I finally bagged another DP2X...

target5 wrote:

The DP2X have the fundamental thing, the unique exceptional IQ of real Foveon, congrats for purchase and please post photos if you can.

Thanks, and indeed I will, I am looking forward to the familiar sound of the lens extending like an old man with acute arthritis.

absquatulate wrote:

target5 wrote:

The DP2X have the fundamental thing, the unique exceptional IQ of real Foveon, congrats for purchase and please post photos if you can.

Thanks, and indeed I will, I am looking forward to the familiar sound of the lens extending like an old man with acute arthritis.

Your thread on the DP2X resulted in my resurrecting mine.  What a great little camera and I do not have to horse around with Sigma's software for PP since I can do post in Lightroom.  Took about 30 images of the gardens yesterday.

And, being an old man with really bad osteoarthritis I can readily agree that when the lens extends it sounds just like my back when I crawl out of bed in the AM.

Jim Beverlin wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

target5 wrote:

The DP2X have the fundamental thing, the unique exceptional IQ of real Foveon, congrats for purchase and please post photos if you can.

Thanks, and indeed I will, I am looking forward to the familiar sound of the lens extending like an old man with acute arthritis.

Your thread on the DP2X resulted in my resurrecting mine. What a great little camera and I do not have to horse around with Sigma's software for PP since I can do post in Lightroom. Took about 30 images of the gardens yesterday.

Glad to hear it, it might be a little dated but it just churns out lovely images.

And, being an old man with really bad osteoarthritis I can readily agree that when the lens extends it sounds just like my back when I crawl out of bed in the AM.

-- hide signature --

JRB

Sorry to hear that Jim, but I'm ashamed to say I chuckled nonetheless, whilst clinging forlornly to the idea that at least I encouraged you to resurrect your camera.

absquatulate wrote:

Jim Beverlin wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

target5 wrote:

The DP2X have the fundamental thing, the unique exceptional IQ of real Foveon, congrats for purchase and please post photos if you can.

Thanks, and indeed I will, I am looking forward to the familiar sound of the lens extending like an old man with acute arthritis.

Your thread on the DP2X resulted in my resurrecting mine. What a great little camera and I do not have to horse around with Sigma's software for PP since I can do post in Lightroom. Took about 30 images of the gardens yesterday.

Glad to hear it, it might be a little dated but it just churns out lovely images.

And, being an old man with really bad osteoarthritis I can readily agree that when the lens extends it sounds just like my back when I crawl out of bed in the AM.

Sorry to hear that Jim, but I'm ashamed to say I chuckled nonetheless, whilst clinging forlornly to the idea that at least I encouraged you to resurrect your camera.

I have been a Pentax man since 1983 (bought the DP2X in 2011) but the osteoarthritis has really hit in the last year and using my DSLRs with long, heavy lenses is getting to be too much of a chore.  So, I will spend more time with my DP2M & 3M and now DP2X along with my two Pentax K-01s (I am probably the only person on the planet that likes the K-01).

Always enjoy your posts and threads.

Jim Beverlin wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

Jim Beverlin wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

target5 wrote:

The DP2X have the fundamental thing, the unique exceptional IQ of real Foveon, congrats for purchase and please post photos if you can.

Thanks, and indeed I will, I am looking forward to the familiar sound of the lens extending like an old man with acute arthritis.

Your thread on the DP2X resulted in my resurrecting mine. What a great little camera and I do not have to horse around with Sigma's software for PP since I can do post in Lightroom. Took about 30 images of the gardens yesterday.

Glad to hear it, it might be a little dated but it just churns out lovely images.

And, being an old man with really bad osteoarthritis I can readily agree that when the lens extends it sounds just like my back when I crawl out of bed in the AM.

Sorry to hear that Jim, but I'm ashamed to say I chuckled nonetheless, whilst clinging forlornly to the idea that at least I encouraged you to resurrect your camera.

I have been a Pentax man since 1983 (bought the DP2X in 2011) but the osteoarthritis has really hit in the last year and using my DSLRs with long, heavy lenses is getting to be too much of a chore. So, I will spend more time with my DP2M & 3M and now DP2X along with my two Pentax K-01s (I am probably the only person on the planet that likes the K-01).

Always enjoy your posts and threads.

Thanks Jim, and just to redeem myself completely, I also have a K-01, and I quite like it as well, in a "It's different so I'm compelled to like it" kind of way.

JackM wrote:

Bron wrote:

In my opinion, nothing, except for the compact size and light weight. Still they are a lot of fun and easy to carry around. No match for the M IQ, however. But amazing what you can get out of those 5 MP.

OK. I guess if you're not interested in printing larger than 8x12". Nice examples in this thread.

You could print larger than that from the DP2X no problem, and still get excellent results.

xpatUSA wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

JackM wrote:

Bron wrote:

In my opinion, nothing, except for the compact size and light weight. Still they are a lot of fun and easy to carry around. No match for the M IQ, however. But amazing what you can get out of those 5 MP.

OK. I guess if you're not interested in printing larger than 8x12". Nice examples in this thread.

You could print larger than that from the DP2X no problem, and still get excellent results.

Numbers please, Gentlemen!

How much "larger"?

At what ppi?

On my calculator, 2640px wide / 12" or 1760px / 8" = 220 ppi . . .

I've seen a 6mp image from a bayer camera printed to AO size which looked great at the viewing distance you'd want to look at it. The Olympus E-1, a 4.9mp bayer camera with a heavy AA filter was used professionally by many Portrait shooters who printed larger than 8x12. I've seen a poster printed from an Olympus E-510 shot (10mp) which looked excellent. If you're trying to tell me that a DP2X, with the superb lens it has, can't print larger than 8x12 you'll have to excuse me while I stifle my guffaws.

xpatUSA wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

JackM wrote:

Bron wrote:

In my opinion, nothing, except for the compact size and light weight. Still they are a lot of fun and easy to carry around. No match for the M IQ, however. But amazing what you can get out of those 5 MP.

OK. I guess if you're not interested in printing larger than 8x12". Nice examples in this thread.

You could print larger than that from the DP2X no problem, and still get excellent results.

Numbers please, Gentlemen!

How much "larger"?

At what ppi?

On my calculator, 2640px wide / 12" or 1760px / 8" = 220 ppi . . .

I've seen a 6mp image from a bayer camera printed to AO size which looked great at the viewing distance you'd want to look at it. The Olympus E-1, a 4.9mp bayer camera with a heavy AA filter was used professionally by many Portrait shooters who printed larger than 8x12. I've seen a poster printed from an Olympus E-510 shot (10mp) which looked excellent.

Thank you for the examples, none of which are from a DP2x. However, it seems that A0 size is about 33x47". If you're trying to tell me that a DP2X, with the superb lens it has, can print that size, then a) what ppi would you use b) what would your viewing distance be?

You do the maths, I was standing about 10 feet from an AO print created from a 6mp file, it looked pretty good to me.

If you're trying to tell me that a DP2X, with the superb lens it has, can't print larger than 8x12 you'll have to excuse me while I stifle my guffaws.

LOL

Not saying that at all. Any camera can print any size that you like, of course. It all has to do visual acuity - of which you are obviously aware by your mention of viewing distance.

So again, for A0, a) what ppi would you use b) what would your viewing distance be?

I don't print, BTW. So any answers would help me understand your POV.

My point of view is that even a low MP camera, with a decent quality lens, can make a very large print when viewing distance is taken into account. Of course if you want to press your nose up against a print so you can't see all of it then you'll probably be disappointed. I printed a shot from the 7.5mp Olympus E-330 at 18x12, with an excellent lens, you could press your nose right up against that print and see every single little detail very clearly, no more resolution was needed. I have no doubt whatsoever that the DP2/X/S would do an equally fine job.

-- hide signature --

"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.

JackM wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

Thank you for the examples, none of which are from a DP2x. However, it seems that A0 size is about 33x47". If you're trying to tell me that a DP2X, with the superb lens it has, can print that size, then a) what ppi would you use?

What? 2640pixels/47" is 56ppi and that is that, you don't get to choose your ppi. Enlarging in post to fake a higher ppi is just that, fake. 56ppi would look pretty crummy no matter what camera or lens, unless you were viewing from many yards away.

We're not talking about Bayer pixels though are we.

xpatUSA wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

absquatulate wrote:

JackM wrote:

Bron wrote:

In my opinion, nothing, except for the compact size and light weight. Still they are a lot of fun and easy to carry around. No match for the M IQ, however. But amazing what you can get out of those 5 MP.

OK. I guess if you're not interested in printing larger than 8x12". Nice examples in this thread.

You could print larger than that from the DP2X no problem, and still get excellent results.

Numbers please, Gentlemen!

How much "larger"?

At what ppi?

On my calculator, 2640px wide / 12" or 1760px / 8" = 220 ppi . . .

I've seen a 6mp image from a bayer camera printed to AO size which looked great at the viewing distance you'd want to look at it. The Olympus E-1, a 4.9mp bayer camera with a heavy AA filter was used professionally by many Portrait shooters who printed larger than 8x12. I've seen a poster printed from an Olympus E-510 shot (10mp) which looked excellent.

Thank you for the examples, none of which are from a DP2x. However, it seems that A0 size is about 33x47". If you're trying to tell me that a DP2X, with the superb lens it has, can print that size, then a) what ppi would you use b) what would your viewing distance be?

If you're trying to tell me that a DP2X, with the superb lens it has, can't print larger than 8x12 you'll have to excuse me while I stifle my guffaws.

LOL

Not saying that at all. Any camera can print any size that you like, of course. It all has to do visual acuity - of which you are obviously aware by your mention of viewing distance.

So again, for A0, a) what ppi would you use b) what would your viewing distance be?

I don't print, BTW. So any answers would help me understand your POV.

I was busy weaseling out of my request for numbers and my hint that the DP2x can't print over 'B' or A3 size when you gentlemen responded preventing my edit from being posted.

Printing is a black art for me, unfortunately.

Trivia: my DP2s exports out of SPP default to 180 ppi in the EXIF. So a 'straight print' at that comes out at 9.8x14.7" for what that's worth.

The Foveon pixels mean you get better print clarity at larger sizes than the numbers suggest. Sigma's claimed resolution for their sensors is pretty bang on in my experience, so essentially it could be printed at sizes to match a 15mp bayer sensor.