Reading mode: Light Dark

ISO800, lowlight, tungsten

Go to last post
dr.noise said:
I must say this is far better than SD14 is capable of (at least my
SD14).
I'm wondering why DP1 doesn't have ISO1600 or even 3200.
Click to expand...
I'm half serious with this reply, not a joke, personally I feel it's so new users won't take it out of the box, set it to ISO1600 or ISO3200, and take a photo of their TV set in a darkened living room to see what the camera 'will do.' Bad photo situation for any camera...

Really, I have a theory that most people receive their new gear from the delivery truck after getting home from work, it's dark outside (at least anytime other than mid-summer in some places) so what do they do? Take living room photos of their TV set. I've seen I don't know how many of different brand cameras!

At least to get to ISO1600 or ISO3200 you have to figure out what you're doing with the camera, as Carl's examples show!

Ditto on ISO50, why it's on extended mode on the SD14 as is ISO1600. First you have to read the manual to figure out extended mode. One assumes you then too learn about exposure, highlights, and read the ISO50 explanation on the firmware 1.05 update. I don't have confidence in the general public that they'd properly use ISO50 if it were on the SD14 (or DP1) by default. We'd have complaints galore about blown highlights.

By the way, I find ISO100 a lot 'richer' somehow in really bright light I think than ISO50. Some of my DV really brights which I shot at ISO50 I wish I'd done some too at ISO100. ISO50 and ISO100 can give me really different results... now I have to try the both on sunlight wb again as well as auto LOL (see my other SD14 thread). Rediscovering the wheel here...
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
SandyF said:
dr.noise said:
I must say this is far better than SD14 is capable of (at least my
SD14).
I'm wondering why DP1 doesn't have ISO1600 or even 3200.
Click to expand...
I'm half serious with this reply, not a joke, personally I feel it's
so new users won't take it out of the box, set it to ISO1600 or
ISO3200, and take a photo of their TV set in a darkened living room
to see what the camera 'will do.' Bad photo situation for any
camera...
Click to expand...
Hi Sandy .. I think you´re right ... Sigma has probably learned a lot from the dissasturous launch of SD14...

That camera was "killed " exactly the way you describe... by amateurs ( and reviewers) knowing absolutely nothing about how to handle this technology.

Also .. very nice that they made sure that the DP-1 files can NOT be opened with any unsuitable piece of software.

I am sure we will have firmware updates , which provides ISO 50 and 1600, when they feel the users are ready for it :)
Imagine if Nick could have set the famous taped DP-1 to ISO 1600 LOL
SandyF said:
Really, I have a theory that most people receive their new gear from
the delivery truck after getting home from work, it's dark outside
(at least anytime other than mid-summer in some places) so what do
they do? Take living room photos of their TV set. I've seen I don't
know how many of different brand cameras!
At least to get to ISO1600 or ISO3200 you have to figure out what
you're doing with the camera, as Carl's examples show!
Ditto on ISO50, why it's on extended mode on the SD14 as is ISO1600.
First you have to read the manual to figure out extended mode. One
assumes you then too learn about exposure, highlights, and read the
ISO50 explanation on the firmware 1.05 update. I don't have
confidence in the general public that they'd properly use ISO50 if it
were on the SD14 (or DP1) by default. We'd have complaints galore
about blown highlights.
By the way, I find ISO100 a lot 'richer' somehow in really bright
light I think than ISO50. Some of my DV really brights which I shot
at ISO50 I wish I'd done some too at ISO100. ISO50 and ISO100 can
give me really different results... now I have to try the both on
sunlight wb again as well as auto LOL (see my other SD14 thread).
Rediscovering the wheel here...
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my galleries at :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yoicz/
or
http://www.pbase.com/yoicz

 
Is it just me or does the focus seem to be just a little bit distal to the subject? I presume the subject is the woman talking on the phone. The reason I ask is because my SD14 seems to do the same thing, i.e., focus a tad distal.
 
Ricardo222 said:
Is it just me or does the focus seem to be just a little bit distal
to the subject? I presume the subject is the woman talking on the
phone. The reason I ask is because my SD14 seems to do the same
thing, i.e., focus a tad distal.
Click to expand...
You cannot judge focus by the woman. Even if she was perfectly focused she is still blurred due to motion blur.
 
The results from this camera (Foveon chip) never cease to amaze me. Whilst the ISO limit is 800, I would like to see some results of underexposed and 'push processed' shots to check the limits of its low light capability.

I own a Fuji S6500 which is touted as being a great small sensor low light camera but even at ISO 800 I don't think that I could get nearly as 'clean' a result as you have here without some serious PP from a RAW image. And then I would be losing some fine detail and subtlety of tone that you have captured in this shot.

Some may argue that a DSLR with a standard CCD could get as good a result as this even at ISO 1600 but I doubt that it could reproduce such a natural tone.

Please, please post some more shots.

Cheers
 
Raist3d said:
By saying this of those who legitimately ask for this kind of shot
all you do is put yourself as a silly fanboy. There's a reason why
those of us ask. You would make for a bad Sigma salesman.
Click to expand...
I know why you ask. But you know what? You kind of wore out your welcome with posting the same question in EVERY SINGLE THREAD multiple times.

Do I have no right to get tired of your endless repetition? I never said there was no use in seeing such a shot. That's why I said "Thank you" cause finally one was provided. Heck, I even STOOD UP for your needs when I asked for one in mixed light because I remembered you had asked for that. And for my support, I get a scathing reply from you?

I expect no apology because your kind never understands the offenses they cause. But I hope some part of you somewhere feels just a little ashamed now.
Member said:
Member said:
Though some of the calls were also for mixed lighting I believe, so
if you can also do that near a window on a sunny day...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
See that was me, standing up for you. I'll not make that mistake again.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
 
NarrBL said:
Ricardo, you are just being rude here, I am afraid.
Click to expand...
I am afraid if you are going to "baby sit" me you can start with Kendall. Kendall has been more than rude in several multiple ocassions. If you have been reading my replies I have been giving a lot of thanks to people like Carl and the original posted, and moreover, even made a case for the DP1 with the advent of the e-420.

If you are just going to pick appart my post without context, I am sorry but that's your problem. I found what Kendall wrote rude but you think it's acceptable. That's fine we differ, shrugs
NarrBL said:
This is not a kiddie bulletin board, to keep this sort of backbiting,
and it is in any case not impressive of a person.

I know you don't like to hear such things, but then you are going to
have to make a change your manners, yourself, so that persons do not
think them.

That's why I show it to you, once again.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror then. Remember when you first replied to me in this forum? It was all kind and all. And I replied all kind and all. Do you think there is perhaps too much coincidence with some of my "rude" replies and the way some people reply to me here?

Sorry but I just call it as I see it, and I am not for politically correctness if it's not the truth. As for showing me somethign- you can start getting off by the high horse you pretend you comand - you haven't shown me a thing, thanks.
NarrBL said:
Regards, and hopes for better in future,
Clive
Click to expand...
Like you said yourself- work on yourself :-)

Thanks!

--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Raist3d said:
By saying this of those who legitimately ask for this kind of shot
all you do is put yourself as a silly fanboy. There's a reason why
those of us ask. You would make for a bad Sigma salesman.
Click to expand...
I know why you ask. But you know what? You kind of wore out your
welcome with posting the same question in EVERY SINGLE THREAD
multiple times.
Click to expand...
People replied to me, and I replied in turn. I was accused of why do I need to see such shots, why do I need to shoot high ISO and I only answered. So.. maybe you should speak for yourself.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Do I have no right to get tired of your endless repetition?
Click to expand...
OH man, look at yourself in the mirror sometime.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
I never
said there was no use in seeing such a shot. That's why I said
"Thank you" cause finally one was provided. Heck, I even STOOD UP
for your needs when I asked for one in mixed light because I
remembered you had asked for that. And for my support, I get a
scathing reply from you?
Click to expand...
You implied that "can give it a rest." That's not a commending comment. Thus I replied for it.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
I expect no apology because your kind never understands the offenses
they cause. But I hope some part of you somewhere feels just a
little ashamed now.
Click to expand...
Hmm not really. I have no problem admitting I made a mistake. I have done that many times. But look at your own posts if you are going to throw stones this way sir.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
Though some of the calls were also for mixed lighting I believe, so
if you can also do that near a window on a sunny day...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
See that was me, standing up for you. I'll not make that mistake again.
Click to expand...
I think it's fine you mentioned that but making a deriding comment just before, doesn't make it in this context "standing up to me." Thanks.
Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:
--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home
Click to expand...
--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
...at the applause this shot is getting, as if nothing like this had ever been done before with a camera, large or small.

The shot does not represent a significant achievement, nor is it even a good photograph. Why all the fuss? What is it exactly that you people think is so terrific?

Do you honestly believe that producing a soft, undefined, fuzzy, flat, colorless picture under a total of 100-watts incandescent at f/4 and 1/20th of a second represents some kind of breakthrough?

Or is it ME that's a bit crazy?

--
John Reed
Film & Digital
'It's the image, not the equipment, that counts.'
 
Thank you Guenter for the quick informal snapshot to give me an idea basically what this camera can do under these conditions which you were asked to shoot from at a moments notice.

Regards,
Larry
 
FilmDigital said:
...at the applause this shot is getting, as if nothing like this had
ever been done before with a camera, large or small.

The shot does not represent a significant achievement, nor is it even
a good photograph. Why all the fuss? What is it exactly that you
people think is so terrific?

Do you honestly believe that producing a soft, undefined, fuzzy,
flat, colorless picture under a total of 100-watts incandescent at
f/4 and 1/20th of a second represents some kind of breakthrough?

Or is it ME that's a bit crazy?

--
John Reed
Film & Digital
'It's the image, not the equipment, that counts.'
Click to expand...
With all do respect to the kind, knowledgeable, people of this forum; I second the motion. I just don't understand the hoopla. Not trying to stir trouble, but can someone explain?
 
FilmDigital said:
...at the applause this shot is getting, as if nothing like this had
ever been done before with a camera, large or small.

The shot does not represent a significant achievement, nor is it even
a good photograph. Why all the fuss? What is it exactly that you
people think is so terrific?
Click to expand...
This shot is by no means supposed to be a good photograph, it is a simple testshot under Tungstenlight at ISO800. I did this, because someone asked for it in another thread.

--
http://swiss-landmarks.ch
http://www.pbase.com/ghoerdt



http://wohntattoos.de
 
a lot of the shots from previous Foveon cameras didn't seem to have this kind of performance under this kind of light and the dp1 does, so some people are impressed / surprised using that as a reference.

The other- this is one of the few (only?) shots of the dp1 taken in this situation. That's all.

The OP was kind enough to take this shot.

--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
much appreciated.

--
Raist3d (Photog. Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
 
Hi, John,

A bit negative aren't we? I don't think most who bothered to post on this thread elevated the OPs test shot, honestly and humbly submitted, to the level of icon or gallery exhibit. It was appreciated IMHO for what it was. Sharing a little effort and insight. Or so it seemed to me.

Kind regards,

Ed
FilmDigital said:
...at the applause this shot is getting, as if nothing like this had
ever been done before with a camera, large or small.

The shot does not represent a significant achievement, nor is it even
a good photograph. Why all the fuss? What is it exactly that you
people think is so terrific?

Do you honestly believe that producing a soft, undefined, fuzzy,
flat, colorless picture under a total of 100-watts incandescent at
f/4 and 1/20th of a second represents some kind of breakthrough?

Or is it ME that's a bit crazy?

--
John Reed
Film & Digital
'It's the image, not the equipment, that counts.'
Click to expand...
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires
 
I'll try to be even handed in this, although I freely admit I have a bias in my observation. I think some of the righteous indignation expressed in this thread errs on the side of being self-serving. I don't recall anyone being singled out by name when the comment was made about the OP's test shot satisfying a continuing request for high ISO low light shots. As an innocent and only mildly (at this point) interested bystander, I took the initial comment to be a good natured "enough already" - nothing more sinister.

I'm still perplexed by the dynamic of posters who for whatever good reasons make requests in a manner which invites a certain amount of irritation, and then are shocked at the slightest reproach. This, like email, is a very black and white medium, with no non-verbal cues as to intent (unless we want to fill our emails with little smiley, winky, or frowning icons). It seems to me we might think about our choice of words when making original comments as well as in replying.

Just a thought.
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top