rybolt
Well-known
Here's the test protocol: ASA 200, the 18mm f2 lens on the Fuji.
Aperture Priority f8 shutter speed of 1.6 seconds on each camera.
No post processing. Jpegs opened in CC and resized to 1000 pixels wide.
The first two shots are the fuji at 25% and 100%. The second two shots are the DP1M at the same magnifications. The Fuji picture was slightly brighter than the Sigma probably due to a little more advanced metering system. The Sigma image is sharper at 100% which is what I expected.
Comparing these two is fun but not really relevant. They cover two entirely different uses.
and the Sigma
Aperture Priority f8 shutter speed of 1.6 seconds on each camera.
No post processing. Jpegs opened in CC and resized to 1000 pixels wide.
The first two shots are the fuji at 25% and 100%. The second two shots are the DP1M at the same magnifications. The Fuji picture was slightly brighter than the Sigma probably due to a little more advanced metering system. The Sigma image is sharper at 100% which is what I expected.
Comparing these two is fun but not really relevant. They cover two entirely different uses.
and the Sigma
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Of course we know that not only are the two cameras clearly different in respect to specific usage, but each will internally process its jpegs differently. So it's more of "this is the internal jpeg that comes out of brand x camera versus the internal jpeg that comes out of brand y camera" since both have their own 'voodoo' going on internally.
How about a raw file that you processed to the best of your ability as an exercise as to which camera produces the 'best' looking file that the lens and sensor is capable of producing (which then would also mean equally skilled post processing to both; aside from a different raw developer for the Sigma... or do both in Iridient)
How about a raw file that you processed to the best of your ability as an exercise as to which camera produces the 'best' looking file that the lens and sensor is capable of producing (which then would also mean equally skilled post processing to both; aside from a different raw developer for the Sigma... or do both in Iridient)
GaryLH
Veteran
No comparison between the sigma raw vs jpg. U will c a significant difference. Foveon is always going to produce better results so long as u keep the iso no greater than 400 for color and around 1600 for b&w.
Gary
Gary
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
The foveon sensor is produces wonderful images. Now if Sigma could do something about high iso problems, slow write speed problems, power hog eating batteries problems, and being able to swap lenses on a body the size of the x-pro1 problem. Then we'd have an interesting race. :-0
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Then we'd have a camera that 'everyone' wanted and us foveon fans wouldn't feel so special!
btgc
Veteran
Then we'd have a camera that 'everyone' wanted and us foveon fans wouldn't feel so special!
Nah, shots-per-charge number still requires strong spirit of us, sigmophiles
Sparrow
Veteran
... some problems are actually challenges, I've been impressed by those sigmas ... the first modern camera to make me think of giving digital a try
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Then we'd have a camera that 'everyone' wanted and us foveon fans wouldn't feel so special!
I'm with you there, Keith. Now that 'everyone' has a Fuji X-something, I'm thinking about moving on to Foveon.
By the way, I've been enjoying looking at the SD-1M images you've been posting. I assume you've said somewhere here, but I'm too lazy to hunt for it... Can you tell me what lenses you're using with the SD-1M? For example what lens did you use for the two recent b&w images you posted (an isolated chair in the landscape, and some grass-like plants). Thanks.
YYV_146
Well-known
rybolt
Well-known
I'm done testing. I now have all three cameras and my feeling is that they are equal to the best medium format film cameras when used properly. The asa issues, the slow AF and write speeds are all part of the price you pay for the high image quality. This was a DP2M-asa 100-F16 10 seconds. Processed in SPP and saved as a 16 bit tif. Converted to a jpeg in CC and saved at 2000 pixels wide.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I'm done testing. I now have all three cameras and my feeling is that they are equal to the best medium format film cameras when used properly. The asa issues, the slow AF and write speeds are all part of the price you pay for the high image quality. This was a DP2M-asa 100-F16 10 seconds. Processed in SPP and saved as a 16 bit tif. Converted to a jpeg in CC and saved at 2000 pixels wide.
Wow! 10 second exposure and it looks like zero noise... SWEET!