Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I've just been reading my latest copy of UK mag. 'Black and White Photography', and another revue of the Sigma DP1. This latest report is quite favourable, compared to several others I've seen, and I am quite attracted by this little camera. Apart from complaints about write speed, focussing errors, and one or two other 'niggles', there seems to be the question of weather it really is a 14mp. sensor, or not. I think that in the new year, and a DP2 model iminent, prices will drop considerably, making it more attractive, - so I, for one, will probably wait to see what happens. Meanwhile, to you folks that allready have one, - ...are you happy?...regrets?, and is that image quallity as good as most would have us believe?. To me the biggest issue in digital imaging, is the ever-present problem of dynamic range, - or lack of it! that probably keeps me from making a total switch. Anyway, it would be nice to see a few more pictures posted from the DP1, and some honest user opinions.
Cheers, Dave.
Cheers, Dave.
runny
Established
It is very good - but...
It is very good - but...
Well, it really is a very good camera when measured by the photos that (finally) come out of the RAW processor. In fact it stands up against about anything in the market. Where it loses out is the experience in getting those photos in the first place. It is a nightmare to use for anything except well prepared and composed shots. Now, from my point of view, I think much of it is not due to the sensor (it is NOT 14mp, the files are not that resolution), but more due to the fabulous lens stuck on the front...
David
It is very good - but...
Well, it really is a very good camera when measured by the photos that (finally) come out of the RAW processor. In fact it stands up against about anything in the market. Where it loses out is the experience in getting those photos in the first place. It is a nightmare to use for anything except well prepared and composed shots. Now, from my point of view, I think much of it is not due to the sensor (it is NOT 14mp, the files are not that resolution), but more due to the fabulous lens stuck on the front...
David
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Has anyone heard anything about the release date for the DP2?
AJShepherd
Well-known
Write times can be slow, but depend largely on the performance of the memory card, so it's worth getting the fastest memory card you can, as it does make a difference.
It's not a quick point & shoot. It has flaws.
But I've had some nice results from it.
The DP-2's main difference is the 40mm (equivalent) lens, and wider aperture, as far as I know.
It's not a quick point & shoot. It has flaws.
But I've had some nice results from it.
The DP-2's main difference is the 40mm (equivalent) lens, and wider aperture, as far as I know.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
The review I mentioned speaks of-'film-like'..and subtle tonality and colours, shots like this seem to confirm that.....very nice!Write times can be slow, but depend largely on the performance of the memory card, so it's worth getting the fastest memory card you can, as it does make a difference.
It's not a quick point & shoot. It has flaws.
But I've had some nice results from it.
The DP-2's main difference is the 40mm (equivalent) lens, and wider aperture, as far as I know.
Dave.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I have used the DP1 for quite a lot of work recently i like the files but the operation and handling are slow and the LCD screen quite useless - in fact i prefer to use the Ricoh GV-2 Viewfinder . I still think that the Sandisk Extreme III 2GB SD cards are a bit faster than the higher capacity 4 and 8GB cards in the same series. I have the Sigma close up lens which is very useful but again slows things right down. I also have Richard Franiec's Grip which does greatly improve the handling. The files are very rich, the SPP RAW converter is slow on my Mac G4 Powerbook but i like what it does.
I think the DP2 might be an interesting camera but unless it has the speed of the GRD2 i'd stick with what i have.
My work tends to vary as do the required focus distances which in practical terms end up defining the choice of camera - for close up i prefer the GRD2, for landscape when traveling very light i like the DP1, The M8.2 covers everything else i need if it has to be digital. Otherwise it's all film.
I think the DP2 might be an interesting camera but unless it has the speed of the GRD2 i'd stick with what i have.
My work tends to vary as do the required focus distances which in practical terms end up defining the choice of camera - for close up i prefer the GRD2, for landscape when traveling very light i like the DP1, The M8.2 covers everything else i need if it has to be digital. Otherwise it's all film.
Last edited by a moderator:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Deeply, deeply flawed camera that can be a pain to use. But the images--specifically, the low-ISO images in good light--are simply amazing. The lens is superb, and when Foveon's good, it's really wonderful.
tensai
Established
Exactly my feelings.
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I think the DP1 is destined to become one of those "love to hate" cameras. For specific purposes it certainly delivers the goods due to the lens and sensor size but for 'quick' work i find myself selecting the GRD2. The irony is that when i'm working on the GRD2 files i wish they had the flexibility of the DP1's. Sadly for me one camera and lens has never fitted all my shooting criteria.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
mmmm........most of what I do these days, is candid stuff around the 'street' and city center, this might not be an ideal tool, then?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Actually, I love the DP1 as a street camera. You switch to manual, then scale focus, and can shoot from the hip. I've gotten lots of good street pics this way:
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Yes the scale focus wheel works very well but it's the time to write the RAW file that is its biggest drawback for me (even though you can fire off one other frame whilst it writes), the second is its min focus which i think is 0.3m. Perhaps not such an issue if one is street shooting.
But i have surprised myself how in recent work i've often homed in on small details of subjects (even though initially i was shooting something with a longer view) which negates anything in the 0.7-0.3m range of camera's (in my case: the M8.2 and DP1) hence the more frequent use of the GRD2.
But i have surprised myself how in recent work i've often homed in on small details of subjects (even though initially i was shooting something with a longer view) which negates anything in the 0.7-0.3m range of camera's (in my case: the M8.2 and DP1) hence the more frequent use of the GRD2.
nksyoon
Well-known
In terms of "real" resolution, tests I've read regard the Sigma Foveon resolution as being comparable to conventional Bayer 8mp sensors (eg. Canon 20D).
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Took a while to get over the 'clunky-ness' but now...i absolutely love it.
It's my go to camera for good light colours and B&W pushed to iso1600 + 3200.
Having used the recent Panasonic LX-3 (Son of M8 twin)...i prefer the output from DP1.
In some ways, i find my m8 and dp1 output to be far superior to my 5D - assuming you don't need HUGE size prints.
It's my go to camera for good light colours and B&W pushed to iso1600 + 3200.
Having used the recent Panasonic LX-3 (Son of M8 twin)...i prefer the output from DP1.
In some ways, i find my m8 and dp1 output to be far superior to my 5D - assuming you don't need HUGE size prints.
Last edited:
boy_lah
Discovering RF
As a street shooter....I just love the B&W tones and the dynamic range i get from this thing!
Pushed to iso1600...
Pushed to iso1600...
Last edited:
boy_lah
Discovering RF
For pushing to iso1600 and 3200 check out http://www.rytterfalk.com/category/high-iso/
johnwnyc
Member
I own a DP1. I've owned just about every digital point-n-shoot that laid claim to suitable for prosumers/professionals, and the DP1 has the best overall image quality by far. (The Ricoh GX series has the best interface by far IMHO. Bear in mind that this is all relative. It's still my opinion that ALL digital camera interfaces suck beans.)
A well-exposed Raw X3F file will exhibit little to no image aberrations, period, and there is little to no barrel distortion through all focus distances. It can be quite an amazing camera.
The camera's only drawback regarding image quality is its tendency to "magenta flare" in very contrasty situations. You can see an example of it in tunnel photo posted above by boy_lah:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/3096435856_0cfb85caa1.jpg
(Look at the middle left region of the image.)
Trouble is, for reasons already stated, the DP1 is a challenge to use, to put it mildly. There have been times when I've literally wanted to throw it to the ground and pulverize it to pieces.
I think that to many of us, part of photography is supposed to be about having fun making photographs and deriving pleasure out of using your tools. The Sigma DP1 reflects an almost diametrically opposed ethos. It takes most of the fun out of actually using a camera. Making pictures becomes a challenge, and not necessarily a good one, either. Whether or not this is worth it for the end result is completely dependent on the patience of the operator.
I don't have any regrets over the purchase because I still think that nothing comes close to its image quality (and yes, I have tried all the latest and greatest models) but I will happily leave this camera behind the moment a camera with a better interface and comparable image quality is released.
A well-exposed Raw X3F file will exhibit little to no image aberrations, period, and there is little to no barrel distortion through all focus distances. It can be quite an amazing camera.
The camera's only drawback regarding image quality is its tendency to "magenta flare" in very contrasty situations. You can see an example of it in tunnel photo posted above by boy_lah:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3284/3096435856_0cfb85caa1.jpg
(Look at the middle left region of the image.)
Trouble is, for reasons already stated, the DP1 is a challenge to use, to put it mildly. There have been times when I've literally wanted to throw it to the ground and pulverize it to pieces.
I think that to many of us, part of photography is supposed to be about having fun making photographs and deriving pleasure out of using your tools. The Sigma DP1 reflects an almost diametrically opposed ethos. It takes most of the fun out of actually using a camera. Making pictures becomes a challenge, and not necessarily a good one, either. Whether or not this is worth it for the end result is completely dependent on the patience of the operator.
I don't have any regrets over the purchase because I still think that nothing comes close to its image quality (and yes, I have tried all the latest and greatest models) but I will happily leave this camera behind the moment a camera with a better interface and comparable image quality is released.
FifthLeaf
amateur
Conventional sensors have separate red, green, and blue sensors laid out in a Bayer array, The Foveon has far fewer pixels than most all cameras out now, but each pixel holds information for all three colors. So Sigma multiplies the actual megapixel count by three (and this is where the debate over the true count comes in).
I haven't used a Foveon sensor camera, but from everything I've read it produces beautiful results. Is the number of megapixels really that important?
I haven't used a Foveon sensor camera, but from everything I've read it produces beautiful results. Is the number of megapixels really that important?
boy_lah
Discovering RF
My peronsal experience: lust initially then on purchase, dissapointment and frustration. But I slowly got over its limitation and now enjoy it for what it is. It's my go to camera for indoor crappy light B&W shots and of course, carry everywhere when the light is good.
- Image quality - easily compete (and IMHO beat) many crop d-slr (assuming u again, learn to process it's RAW file and also good light is available for good colour shots)
- High iso performance (in B&W) - nothing comes close - even 5D...so film like, the tones, and the grain you get with iso1600-3200 are fantastic. Other compacts often can't even manage decent iso400+. 5D's 3200 is no where as film like although it can do colour at those iso.
- Dynamic range - i like the foveon files far far better - i would even say to my 5D and m8. Foveon is quiet different.
- Sharpness - the files are very 'crisp' - i suspect foveon & super sharp lens are behind this. My dp1 + m8 files are far superior (to my eyes) to my 5D + L lens.
- 28mm - had to get used to this efov - but now i love it.
- Usability - nuf already said.
- Image quality - easily compete (and IMHO beat) many crop d-slr (assuming u again, learn to process it's RAW file and also good light is available for good colour shots)
- High iso performance (in B&W) - nothing comes close - even 5D...so film like, the tones, and the grain you get with iso1600-3200 are fantastic. Other compacts often can't even manage decent iso400+. 5D's 3200 is no where as film like although it can do colour at those iso.
- Dynamic range - i like the foveon files far far better - i would even say to my 5D and m8. Foveon is quiet different.
- Sharpness - the files are very 'crisp' - i suspect foveon & super sharp lens are behind this. My dp1 + m8 files are far superior (to my eyes) to my 5D + L lens.
- 28mm - had to get used to this efov - but now i love it.
- Usability - nuf already said.
Last edited:
boy_lah
Discovering RF
Essentially, shoot iso800 underexposed by -2 stops then in the RAW convertor 'push' it by +2 stops - effectively making a iso3200. I posted this link earlier http://www.rytterfalk.com/category/high-iso/
I have not posted many of my own high iso shots yet - below are some taken iso1600.
But go to Carl's site and his results should give you a good idea.
Last edited: