WPPI

WPPI took place this past week at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas. This is the second one I have been to having gone to the previous one last year. The difference between this year and last year was dramatic to say the least. Missing were Nikon, Sony, Leica, Tokina, Pentax, Panasonic, most of the photo-book companies and most of the accessories companies. The number of booths with models was down also. My estimate was vendor participation was less than 30% of that of last year. Canon had a very very large space – much larger than anyone else. Sigma’s area was about the same size as last year. Sigma had what appeared to be at least 60 lenses on the display shelves behind the counter. I tried some of Sigma’s new smaller lenses including a 24 f3.5; 14-24 f2.8; 65 f2.0 on the L body. I shot ISO 2000, 3200, 6400, 12800, and 25600. Up to about 6400 noise is well-controlled IMO. Above that it varies.

View attachment bc830dcfd6a2406c9f3f58083ae6ec80.jpg

ISO6400



View attachment ecfd2023614c4b2baa21b6343af6dd85.jpg

ISO 12800



View attachment 04715243e2d04b8aba8399a01ce24c8d.jpg

ISO 25600





ISO 6400

View attachment 51b25d615f3a41f4884eed42fe16a6cc.jpg

ISO 6400



View attachment ab11096c2d0940a984a04adce65d2328.jpg

ISO 25600



View attachment f480ce558c444d8b8f3c7e0dade30c1e.jpg

ISO 3200

--

You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR. If you want to edit an image that does not belong to me that I have edited and posted, you need to contact the owner.
---
http://www.lightreflection.com
http://www.rickswavepics.com

WPPI ???

Jozef

Thank you for posting these Rick. Hey, what's with the crazy artifacts in the ceiling at the top right corner of the second photo you posted?

I'm assuming these are OOC jpegs, right?

I'm impressed that the photos are actually usable at ISO 6400 and above. I doubt I wil ever shoot at such high ISO settings, but you never know, right?

Wedding and Portrait Photographers International

Scottelly said:

Hey, what's with the crazy artifacts in the ceiling at the top right corner of the second photo you posted?

Click to expand...

What makes them artifacts, Scott, as opposed to actual texture?

rick decker said:

WPPI took place this past week at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas.

Click to expand...

snip

rick decker said:

I tried some of Sigma’s new smaller lenses including a 24 f3.5; 14-24 f2.8; 65 f2.0 on the L body. I shot ISO 2000, 3200, 6400, 12800, and 25600. Up to about 6400 noise is well-controlled IMO. Above that it varies.

View attachment 51b25d615f3a41f4884eed42fe16a6cc.jpg

Click to expand...

So how do you like the fp L?

The colors I see look pretty good to me. Is it worthwhile to say "Sigma color science"?

--
Tom Schum
"Beware of taking advice from anonymous wise men." Quote from Anon.

xpatUSA said:

Scottelly said:

Hey, what's with the crazy artifacts in the ceiling at the top right corner of the second photo you posted?

Click to expand...

What makes them artifacts, Scott, as opposed to actual texture?

Click to expand...

They look like artifacts to me Ted. That's all. Maybe Rick can shed some light on it.

rick decker said:

Wedding and Portrait Photographers International

Click to expand...

I guess that explains why Canon is there, and so many others are not.

Tom Schum said:

rick decker said:

WPPI took place this past week at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas.

Click to expand...

snip

Tom Schum said:

I tried some of Sigma’s new smaller lenses including a 24 f3.5; 14-24 f2.8; 65 f2.0 on the L body. I shot ISO 2000, 3200, 6400, 12800, and 25600. Up to about 6400 noise is well-controlled IMO. Above that it varies.

View attachment 51b25d615f3a41f4884eed42fe16a6cc.jpg

Click to expand...

So how do you like the fp L?

The colors I see look pretty good to me. Is it worthwhile to say "Sigma color science"?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that color looks good to me.

Tom Schum said:

--
Tom Schum
"Beware of taking advice from anonymous wise men." Quote from Anon.

Click to expand...

--
Scott Barton Kennelly

IMHO they look pretty good...somewhat over cooked and that is the Bayer look.

It is a mixture of OOC and processing. I see the artifacts you are referring to. I am not sure what caused it. I believe I took down the highlights may have done some other PP. I found another copy of the image that I believe was a simple conversion to JPEG from the DNG without any editing Or it may have been the JPEG OOC. In general from what I have seen, the display of the DNG matches the JPEG OOC when shooting DNG+JPEG.

Attached is another version of the image that is probably OOC given the highlights. It is cleaner in that corner. So it may be related to my PP. Thanks for pointing that out.

Rick



View attachment cad3532b30cb43c09b139055224dfef5.jpg



--
You have my express consent to edit any of my images that I post on DPR. If you want to edit an image that does not belong to me that I have edited and posted, you need to contact the owner.
---