Quick impression.

I bought the DP1 and 3 because of the keen pricing and I've got to say I love them and the pictures they produce. I'll be getting the DP2 as soon as I can.
I heard about the sigma clunky software before I bought the cameras . But I was surprised by it. I have Aperture and Lightroom and the complete set of Nik plugins. But since I've been using SPP I find I don't need them.
SPP gives me the results I need. Detailed realistic images in a basic package.
I like SPP a lot.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82557535@N08/

I think that SPP is resource hungry.  It's fast enough on my Mac with it's 16GB of RAM, but noticeably slower on my Windows machine with 8GB RAM. Having said that, it isn't 'bad', just slower.

If you have a Mac, you might want to try Iridient Developer, which does a good job with Sigma RAW files.

It isn't the amount of ram. The Mac's CPU is much more powerful than the ones in IBM-PC derivatives. Also, the video system in the Mac might be faster than the one in your PC, contributing to the difference.

Unfortunately for Mac users, I read that Apple is changing the CPU in the new Macs to the same one as used in PCs.  The reason?  Cost, and a better ability to run PC software.

William Wilgus wrote:

It isn't the amount of ram. The Mac's CPU is much more powerful than the ones in IBM-PC derivatives. Also, the video system in the Mac might be faster than the one in your PC, contributing to the difference.

Unfortunately for Mac users, I read that Apple is changing the CPU in the new Macs to the same one as used in PCs. The reason? Cost, and a better ability to run PC software.

Wow. Did you just come out of a time cocoon? This happened years and years ago.

Hi William,

Actually, the MacIntosh uses the identical CPU selections from Intel as do PC's and also uses the same selection of available video GPU's so there are no differences which can be attributed to either the CPU or GPU. How effective SPP is depends on the same factors with Apple as it does with Windows. RAM is quite important and most differences can be attributed also to differences in operating systems. For example, I have several Windows based computers ranging from a Core 2 Duo Intel with an older nVidia GPU (8800 GT) with 500 meg RAM running under XP home edition with 4 gigabytes of system RAM to an ASUS i7 with a top-end nVidia GPU having 3 Gig of GDDR5 video ram and 32 Gigabytes of system RAM running under Window 8.1.

The difference between these two systems running SPP is huge. Modern 64 bit systems with fast processors and excellent graphics environments facilitate running SPP smoothly and efficiently.

Apple dropped the Motorola 6800 years ago and went to Intel CPU's..... Virtually all modern MacIntosh computers have Intel CPU's.

Best regards,

Lin

William Wilgus wrote:

It isn't the amount of ram. The Mac's CPU is much more powerful than the ones in IBM-PC derivatives. Also, the video system in the Mac might be faster than the one in your PC, contributing to the difference.

Unfortunately for Mac users, I read that Apple is changing the CPU in the new Macs to the same one as used in PCs. The reason? Cost, and a better ability to run PC software.

Lin Evans wrote:

The difference between these two systems running SPP is huge. Modern 64 bit systems with fast processors and excellent graphics environments facilitate running SPP smoothly and efficiently.

Hmm…my fastest Mac is a 12 Core machine with 16gb RAM and SSD, i wonder what machine i need to make my SPP running "smoothly".
Maybe you guys never use the full res button? After doing that, WB or NR or color mode changes take up to 10 seconds (each). In my opinion this is annoying and not acceptable. (to see differences in NR you need the 100% view)

Maceo

Hi Maceo,

Interestingly, it takes six seconds to go to full resolution on a DP2M file with my best system and nine seconds to effect a full slider change in an operation such as exposure from one extreme to the other at 400%. I rarely use full res or even SPP for things like NR which I generally do with the tiff in post using other software such as Topaz so it has not really been an issue.

However, if you have ever attempted to do these things on a system like a Windows core 2 duo running XP, I know you greatly appreciate the vast differences with high-end hardware. Without knowing how much data is actually being crunched by SPP it's difficult to determine exactly where the bottleneck is, but the process is greatly facilitated by modern hardware and more recent OS changes. Just how much to attribute to which is not easily determined without some careful testing.

Best regards,

Lin

maceoQ wrote:

Lin Evans wrote:

The difference between these two systems running SPP is huge. Modern 64 bit systems with fast processors and excellent graphics environments facilitate running SPP smoothly and efficiently.

Hmm…my fastest Mac is a 12 Core machine with 16gb RAM and SSD, i wonder what machine i need to make my SPP running "smoothly".
Maybe you guys never use the full res button? After doing that, WB or NR or color mode changes take up to 10 seconds (each). In my opinion this is annoying and not acceptable. (to see differences in NR you need the 100% view)

Maceo

Marek L wrote:

ripleysbaby wrote:

I bought the DP1 and 3 because of the keen pricing and I've got to say I love them and the pictures they produce. I'll be getting the DP2 as soon as I can.
I heard about the sigma clunky software before I bought the cameras . But I was surprised by it. I have Aperture and Lightroom and the complete set of Nik plugins. But since I've been using SPP I find I don't need them.
SPP gives me the results I need. Detailed realistic images in a basic package.
I like SPP a lot.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/82557535@N08/

I fully agree with you and I like it a lot too

SPP produces unbeatable results and I never use any post processing after except for reframing or horizon correction in DXO.

Nothing clunky about this sofware, just pure processing power needed and a bit of patience to learn how to use it correctly and get all subelities out of this gem

I feel that SPP does a good job too, and is often under-rated.