Reading mode: Light Dark

DP2M Full-size ISO 100 - 1600 Images

Go to last post
rick decker

rick decker

Forum Pro
Messages
20,096
Solutions
9
Reaction score
9,220
Location
Kailua-Kona, US
a quick thought :

at 100 200/400 iso some magenta/green noise . it can best be seen in the shadows of the grey concrete walls .

at 800 iso : colors are gone and the magenta/green noise is very pronounced in the hair of boy and girl .
iso 1600 ????

this camera works fine at 100 iso in full spectrum light . the magenta/green noise at 100 iso is there but not pronounced
.

i just come back from a tour in nord Italy and a lot of photo's i took were at 800/1600 iso : interiors of musea , churches , pallazos etc... :no flash , no tripod , dim light . i also made very good quality video .

an only 100 iso camera is not usable for me .

thanks for showing ,
guido
 
1600 looks pretty bad indoors. how about outdoors? 800 a mixed bag. Lot's of green in the lava falls.

100,200 and 400 look very usable.

I'll have mine on Friday and will then have a better idea of how well it will work for me.

Mike
 
I did not review other comments to your post so my comments may fall in line with others. Very nice images through ISO 800. At ISO 1600 there were a lot of green and purple bllotches.

Several (maybe all) of the ISO 1600 images look like they were shot at a Home Depot. What was your white balance setting? The lighting may have been the issue and possibly taking a custom white balance reading off of a white or gray card might have helped.

I rarely use auto white balance on my DP2X and the presets or custom white balance does help.
--
JRB
 
rick decker said:
Thanks...I have just been too lazy but will have to try it soon

I don't see the color loss as bad as what I sense people are saying but some people see color better than others. The other thing is that in really low light, things go downhill.

R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
Click to expand...
I fully agree with your statement about going down hill in low light. Last August when I purchased my DP2X I shot 53 images under a heavy overcast. Most of these came out terrible. That is when I thoroughly read the manual (one of the better manuals too) and things improved. Still, this is a fair weather camera but the DP2X does seem to have problems in very high contrast scenes where the highlights are easily blown out. When practical I use my Sekonic incident meter and that so far has nailed down very good exposures.

Very good comment about color. At work I have a low buck ViewSonic and a better monitor may not show the color issues.

--
JRB
 
To be frank this looks bad and you are still not in what I would call real low light. But the light quality is also harsh (fluorescent).

Lots of weird foveon color casts all over and color loss. Would be interesting to see how a dp2 compares
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
rick decker said:
These are minimally compressed JPEGS at full-size. The image size varies from 7mp to 16mp. The IS01600 and some of the ISO800 had some NR in SPP and some in NEAT. The site loads relatively fast. There are thumbs and full-szie. No options in-between.

Comments and thoughts appreciated.
Click to expand...
One comment: thanks for having the trouble to post it. Very helpful
rick decker said:
http://www.lightreflection.com/DP2M/mydp2msamples.htm

R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
Click to expand...
--

To understand photography, you must understand that the experience must be much more important than the result ....
Carlos Roncatti Bomfim
http://weweh.com/
because men and women are different and we humans are the same.
 
I'm always grateful when people post images at full size. Thank you.

However, many of the pictures are badly over-sharpened. That shouldn't be necessary given that Foveon images are naturally sharp.
 
Jim Beverlin said:
rick decker said:
Thanks...I have just been too lazy but will have to try it soon

I don't see the color loss as bad as what I sense people are saying but some people see color better than others. The other thing is that in really low light, things go downhill.

R
--
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.silveroaksranch.com
http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker
Click to expand...
I fully agree with your statement about going down hill in low light. Last August when I purchased my DP2X I shot 53 images under a heavy overcast. Most of these came out terrible. That is when I thoroughly read the manual (one of the better manuals too) and things improved. Still, this is a fair weather camera but the DP2X does seem to have problems in very high contrast scenes where the highlights are easily blown out. When practical I use my Sekonic incident meter and that so far has nailed down very good exposures.

Very good comment about color. At work I have a low buck ViewSonic and a better monitor may not show the color issues.
Click to expand...
I shot a few DP2M's at ISO400 outdoors today, in late afternoon, mixed sun/shade. As I process them, I see some greater noise/blotchiness/banding whatever, IMHO than what I'd see in a DP2 (original) X3F file in similar situation. NR helped smooth this out. I'm getting up online a few of this afternoon's batch. Nothing 'artistic' ... simply some additional samples of various light conditions, various settings and SPP processings. Full EXIF and large sizes are available through the link below.

Thus far, I'd say the DP2M "needs light" more than my DP2/DP1.

Greater fine detail/resolution is there in the output, but the DP2M seems to need lower ISOs than my DP2.

PS: reds are nice, they don't seem to be as much of a problem as with earlier cameras.
Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current, discussed DP2M photos)
 
Thanks for the effort, Rick, these are the photos we want.

Iso 100:

in white parts still some magenta visible (the white boats in the harbour) .

Skin tones better than ever (beach) but still not excellent. Roll off buck visible (the arms of the lady lying on the sand on the foreground).

Iso 200:

also magenta visible i.p. first photo, concrete of the building (upperleft part photo)

iso 400:

seems to give the best colors, but perhaps in the shadows too much noise, but overall this speed very usable, as said: colors excellent (the flowers)

iso 400 & 800:

horrible, skin tones very bad (too red and roll off buck) noise and green blotches in the shadows every where, forget this.
(but sharpness remains on a very high level)

cheers, Paul
 
--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
I was commenting on the higher ISO's.

The lower iso shots- for some reason they look over sharpened and a bit artificial to me. I would guess checking different settings in SPP would fix most of this.

--

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- "You are taking life too seriously if it bugs you in some way that a guy quotes himself in the .sig quote" - Ricardo
 
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