DPMerrill real world comparison to A7r

N

noimmunity

scratch my niche
Local time
5:36 PM
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
3,102
Location
Lyon/Taipei
View My Gallery
http://www.the.me/japan-autumn-leaf-viewing-mount-fuji-the-sony-a7r-and-lots-of-legacy-lenses/

This blog post with photos covers a lot more ground than just the comparison with the DPMerills, including numerous examples of the A7r with wide legacy lenses in various mounts.

I expect that it is too early for definitive comparisons because of the raw conversion PP issues. One will remark right away the enormous color differences between the two cameras. The Merrill seems to win the resolution department, but that is less important to me most of the time than color, where I have a pronounced preference for the output from the Sigma over the Sony.

Significantly, the reviewer is not very keen on the new Zeiss 35/2.8 Sonnar for the A7/r series.
 
I must say, I prefer the colors of the Sony 😱
I didn't pixelpeep, but in general I preferred the look of the Sony pictures he showed to the Sigma ones. The Sony seems a wonderful camera and I'm tempted by it......
 
Addy101 said:
I must say, I prefer the colors of the Sony 😱
I didn't pixelpeep, but in general I preferred the look of the Sony pictures he showed to the Sigma ones. The Sony seems a wonderful camera and I'm tempted by it......
Click to expand...

Really? I really prefer the look of the Sigma; especially the second comparison of mount Fuji. The Sigma looks like film. Detail in the first photo is obviously another strength of the Sigma.

Is the Sigma also showing better dynamic range, or is this a post-processing issue?
 
I followed that link expecting to see something amazing in detail and sharpness but none of the images look better than I get from my Sony R1's 10MP files. Very strange.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
I followed that link expecting to see something amazing in detail and sharpness but none of the images look better than I get from my Sony R1's 10MP files. Very strange.
Click to expand...

My feelings too.
Based on those examples I wouldn`t be buying either.
Incidentally the DP Merrills have had a price drop in the UK.
Now attracting a £150 cash back and retailing for £650.
 
I do not like the way files have been processed here , they all look pretty much the same , muted colors - and they lack fine details, I have never seen digital camera doing better then Foveon sensor in terms of color , if they could only make them in 35 mm size. To to see how good Foveon is check Sigma's website for sample images.
 
MikeAUS said:
If you take photos of still leaves and such in good light the Sigma is great, but it's not a camera that can be used for much ...
Click to expand...

I have to agree. When it gets it right, the results are fantastic, but only in certain light with certain subjects. I keep finding that a CMOS sensor is the best overall solution for me.
 
MikeAUS said:
it's not a camera that can be used for much ...
Click to expand...

I use them as dedicated landscape cameras. And I use them a lot. In fact, I'll be using them again next week on a trek through the High Atlas in Morocco.

For me they are better than anything else I've tried when "better" is defined by the relation between IQ and portability. Better than Velvia, that's for sure. And better than any other compact.
 
Yes, the examples were poor, but I think the results were what I expected. I have been barking that the Sigmas trump the a7 kin for weeks. You could buy a Merrill of choice, a bunch of cards and batteries, and take a nice getaway trip instead of an a7r. That said, I actually did like the a7 with the OM 21 in the article.
 
jsrockit said:
I have to agree. When it gets it right, the results are fantastic, but only in certain light with certain subjects. I keep finding that a CMOS sensor is the best overall solution for me.
Click to expand...

I use the camera for low-light and street-style photography all the time. It can produce amazing files no matter what, it just take a little more effort. And the results are a bit more film-like, imo.
 
Is it only me, or is it something wrong with my display? The WB seems to be way too cold on most of the images provided.

If I want to see camera in the real world, taken pictures I'm taking - Flickr.
I only check reviews for technical data and charts tests.
Flickr with thousands of users gives me the picture.
So far, some of the pictures from Sigma sensor gives me the wow factor, from Sony ... So far - none. Honestly, it is close to disappointment, just another NEX thing...
 
Samouraï said:
Really? I really prefer the look of the Sigma; especially the second comparison of mount Fuji. The Sigma looks like film. Detail in the first photo is obviously another strength of the Sigma.

Is the Sigma also showing better dynamic range, or is this a post-processing issue?
Click to expand...
Yes, again looked at them and still think so. But part of it might be the difference between full frame and APS-C? Even on these small pictures I find the Sony pictures have more depth and warmth. The problem with the Mount Fuji picture is that with the Sigma framing my view is drawn to the city, while with the Sony I simply move from trees to mount Fuji and back, while hardly noticing the city....

Using Sony A900 and Sony Nex F3 cameras, I'm used to the look of Sony cameras, that may influence my view.

I expected more from the Sigma, maybe these pictures don't do the Foveon sensor justice, but do show the strength of Sony sensors - but we already knew Sony makes some great sensors 😎
 
Thanks for the link Jon.

I actually think they both look pretty good. I agree though that the white balance is not quite same between the shots from dp Merrill and the Sony a7..

I have never found web posted shots showing the level of detail that is possible w/ the dp Merrill cameras. The converted jpgs do not do it justice compared to the tiff16 files. When I double clicked to get the bigger image it downloaded way to fast for either camera. This can actually be said about both cameras in terms of what u are seeing on the web images.

The comparison between the two is not equal. The iso on the Sony is below 200, but the one on the sigma is above 300. Thus the shutter speeds and fstops are different. The best shots from either cameras are going to be seen at base iso.

Gary
 
Foveon sensors will produce more life-like colors given the perfect circumstances. That's just the nature of the technology. All of us Foveon users (and ex-) will acknowledge this wholeheartedly and fight to the death. All things being unequal though; we have less light this part of the year and i'd rather be able to slap my Nokton 35/1.2 on the A7R and actually use it instead of saying to myself "These colors would be great if I had a tripod, remote release and etc."
 
Addy101 said:
Even on these small pictures I find the Sony pictures have more depth and warmth. The problem with the Mount Fuji picture is that with the Sigma framing my view is drawn to the city, while with the Sony I simply move from trees to mount Fuji and back, while hardly noticing the city....
Click to expand...

While most of your comments that I have read before are easily understandable and well-thought I out, I don't what you mean by depth.

If it refers to color, the Sony images look like a Velvia-simulation in some LR plugin. One of the things that is really cool about Foveon color on the Sigma is that it captures both dull and lively colors with equal 'presence' in the same frame.

On the other hand, if depth refers to resolution and microcontrast, it sounds like your comments about the city would suggest a marked advantage for the Sigma. I did pay attention to the city, and I thought how muddy it looks in the Sony image. Then my gaze travelled over to Mt. Fuji, and the difference was compelling. The Sony is hazy placeholder on the horizon, the Sigma is living breathing mountain that towers over and away from the city.

To tell the truth, when I first opened the website, I thought for sure that the Sigma image, which has higher resolution, finer detail, and to my eyes better color, was from the the Sony (such was the hype around that camera's 36mp sensor).
 
jsrockit said:
I have to agree. When it gets it right, the results are fantastic, but only in certain light with certain subjects. I keep finding that a CMOS sensor is the best overall solution for me.
Click to expand...

If your photographic style and the type of shots u take matches up w/ the sigma cameras they can be a great tool in your bag... I like to shoot too many types of shots to have the sigma be my only camera. But right now it is around 35-40 percent. Some months it was as high close to 70%, if I remember correctly.

For tonal quality, detail and color, I currently like the sigma cameras the best. The Fuji next and the Ricoh cameras next of the cameras I have.

Gary
 
They are more tempting at that reduced price.
Had a play with a DP2 non Merrill and loved the output.
My criticism was levelled at the way the results were portrayed in the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom