mp" image are you using from which camera? I see significant differences in print quality at even 11x14 prints myself when comparing my D7000 and DP2 Merrill. I have a hard time believing that your 16 mp NEX is "that" much better than my 16 mp Nikon. On the other hand, doing stitches with your NEX is not the same thing as shooting the original with a true 40 mp sensor. Perhaps the shift lens you are using is not giving you the same image quality as your other lens so that your 40 mp stitch is not truly representative? The important thing is that "you" are happy with the results. Sufficient number of people using the Foveon X3 14 megapixel sensor are having experiences different from yours to wonder about the differences in your experience and a multitude of other people's experiences.

Best regards,

Lin

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 33,352Gear list
Like?
This reads absurd.
In reply to Lin Evans, May 4, 2013

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi David,

I wouldn't expect you to like the results and to find myriad "faults" with my conclusions and/or methodology. But the bottom line is, that as I said, it wasn't a "test." It is what it is, a simple observation.

I didn't choose F11, the camera's firmware did that. The frame was taken in "program" mode. The exposure, aperture and shutter speed were all chosen by the firmware so this represents a very "typical" D7000 shot.

This reads very absurd. How many times it has been said on a per Sigma model basis to set and pick other settings because the defaults are off. Look at the recommendation of Kendall for example with current Merrill to overexpose.

This hardly represents a "typical D7000" shot- there are indeed many settings also to tweak that "automatic something" and typical depends also on the photographer and what they are doing. What if they are shooting in manual mode or aperture priority?

[]

I applied exactly the same amount of "sharpening" with the same tool to each image so any "mysterious" variable was distributed to each in precisely the same way.

I've already commented that Nikon jpgs are notorious for being "soft." Could I have made the Nikon image ultimately sharper and with slightly more detail by shooting in RAW, converting and carefully manipulating the variables as far as focal length, aperture, etc.? Sure. But then it would not have been "typically" what an average user could "expect."  The majority of people using the D7000 will put the camera in "P" mode and press the shutter.

[]

This again reads completely absurd. Would you say the majority will simply put the Sigma on JPEG mode and shoot in P&S? Is that a reasonable way to assess what the camera can do?  Either you are talking about what a typical user would do or what the camera as a photographer tool can do.  Either camera could be used so wrong as to make it look worse than mobile phones three years ago.

[]

What was shown is exactly what a typical user would see. I think the word "dramatic" difference obtains here. The comparison is a 14 megapixel Foveon sensor against a very good 16 megapixel Bayer sensor. I don't think the differences are "grossly exaggerated" at all in my experience. I shoot thousands of images with the D7000 and am very familiar with what it can and can't do. Is the lens on the DP2 M better than the lens on the Nikon? Undoubtedly. Could the best available lens for the D7000 do better? Undoubtedly. Could carefully choosing the aperture, shooting in RAW and converting and careful post processing of the Nikon substantially improve the result? Undoubtedly. But the purpose of posting the images was to demonstrate what "typically" a user can expect. That's why I converted the DP2 M totally in "default" X3F mode. I tweaked the Nikon image to get the best from it that I could get. I find the differences fairly typical - that's my experience and my opinion. As I said, I believe the differences are "dramatic" in my experience.

Best regards,

Lin

[]

best

Dave

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 33,352Gear list
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to richard stone, May 4, 2013

richard stone wrote:

And I think we (meaning all of us...) can say it is "good," not bad, when someone is excited or pleased with a camera and they enjoy using it.

Even if they have what "we" (meaning a few people who really can't see any benefit from Foveon sensors) might consider an inflated idea of its performance or results, etc. "We" (the few) might be wrong. (!) "We" (the few) might have different ideas about what makes a good image. "We" (the few, again...) might be incapable of "seeing" anything outside of what "we" like as a good image. Imagine that. (!)

This is in part the issue of people liking what they know....

And even more significantly, a camera that the user enjoys is going to get used more? Probably. Is this going to add significantly to the "art" and "beauty" in the world? Maybe not, considering the general level of photographic-style images in general, but it is at least possible. Meanwhile, the owner/user is pleased, and enjoys his camera, and that at least brings more joy into the world, not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is people telling the happy user that the camera he or she appreciates is really not very good.

Meanwhile, I am firmly convinced that some people simply cannot (or is it will not?) "see" any difference between Bayer images and those taken with a Foveon sensor, and I think they are mostly blind, but still, and indeed in part because they cannot see the difference, more to be pitied than scorned. No amount of arguing, no amount of well produced sample images, will convince them to open their eyes or their minds.

But Bayer cameras have their place, and I own several. They work great for snapshots.

And after all, this is a "gear" forum, and not one dedicated to "art" and composition, and even more significantly, this is the Sigma forum, so if a poster doesn't think the Sigmas are any good, maybe they should be posting in the forum where they actually like the camera in question? Think how that might improve their enjoyment of life. Or maybe they just like to argue and hold contrarian positions? Which is the more likely truth.

Richard

That would all seem fine and reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that the horse you decide to ride on is often the one putting down other cameras, technologies and completely blind to the compromises in using the "holy grail Foveon" as it if was some kind of epitome of sublime image quality perfection even often associating it (foolishly so) to a "better photograph."

Your very own assessment of

"But Bayer cameras have their place, and I own several. They work great for snapshots."

already points to what I just said and says more about you as a photographer (by light years) than the technology involved.

- Raist

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
richard stone
Senior MemberPosts: 1,618
Like?
Re: The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....
In reply to Raist3d, May 4, 2013

Raist3d wrote:

richard stone wrote:

And I think we (meaning all of us...) can say it is "good," not bad, when someone is excited or pleased with a camera and they enjoy using it.

Even if they have what "we" (meaning a few people who really can't see any benefit from Foveon sensors) might consider an inflated idea of its performance or results, etc. "We" (the few) might be wrong. (!) "We" (the few) might have different ideas about what makes a good image. "We" (the few, again...) might be incapable of "seeing" anything outside of what "we" like as a good image. Imagine that. (!)

This is in part the issue of people liking what they know....

And even more significantly, a camera that the user enjoys is going to get used more? Probably. Is this going to add significantly to the "art" and "beauty" in the world? Maybe not, considering the general level of photographic-style images in general, but it is at least possible. Meanwhile, the owner/user is pleased, and enjoys his camera, and that at least brings more joy into the world, not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is people telling the happy user that the camera he or she appreciates is really not very good.

Meanwhile, I am firmly convinced that some people simply cannot (or is it will not?) "see" any difference between Bayer images and those taken with a Foveon sensor, and I think they are mostly blind, but still, and indeed in part because they cannot see the difference, more to be pitied than scorned. No amount of arguing, no amount of well produced sample images, will convince them to open their eyes or their minds.

But Bayer cameras have their place, and I own several. They work great for snapshots.

And after all, this is a "gear" forum, and not one dedicated to "art" and composition, and even more significantly, this is the Sigma forum, so if a poster doesn't think the Sigmas are any good, maybe they should be posting in the forum where they actually like the camera in question? Think how that might improve their enjoyment of life. Or maybe they just like to argue and hold contrarian positions? Which is the more likely truth.

Richard

That would all seem fine and reasonable if it wasn't for the fact that the horse you decide to ride on is often the one putting down other cameras, technologies and completely blind to the compromises in using the "holy grail Foveon" as it if was some kind of epitome of sublime image quality perfection even often associating it (foolishly so) to a "better photograph."

Your very own assessment of

"But Bayer cameras have their place, and I own several. They work great for snapshots."

already points to what I just said and says more about you as a photographer (by light years) than the technology involved.

- Raist

Thank you Raist. I think you helped me make my point.

Some folks (like the OP) really like their Sigma camera(s), and they think the images are better than from any (reasonably equivalent...) "Bayer" sensor camera. How and why that opinion troubles some other people is quite mysterious.

You cannot reasonably say the Sigma enthusiasts are wrong when all they do is express an opinion. Perhaps that is why when such views are expressed it leads to the paroxysms and fulminations from contrary minded posters. Still, the responses are generally a source of amusement. And, speaking of amusement: Who said anything about horses? Unless you have perhaps left some horse droppings nearby?

The OP expressed his enthusiasm for the Sigma camera he was using. I do not recall the OP saying the camera was perfect. "Holy Grail" seems an extreme position, unless you are referring to the Monty Python movie.

I appreciate the comments on my photographic skills. Modesty is a virtue. Richard
-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lin Evans
Forum ProPosts: 15,819Gear list
Like?
Re: This reads absurd.
In reply to Raist3d, May 4, 2013

Raist3d wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi David,

I wouldn't expect you to like the results and to find myriad "faults" with my conclusions and/or methodology. But the bottom line is, that as I said, it wasn't a "test." It is what it is, a simple observation.

I didn't choose F11, the camera's firmware did that. The frame was taken in "program" mode. The exposure, aperture and shutter speed were all chosen by the firmware so this represents a very "typical" D7000 shot.

This reads very absurd. How many times it has been said on a per Sigma model basis to set and pick other settings because the defaults are off. Look at the recommendation of Kendall for example with current Merrill to overexpose.

What has what you just said above to do with "anything" pertaining to using a D7000 Nikon???

This hardly represents a "typical D7000" shot- there are indeed many settings also to tweak that "automatic something" and typical depends also on the photographer and what they are doing. What if they are shooting in manual mode or aperture priority?

Now you are going to tell me what a "typical D7000 shot" consists of. Do you "have" a Nikon D7000? Do you have extensive experience with a Nikon D7000? Do you have a DP2 Merrill? Do you have extensive experience with a Sigma DP2 Merrill? If not, you are simply not qualified to say what a "typical" shot is with either.

I just told you "specifically" what I did and you want to "argue" about it. Sorry Ricardo, there is nothing "absurd" about placing a camera in "Program" mode and pressing the shutter. Millions of people do it every day.

Go find someone else to start a stupid argument with, I'm not buying...

Lin

[]

I applied exactly the same amount of "sharpening" with the same tool to each image so any "mysterious" variable was distributed to each in precisely the same way.

I've already commented that Nikon jpgs are notorious for being "soft." Could I have made the Nikon image ultimately sharper and with slightly more detail by shooting in RAW, converting and carefully manipulating the variables as far as focal length, aperture, etc.? Sure. But then it would not have been "typically" what an average user could "expect."  The majority of people using the D7000 will put the camera in "P" mode and press the shutter.

[]

This again reads completely absurd. Would you say the majority will simply put the Sigma on JPEG mode and shoot in P&S? Is that a reasonable way to assess what the camera can do?  Either you are talking about what a typical user would do or what the camera as a photographer tool can do.  Either camera could be used so wrong as to make it look worse than mobile phones three years ago.

[]

What was shown is exactly what a typical user would see. I think the word "dramatic" difference obtains here. The comparison is a 14 megapixel Foveon sensor against a very good 16 megapixel Bayer sensor. I don't think the differences are "grossly exaggerated" at all in my experience. I shoot thousands of images with the D7000 and am very familiar with what it can and can't do. Is the lens on the DP2 M better than the lens on the Nikon? Undoubtedly. Could the best available lens for the D7000 do better? Undoubtedly. Could carefully choosing the aperture, shooting in RAW and converting and careful post processing of the Nikon substantially improve the result? Undoubtedly. But the purpose of posting the images was to demonstrate what "typically" a user can expect. That's why I converted the DP2 M totally in "default" X3F mode. I tweaked the Nikon image to get the best from it that I could get. I find the differences fairly typical - that's my experience and my opinion. As I said, I believe the differences are "dramatic" in my experience.

Best regards,

Lin

[]

best

Dave

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pixel_peeper
Regular MemberPosts: 178
Like?
Re: No, but probably more the sound of a broken record
In reply to victorgv, May 4, 2013

victorgv wrote:

Just stupid experiment these two images resized down sd1 and d800e from dpreview d800e one is half size and sd1 resized to the same dimensions (it should put sd1 to disadvantage i think).

one of the images was adjusted saturation,exposure contrast and tint (not very good job just dont tear me apart please ) so they will look more similar. Still pretty easy to guess wich one is sigma and wich one is d800e.

Raist3d wrote:

Laurence Matson wrote:

pixel_peeper wrote:

Try resizing the D800E shots down to about 20 Mpx, and they'll probably look as good on a monitor as your DP2M shots.

This statement has been flying around here for as long as Foveon changed the technology game plan for imagers. Your operative words of "try" and "probably" say it all. The answer is they won't. But keep trying for a probable result.

Because for a while it has also been proven at least by some resized down bayers look pretty good next to Sigmas.  Of course in your commentary some of the current foveon artifacts are probably ignored as well as superior dynamic range by the Nikon d800e's sensor which depending of the subject being photographed will make one look better than the other (and pets not talk about high iso in color), but maybe you also meant those cases where the d800e would indeed look better as part of "not looking the same. "

Certainly both are extremely capable in their better circumstances.

-- hide signature --

Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com
"I thought: I read something in a book, I dream, I imagine, and it comes true. And it is exactly like this in life.
"You can dream, and it comes true, as long as you can get out of the certitudes. As long as you can get a pioneering spirit, as long as you can explore, as long as you can think off the grid. So much time we spend in our education, in our lives is spent learning certitudes, learning habits, trying to fight against the unknown, to avoid the doubts and question marks. As soon as you start to love the unknown, to love the doubts, to love the question marks, life becomes an absolutely fabulous adventure."
Bertrand Piccard, a Swiss person
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
http://www.howardmyerslaw.com

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Worth trying. I'd say that where the SD1 is better, it's due to the sensor, and where the the D800 is better it's due to the lens. The SD1 is probably using the Sigma 50mm f1.4, stopped down to f8, where it is still not that good at the edges, and the Nikon is using one of their 85's stopped down, which is better at the edges (notably less CA). The Sigma handles the fabrics and the globe near the top much better. I'm fairly convinced now that the DP2 would always look better than a resized D800, especially with fabrics and foliage, and obviously, where there is any possibility of moiré.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Raist3d
Forum ProPosts: 33,352Gear list
Like?
Re: This reads absurd.
In reply to Lin Evans, May 4, 2013

Lin Evans wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

Hi David,

I wouldn't expect you to like the results and to find myriad "faults" with my conclusions and/or methodology. But the bottom line is, that as I said, it wasn't a "test." It is what it is, a simple observation.

I didn't choose F11, the camera's firmware did that. The frame was taken in "program" mode. The exposure, aperture and shutter speed were all chosen by the firmware so this represents a very "typical" D7000 shot.

This reads very absurd. How many times it has been said on a per Sigma model basis to set and pick other settings because the defaults are off. Look at the recommendation of Kendall for example with current Merrill to overexpose.

What has what you just said above to do with "anything" pertaining to using a D7000 Nikon???

That you are going by what the D7000 picked, which is not necessarily optimal at all, the same way the DP2M is so recommended in many situations to not be used at default settings (or many other Sigma cameras with other settings- like SD15 and its color mode, etc.).

You then decide to make a judgement based on complete automatic as if that represented really what the camera could do and judged accordingly.  It's a bit like taking the Sigma out of the box, taking a snap and that being not so good in say JPEG, someone complained about it as if the camera wasn't very good. Would that be an accurate statement based on that?

This hardly represents a "typical D7000" shot- there are indeed many settings also to tweak that "automatic something" and typical depends also on the photographer and what they are doing. What if they are shooting in manual mode or aperture priority?

Now you are going to tell me what a "typical D7000 shot" consists of.

No, I am telling you that hardly represents one.  It's even more ridiculous to reach a conclusion based purely on automatic settings on what the camera can do.

Do you "have" a Nikon D7000?

No.

Do you have extensive experience with a Nikon D7000?

I wouldn't say extensive but I have experience with the D7000.

Do you have a DP2 Merrill?

No.

Do you have extensive experience with a Sigma DP2 Merrill?

I do have experience with the DP2M and DP3M.

If not, you are simply not qualified to say what a "typical" shot is with either.

Complete nonsense.

I just told you "specifically" what I did and you want to "argue" about it. Sorry Ricardo, there is nothing "absurd" about placing a camera in "Program" mode and pressing the shutter. Millions of people do it every day.

No, the last part is not absurd. What is absurd is that you use that to judge what the camera can do.

Go find someone else to start a stupid argument with, I'm not buying...

There's no argument. Your claim falls pretty flat based on what you said. I was merely adding on top of that, that it's a bit amusing considering how much leeway the Sigma is given then precisely by NOT using it with mere default settings!

Finally if you really have the experience you claim with the D7000 you should be quite shocked at the false claims that it has less DR than a Sigma, problems with shadows, but that's another point.

Lin

[]

I applied exactly the same amount of "sharpening" with the same tool to each image so any "mysterious" variable was distributed to each in precisely the same way.

I've already commented that Nikon jpgs are notorious for being "soft." Could I have made the Nikon image ultimately sharper and with slightly more detail by shooting in RAW, converting and carefully manipulating the variables as far as focal length, aperture, etc.? Sure. But then it would not have been "typically" what an average user could "expect."  The majority of people using the D7000 will put the camera in "P" mode and press the shutter.

[]

This again reads completely absurd. Would you say the majority will simply put the Sigma on JPEG mode and shoot in P&S? Is that a reasonable way to assess what the camera can do?  Either you are talking about what a typical user would do or what the camera as a photographer tool can do.  Either camera could be used so wrong as to make it look worse than mobile phones three years ago.

[]

What was shown is exactly what a typical user would see. I think the word "dramatic" difference obtains here. The comparison is a 14 megapixel Foveon sensor against a very good 16 megapixel Bayer sensor. I don't think the differences are "grossly exaggerated" at all in my experience. I shoot thousands of images with the D7000 and am very familiar with what it can and can't do. Is the lens on the DP2 M better than the lens on the Nikon? Undoubtedly. Could the best available lens for the D7000 do better? Undoubtedly. Could carefully choosing the aperture, shooting in RAW and converting and careful post processing of the Nikon substantially improve the result? Undoubtedly. But the purpose of posting the images was to demonstrate what "typically" a user can expect. That's why I converted the DP2 M totally in "default" X3F mode. I tweaked the Nikon image to get the best from it that I could get. I find the differences fairly typical - that's my experience and my opinion. As I said, I believe the differences are "dramatic" in my experience.

Best regards,

Lin

[]

best

Dave

-- hide signature --
-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

learntomakeslidshows.net

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads