CCC Forum

Decided to start this thread rather than clutter the 5-in-5 ones. It's probably worthy of it's own discussion anyway.

Reposting the link originally supplied by Mike - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3VjyHQiqdE

I'm intrigued by it. The images it produces are seemingly raved about in terms of sharpness and potential detail it can capture, in the circumstances where the camera can be used.

After doing much (too much?) research into it I've collated some pros and cons that people seem to agree on, as well as discussion points from around the web - in other words, common thoughts and opinions from others around the world. Maybe Mike can add some? What I'm particularly interested in is Mike's experiences with it, and why he bought it. While the quality might be good, in comparison with a proper camera like the 6D or D750 are the results good enough for what we do? In other words, does the DP2M win the pixel-peepling war but at the 50x40 max resolution used in club events (for example) - will the difference even be noticeable? Will club projectors have the specs necessary to make DPI differences visible? And by "quality", most reviews seem to say that the quality lies in the sharpness/details with several noted flaws in the colour rendition & WB. It makes me ask, if sharpness is a bourgeois concept (as someone famous once said), has this one trick pony lost the war before it starts? If the AF is as bad as people say, and the MF unusable, then the amount of sharp shots you might get is limited?

While the price & idea of the image quality is appealing, I'm finding the sheer number of flaws & limited shooting options could potentially outweigh the benefits... and if I'm never going to use/see the benefit then I have to ask... what's the point?

Pros
Excellent image quality, equivalent to D800e levels of sharpness/detail, in such a small bodied camera.
Relatively inexpensive

Cons
Can't be used beyond iso200 due to horrific noise
Diffraction effects hit at f8 and are very noticeable from f11 upward
Battery life is "woeful" (touted as 100 per battery, many report they get only 20 shots per battery. Average of maybe 60?)
Compatibility issues with non-Sigma flash (as in, they don't work mounted on the hotshoe)
SPP software is a pig
Slow AF, accuracy issues, MF commonly described as "unusable"
Purple colour balls/blotching shooting at f16 in a bright scene
Colour casts in blue skies at iso200 upward
White balance issues, particularly auto
Extremely slow to use - write speeds to card average 10s per photo with a small buffer
Lens max. aperture is a slow
Banding in B&W conversions in areas of similar/closely graded colour (skies, walls etc.)
Build quality is hit and miss - many have reported getting dust inside the camera (bizarre for a fixed lens camera)

I must admit that despite all the flaws I'm definitely interested. Landscapes were my first thought given how slow/clunky it is to use but that seems at odd with the focal length and the DP1M hasn't the same level of quality but does have the focal length. And considering how many photos I can take on one battery, while stitching is an option it cuts my total number of scenes by 2 or 3!

But what stops me ordering it now is the question whether the "quality" is worth it, and worth all the grief to try to attain - and whether the attainment of a device that can produce this quality will impact my photography in any kind of measurable way. For example, and please don't misinterpret this as criticism, but I've not seen any shot from you (Mike) that was noticeably different/better in terms of detail/sharpness/quality. Granted some of that might be the crazy low quality settings you post on the forum but I've seen plenty of your prints in person. The only reason I even knew you had a DP2M was seeing it on the exif data - a convincing argument for how exif info can be useful I've realised - but what else have you shot with it? Can you get filters for it?

I'd definitely be interested to see a shot that you've taken, ideally at full quality, that you think was only made possible because of the DP2M. And if you love it and wouldn't want to give it up, as you suggest, is this because of what it can potentially do or what it's actually done for you? I've not seen any downloadable image that made me think "wow" yet, but I'm still looking. e.g. this advertisment shot from Sigma's own website is extremely underwhelming - http://www.sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samp ... IM6992.jpg

I already have "enough" cameras - don't tell my wife that though - but I can't help but be intrigued by this!

Basically, I'm still sitting on the skeptic side of the fence but want you to convince me to join you!

Again, just to be clear, I'm asking some fairly difficult questions because $350 is money I could be putting towards a new lens rather than a new camera. I'd much rather hear "to be honest I don't use it as frequently as I'd like because of it's flaws but I enjoy the act of shooting with it more than I get useful results".

If that makes sense? For me I can count the number of "keepers" I've had from the X100S on one hand but that's because I'm not used to it. The camera isn't the problem. But even though I get far fewer keepers, using the X100S is awesome fun.

I'm kinda in the same boat as David (though without having seen much more than that video). I was originally considering the D810 because high quality landscape shots appeal to me, but in the end the D750 is more useful for what I currently do - and is most likely good enough (at least for now).

So a DP*M is potentially attractive, and some of its quirks I could deal with (particularly if only used as a companion camera), but at the same time it seems inexcusably bad for something sold as a finished commercial product.

Particularly on the software front - the latest Sigma Photo Pro software lists this as a "main feature":

It has corrected the phenomenon that folders do not appear properly in the ‘Computer’ section of the Main Window.

That is... well it's just not a bug that published software has. It's incomprehensible for this to be an issue, and there's plenty more unbelievable "phenomenon" being corrected. SPP cannot be developed by professional programmers for these types of flaws to exist.

Even if everything else in the camera was perfect, being required to use software this bad would make it a no-go. The nature of the bugs they have in version 6 software means I simply wouldn't trust having it on my machine; I've no faith it wouldn't inadvertantly delete all my files.


Sigma need to focus on producing a raw converter to output TIFF/DNG files. (Let those that know what they're doing handle the rest of it.)

They should also rebrand the cameras as tech demos of the sensors until they can resolve some of the issues - that kind of approach is probably far more likely to get people experimenting and giving them feedback on the key issues to solve.

For those who want to see what the DP2M can do, there is a massive thread on GetDPI. It's well worth a look if you have an interest in the camera.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/other-camer ... shots.html

I will respond to the other comments in this thread in due course.

Thanks, looking at some of the full resolution files made available for download from that site & sigma, at 100% I don't see the exceptional sharpness advertised. e.g. this one at 100% just looks blocky & blotchy to me?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format ... 0image.jpg

Viewing on my monitor, when I zoom to fit screen it doesn't seem different to a 6D shot and when zooming in, it looks blocky like a bad jpg conversion yet apparently the photographer says it's the highest quality and it's a 50mb file. Strange.

The ones from the Sigma website follow a similar pattern.

I think I need more sample images that compare it to a proper camera, side by side, to analyse further. Back to google I go!

OK, there are a lot of questions and issues here, so now at last I have a bit of time I'll respond individually to each post in this thread.

You do need to bear in mind that as I stated in the day 4 thread of the mono challenge, the DPxMs are far from being ideal cameras. That said, in the right conditions when everything comes together, they are capable of stunning images. Sigma optimistically claims that the Foveon sensor is equivalent to 46mp from a Bayer sensor, but the consensus is more like 28mp. What the figures do not show is how the sensor renders and I am seeing results from the camera with high acutance which are different to anything I get from anything else I own. Whether is different is better will be up to each to decide for themselves.

Youi should also bear in mind that these are last generation cameras, with both the DP1M and DP2M being superseded by the oddly shaped Quattro, which has more megapixels and uses a variation of the original Foveon design. There have long been rumours that both Canon and Sony will introduce multi-layer sensors and both companies hold patents. Sigma has suggested that their non appearance to date indicates the extent of the issues which a multi-layer design imposes due to the additional processing required, an explanation also for the poor battery life. Apparently there is not much room inside the DPxMs for all the circuitry, hence the smaller than ideal battery, and the odd shape of the Quattro is in part due to the need for as large a surface area as possible to dissipate heat from the camera's processor.

davidc wrote:While the quality might be good, in comparison with a proper camera like the 6D or D750 are the results good enough for what we do? In other words, does the DP2M win the pixel-peepling war but at the 50x40 max resolution used in club events (for example) - will the difference even be noticeable? Will club projectors have the specs necessary to make DPI differences visible? And by "quality", most reviews seem to say that the quality lies in the sharpness/details with several noted flaws in the colour rendition & WB. It makes me ask, if sharpness is a bourgeois concept (as someone famous once said), has this one trick pony lost the war before it starts? If the AF is as bad as people say, and the MF unusable, then the amount of sharp shots you might get is limited?

Possibly in a resolution war the Merrills will lose out to some of the cameras such as the Nikon D810 which are appearing. I would not expect any judge when looking at an image to say "Wow, this must have been shot with a DPxM/Leica/Nikon D810 etc." In a world when just under 9mp is sufficient to produce a 16"x20" print, just about any recent camera is overkill for most people's needs. You need to look at how the images are rendered and decide whether it is for you, but any differences will be subtle. I have said it before, but it is worth repeating, the camera is not unimportant in the image making process, but it is the least important component.

davidc wrote:
While the price & idea of the image quality is appealing, I'm finding the sheer number of flaws & limited shooting options could potentially outweigh the benefits... and if I'm never going to use/see the benefit then I have to ask... what's the point?

Pros
Excellent image quality, equivalent to D800e levels of sharpness/detail, in such a small bodied camera.
Relatively inexpensive

Cons
Can't be used beyond iso200 due to horrific noise
Diffraction effects hit at f8 and are very noticeable from f11 upward
Battery life is "woeful" (touted as 100 per battery, many report they get only 20 shots per battery. Average of maybe 60?)
Compatibility issues with non-Sigma flash (as in, they don't work mounted on the hotshoe)
SPP software is a pig
Slow AF, accuracy issues, MF commonly described as "unusable"
Purple colour balls/blotching shooting at f16 in a bright scene
Colour casts in blue skies at iso200 upward
White balance issues, particularly auto
Extremely slow to use - write speeds to card average 10s per photo with a small buffer
Lens max. aperture is a slow
Banding in B&W conversions in areas of similar/closely graded colour (skies, walls etc.)
Build quality is hit and miss - many have reported getting dust inside the camera (bizarre for a fixed lens camera)

This is a reasonable summary; much of it mirrors what I wrote in the day 4 mono thread and adds a few more issues for good measure. While AF is not quite as instant as most modern cameras, Sigma has done a lot with firmware upgrades to improve it to the point where it is quick enough for most purposes. Similarly, this is not a camera with which I would want to use a flash, so that is not an issue for me, but might trouble some. f/2.8 is fast enough for most purposes and the lens is sharp wide open, but this is not a camera for those who are into bokeh. I am not aware of the f/16 problem, but that is a non issue for me as I mainly shoot between f/2.8 and f/8.

If this were my only camera, I would be tearing out the remainder of what is left of my hair, but its performance is not actually much worse than what people had to contend with in the days of film. We have been spoiled by recent technological advances in digital.

davidc wrote:
I must admit that despite all the flaws I'm definitely interested. Landscapes were my first thought given how slow/clunky it is to use but that seems at odd with the focal length and the DP1M hasn't the same level of quality but does have the focal length. And considering how many photos I can take on one battery, while stitching is an option it cuts my total number of scenes by 2 or 3!

Buy more batteries. No respectable DPxMist would dream of leaving the house with at least four in their bag.

davidc wrote:But what stops me ordering it now is the question whether the "quality" is worth it, and worth all the grief to try to attain - and whether the attainment of a device that can produce this quality will impact my photography in any kind of measurable way. For example, and please don't misinterpret this as criticism, but I've not seen any shot from you (Mike) that was noticeably different/better in terms of detail/sharpness/quality. Granted some of that might be the crazy low quality settings you post on the forum but I've seen plenty of your prints in person. The only reason I even knew you had a DP2M was seeing it on the exif data - a convincing argument for how exif info can be useful I've realised - but what else have you shot with it? Can you get filters for it?

I'd definitely be interested to see a shot that you've taken, ideally at full quality, that you think was only made possible because of the DP2M. And if you love it and wouldn't want to give it up, as you suggest, is this because of what it can potentially do or what it's actually done for you? I've not seen any downloadable image that made me think "wow" yet, but I'm still looking. e.g. this advertisment shot from Sigma's own website is extremely underwhelming - http://www.sigma-dp.com/DP2Merrill/samp ... IM6992.jpg

I can only refer you to my comments made earlier about comparison with other cameras. Having owned the DP2M for just a few months, you will not have seen any prints I have made from it and I will admit that I bought it partly out of curiosity to see what a Foveon sensor can do. Although most of my shooting is with other cameras, the DP2M is small and compact enough to fit into my camera bag for when the occasion arises. For me, it was a worthwhile purchase, even if I have taken few shots which I deem worthy of publishing. That is partly down to me and partly due to the awkward post processing workflow. Every time I press the shutter, I know that I have made more work for myself. I'll put my current process into a separate thread.

That image from the Sigma website does not really show the camera to its best advantage, but I can see some of the image qualities which it makes available. Look at the detail in the buildings, for example. Maybe Sigma posted it to show the camera's versatility?

I am not exactly sure what you mean by the filter question, but it does have a 49mm filter thread and I would expect to be able to use the same type of filters which I use on my other digital cameras.

davidc wrote:
Basically, I'm still sitting on the skeptic side of the fence but want you to convince me to join you!

You will need to convince yourself. The camera suits my needs, but maybe not yours.

davidc wrote:Again, just to be clear, I'm asking some fairly difficult questions because $350 is money I could be putting towards a new lens rather than a new camera. I'd much rather hear "to be honest I don't use it as frequently as I'd like because of it's flaws but I enjoy the act of shooting with it more than I get useful results".

If that makes sense? For me I can count the number of "keepers" I've had from the X100S on one hand but that's because I'm not used to it. The camera isn't the problem. But even though I get far fewer keepers, using the X100S is awesome fun.

I think that I answered much of this in the previous post. I would rather have the DP2M than any of the Fujis, but then they are not cameras to which I have felt an affinity and come with their own set of issues. Last year I went through a stage when I tried really hard to like the Fuji cameras, the XE-2 especially, but it just did not happen. Others will feel differently, but I am not trying to convince anybody of anything here.

Peter Boughton wrote:I'm kinda in the same boat as David (though without having seen much more than that video). I was originally considering the D810 because high quality landscape shots appeal to me, but in the end the D750 is more useful for what I currently do - and is most likely good enough (at least for now).

So a DP*M is potentially attractive, and some of its quirks I could deal with (particularly if only used as a companion camera), but at the same time it seems inexcusably bad for something sold as a finished commercial product.

Particularly on the software front - the latest Sigma Photo Pro software lists this as a "main feature":

It has corrected the phenomenon that folders do not appear properly in the ‘Computer’ section of the Main Window.

That is... well it's just not a bug that published software has. It's incomprehensible for this to be an issue, and there's plenty more unbelievable "phenomenon" being corrected. SPP cannot be developed by professional programmers for these types of flaws to exist.

Even if everything else in the camera was perfect, being required to use software this bad would make it a no-go. The nature of the bugs they have in version 6 software means I simply wouldn't trust having it on my machine; I've no faith it wouldn't inadvertantly delete all my files.


Sigma need to focus on producing a raw converter to output TIFF/DNG files. (Let those that know what they're doing handle the rest of it.)

They should also rebrand the cameras as tech demos of the sensors until they can resolve some of the issues - that kind of approach is probably far more likely to get people experimenting and giving them feedback on the key issues to solve.

The Sigma software sucks. Period. The guys from LuLa spoke to Sigma about this at Photokina and told them that it is one of the biggest issues with the cameras. As you say, Sigma would really benefit by outsourcing software development to someone competent.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essay ... 2__3.shtml

While SPP 6.1 fixes the folders bug, its main feature is that it consolidates Raw conversion for all the Foveon cameras from the original DP2 onwards into a single application. It's still far removed from what I would prefer to use, but seems to work reasonably well. While SPP is not quick and has functional quirks, it has never caused the type of problem you describe and I have no issues about installing it on my machine.

SPP has always had the capability to produce (enormous) TIFF files, but I feel that a DNG option would be better, especially as it is unlikely there will ever be third party support from any of the main companies who produce Raw conversion applications.

davidc wrote:Thanks, looking at some of the full resolution files made available for download from that site & sigma, at 100% I don't see the exceptional sharpness advertised. e.g. this one at 100% just looks blocky & blotchy to me?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format ... 0image.jpg

Viewing on my monitor, when I zoom to fit screen it doesn't seem different to a 6D shot and when zooming in, it looks blocky like a bad jpg conversion yet apparently the photographer says it's the highest quality and it's a 50mb file. Strange.

The ones from the Sigma website follow a similar pattern.

Strange, I am seeing texture captured by the sensor rather than blockiness. You do know that it's essentially a brick wall image?

One possibility for the Foveon Merrill sensor is its use for black and white photography. Here's a post from Mike Johnston at "The Online Photographer". MJ did actually purchase a DP2M to try it out for mono, but since then has been diverted by a house move which, incredibly, was partly funded by readers of his blog. Whether the DP2M test will ever come to fruition is moot.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... rrill.html