giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Dear All,
did anyone have the chance to try both the old and the new one and give his/her recommendation? I am interested in the dp3 or/and dp2 as a product camera (mostly food photography). What I understood from what I read and saw in the Internet is that the old version is not as nicely built as the new one, that the new one is quicker than the old one when shooting but the new software is even slower than the old one (???) and that the new one produces slightly less detailed images but has crispier colors (well, at least out of the camera). To me the form factor is not really important because the smaller body would not really save a lot of space in the bag given the fact that I will have to go back to larger light units than what I am using now (I understand that iso100 is mandatory on both cameras), so really all what would matter is the IQ and how reliable each camera is. Having to suffer a bit less in post production would also be a bonus. Any comment or advice?
GLF
did anyone have the chance to try both the old and the new one and give his/her recommendation? I am interested in the dp3 or/and dp2 as a product camera (mostly food photography). What I understood from what I read and saw in the Internet is that the old version is not as nicely built as the new one, that the new one is quicker than the old one when shooting but the new software is even slower than the old one (???) and that the new one produces slightly less detailed images but has crispier colors (well, at least out of the camera). To me the form factor is not really important because the smaller body would not really save a lot of space in the bag given the fact that I will have to go back to larger light units than what I am using now (I understand that iso100 is mandatory on both cameras), so really all what would matter is the IQ and how reliable each camera is. Having to suffer a bit less in post production would also be a bonus. Any comment or advice?
GLF
GaryLH
Veteran
Quattro
Advantages
- jpg engine is so good, u only need to use raw on more difficult lighting situations
- high ISO is between 1-2 stops better (Merrill is about ISO 400 in color and 800 b&w w/o blue channel trick.. Whether at min. Is one stop better. Over a stop it is really your taste, so ymmv.
- af speed is better, almost twice as fast
- write to sd card better, but still nothing to write home about
- additional aspect ratio - 21:9 (pano)
- small raw is very good compared to Merrill. In fact comes closest to 1-1-1 Rgb
- has supposedly improved lens for dp1
- dp3 has a tele converter that makes the 75 for a 90
- dp0 only on the Quattro which is a 21 fov
Disadvantages
- tonal quality not as good
- much higher contrast
- different setup for exposure comp, where I would have done -1 I now do +1 instead
- large raw does not really do a 1-1-1 rgb but instead is doing 1-1-4, thus color may not be as true as Merrill.
- random blowing of highlights
- blue channel noise reduction trick not working w/ the Quattro. Use Merrill and so 5.x instead.
- bigger than Merrill
- sd card door is joke. It is a rubber flap on left side of camera.
It sounds like u are using it mainly in a controlled lighting situation where u can also use a tripod..unless u really need the higher ISO, I would go w/ Merrill for better tonal quality, less high contrast and better color since it is 1-1-1 rgb representation. However due to the poor jpg engine of the Merrill u will definitely need to use spp.
Really..the only reasons to go to Quattro is if u need
- faster af
- better high ISO
At cost of higher contrast and random blown highlights which I end up playing in spp 6.3 to recover to my needs when applicable. I still use my Merrill's as well.. The Foveon sensors cameras I really use mainly for monochrome, landscapes and detail shots like still life's or macros. I've got other cameras to handle the rest of my needs.
Gary
Advantages
- jpg engine is so good, u only need to use raw on more difficult lighting situations
- high ISO is between 1-2 stops better (Merrill is about ISO 400 in color and 800 b&w w/o blue channel trick.. Whether at min. Is one stop better. Over a stop it is really your taste, so ymmv.
- af speed is better, almost twice as fast
- write to sd card better, but still nothing to write home about
- additional aspect ratio - 21:9 (pano)
- small raw is very good compared to Merrill. In fact comes closest to 1-1-1 Rgb
- has supposedly improved lens for dp1
- dp3 has a tele converter that makes the 75 for a 90
- dp0 only on the Quattro which is a 21 fov
Disadvantages
- tonal quality not as good
- much higher contrast
- different setup for exposure comp, where I would have done -1 I now do +1 instead
- large raw does not really do a 1-1-1 rgb but instead is doing 1-1-4, thus color may not be as true as Merrill.
- random blowing of highlights
- blue channel noise reduction trick not working w/ the Quattro. Use Merrill and so 5.x instead.
- bigger than Merrill
- sd card door is joke. It is a rubber flap on left side of camera.
It sounds like u are using it mainly in a controlled lighting situation where u can also use a tripod..unless u really need the higher ISO, I would go w/ Merrill for better tonal quality, less high contrast and better color since it is 1-1-1 rgb representation. However due to the poor jpg engine of the Merrill u will definitely need to use spp.
Really..the only reasons to go to Quattro is if u need
- faster af
- better high ISO
At cost of higher contrast and random blown highlights which I end up playing in spp 6.3 to recover to my needs when applicable. I still use my Merrill's as well.. The Foveon sensors cameras I really use mainly for monochrome, landscapes and detail shots like still life's or macros. I've got other cameras to handle the rest of my needs.
Gary
burancap
Veteran
Gary knows these cameras better than anyone. Good commentary there.
What I would add is that (IMHO) the last of the original pre-Merrill cameras, the DP1x and the Dp2x are real sleepers. They are nice as they do not demand much overhead with their much smaller files. They will drop your jaw like nothing else for very little outlay nowadays.
What I would add is that (IMHO) the last of the original pre-Merrill cameras, the DP1x and the Dp2x are real sleepers. They are nice as they do not demand much overhead with their much smaller files. They will drop your jaw like nothing else for very little outlay nowadays.
GaryLH
Veteran
Forgot to mention.. Since the top layer of a Foveon sensor is the real resolution in respect to printing big... The Merrill is a 15mp in terms of print resolution while the Quattro is a 20mp (large raw). For example, when Sigma says this is a 45mp sensor on the Merrill, it is really IMHO saying that in terms of fine detail and color it is the equivelant of using a 45mp sensor. From what I have seen and reports I have read, I would say closers to equivelant of 40mp sensor. SPP has a output mode that doubles the resolution of the output. How much u like it, ymmv.
Basically, in terms of the old 230-300 ppi rule, the Merrill should be good for at least 13x19, but it is gonna blow away a 24 mp Bayer array camera in terms of fine detail and give a 36mp camera like the Sony a7r a run for its money. It will have better color and tonal quality then the Sony except in certain situations. I have seen comparisons where the Sony did slightly better and others where the Merrill won. In terms of printing big, the Sony will beat it unless u are happy w/ the spp resolution double output. Of course, the a7r is better than twice as expensive as any Merrill and u are not including a good fe mount lens yet.
Gary
Basically, in terms of the old 230-300 ppi rule, the Merrill should be good for at least 13x19, but it is gonna blow away a 24 mp Bayer array camera in terms of fine detail and give a 36mp camera like the Sony a7r a run for its money. It will have better color and tonal quality then the Sony except in certain situations. I have seen comparisons where the Sony did slightly better and others where the Merrill won. In terms of printing big, the Sony will beat it unless u are happy w/ the spp resolution double output. Of course, the a7r is better than twice as expensive as any Merrill and u are not including a good fe mount lens yet.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
Thanks Jeff
The pre-Merrill camera have a silky smoother look that both the Quattro and Merrill just don't have.
Gary
The pre-Merrill camera have a silky smoother look that both the Quattro and Merrill just don't have.
Gary
I made a 20x30" print from my DP2 Merrill and it did not show any signs of artifacts... it can hold up to up close inspection with a magnifying glass. Seriously... fine detail was perfect.
Larry H-L
Well-known
Curious on the methods folks are using to print larger sizes.
Are you printing at lower resolution from the original file, or rezzing up in LR / PS, or doubling the file size in SPP?
Are you printing at lower resolution from the original file, or rezzing up in LR / PS, or doubling the file size in SPP?
I sent it out at it native resolution as a TIFF. I didn't even uprez and it printed perfectly. I can't even stress how perfect the print was ... text that was way in the background of the image (that was smaller than 1mm) of the 20x30" print was prefectly readable without artifacts. AND this was wide open at 2.8.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Thank you for the input. So, I am still thinking but from what you wrote and what I already knew it seems I shall go with the old 1-1-1 SP3. Speed and all the rest is really not important because I shall be using the camera almost exclusively for food and small items (jewels) photography, on a table light, on a tripod with flashes, in other words in an environment which at the time of film was that of LF. As for comparisons with Sony, Nikon D810 and MF I am perfectly aware that there is always something which, at least in principle, could do better, print larger, whatever, but at half the price of any regular macro lens and at a fraction of a price of a Zeiss Otus lens, which seems to be becoming the standard in small format commercial photography these days, it is hard to do better. Maybe it will just become a second camera with little use, but even if this is so it will be nice to have such a light but still capable option in the arsenal. Most of the weight I carry around is not cameras but rather cardboards with fabric and other stuff to produce nice textures on which display objects, fake ice cubes, marbles to increment soup levels, reflectors...whatever, but it is nice to be able to have just a very light setup, like the Merrill, two flashes with triggers and one or two reflectors to take pictures of real restaurant servings and still get great images, especially now that most restaurants have really improved the presentation of their dishes to a level which almost does not requires makeup.
Once again thank you.
GLF
Once again thank you.
GLF
GaryLH
Veteran
Never tried it that big.. But have tried printing from the smaller raw files from Quattro before up to 13x19 and noticed I needed more ppi so I used spp to up res it. This is why I thought the large raw would also need some up res for bigger than 13x19. Good to know..even though I never have had a need to print that big.
Large raw files from both Merrill and Quattro I have printed up to 13x19 w/o problems.
Gary
Larry H-L
Well-known
Thanks Rockit and Gary. I don't do much large printing, but would like to try it once to see how the Merrill files look.
GaryLH
Veteran
GaryLH
Veteran
AWB not strongpoint
AWB not strongpoint
I just realized I forgot to mention AWB is not the Merrill or Quattro strong point. It can be fooled. If color is critical, don't use AWB.
Also extremely strong light can overpower the top color sensor and cause leakage to the colors below..example..could be reason we c slight magenta cast in pictures w/ a lot of sky...anyway just a guess on my part.
Gary
AWB not strongpoint
I just realized I forgot to mention AWB is not the Merrill or Quattro strong point. It can be fooled. If color is critical, don't use AWB.
Also extremely strong light can overpower the top color sensor and cause leakage to the colors below..example..could be reason we c slight magenta cast in pictures w/ a lot of sky...anyway just a guess on my part.
Gary