Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, i´ve found stunnig files made by the dp2 M...i´ll get me one in the next future...i´ve seen it handles broad day light just like a film camera...perhaps even better than my m9 (which i´ve to say it´s not the best when it comes to hard light)
Anothe thing is it´s high iso...people say it´s not good but can yu post high iso shots???
Pwerhaps it´s not good for colour shots, but in B/W it maybe different.
so please flks post some high iso shots!!!!
Thanks in advance!!!
Anothe thing is it´s high iso...people say it´s not good but can yu post high iso shots???
Pwerhaps it´s not good for colour shots, but in B/W it maybe different.
so please flks post some high iso shots!!!!
Thanks in advance!!!
GaryLH
Veteran
No shots to share but here are some comments from my own experiments.
First jpgs will never show as much details as raws to tiff16 files. The jpgs fall apart around iso 800, just ok at 400. By 1600 jpgs look like c**p.
Sigma noise algo is really very heavy handed. In sigma raw processor I tend to set all 3 noise settings to -2.
Tiff16 looks good to 400 in color and ok up to 800. Kind of a grey zone here. A lot depends on how picky u are. B&W conversion I tend to do in aperture from the tiff16. B&W is good up to 800, ok up to 1600. Past 1600 and it goes down hill fast.
Basically B&W can help by one stop, but a lot depends on how picky u are and the type of picture content, if u will get that extra stop or not.
Hope that helps
Gary
First jpgs will never show as much details as raws to tiff16 files. The jpgs fall apart around iso 800, just ok at 400. By 1600 jpgs look like c**p.
Sigma noise algo is really very heavy handed. In sigma raw processor I tend to set all 3 noise settings to -2.
Tiff16 looks good to 400 in color and ok up to 800. Kind of a grey zone here. A lot depends on how picky u are. B&W conversion I tend to do in aperture from the tiff16. B&W is good up to 800, ok up to 1600. Past 1600 and it goes down hill fast.
Basically B&W can help by one stop, but a lot depends on how picky u are and the type of picture content, if u will get that extra stop or not.
Hope that helps
Gary
Nobody will be posting many because the camera just is not worth using at higher ISOs. It is worse than the M8 which is 6 years old.
Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, thanks for your anwers
:O poorer high iso than the m8!!!!
If the cmaera looks like 3200 ilford film i´d be happy....of course i know this little beast works best in day light and that´s for what i intend it to use...
But of course High iso samples are welcome anyway!!!!
BTW in past years i used a lot a iii-f with an f3.5 elmar and i did a lot of my best pics that way i don´t mind at all using this camera at 2.8 and max 400 iso set.
OK!
:O poorer high iso than the m8!!!!
If the cmaera looks like 3200 ilford film i´d be happy....of course i know this little beast works best in day light and that´s for what i intend it to use...
But of course High iso samples are welcome anyway!!!!
BTW in past years i used a lot a iii-f with an f3.5 elmar and i did a lot of my best pics that way i don´t mind at all using this camera at 2.8 and max 400 iso set.
OK!
The problem is that at high ISOs, the DP2m shows significant banding and streaking... and in color, magenta and green streaks can show... especially if underexposed. Of course, you get lucky here and there with high ISO, but with other modern cameras, high ISO is almost fool proof (i.e. almost as easy as working with traditional low ISOs [asa]).
It's a wonderful camera if you use it within its boundaries. There is nothing like the detail from the Sigma at its size or at its price range.
It's a wonderful camera if you use it within its boundaries. There is nothing like the detail from the Sigma at its size or at its price range.