Which one is from Sigma DP1, and which one from M6

[LeicaFoReVer]

LeicaFoReVer & ashrafazlan,

Very interesting observations. So do you think (I'm assuming we are talking about RAW), DP1/2 enables you to think a bit like shooting negative films: can recover highlights (with good RAW developer), watch out for the bottom end, don't have to NAIL the exposure like slide film/typical digital? And has the tonality of scanned Tri-X?

I have not dealt with raw so far...Maybe someone who dealt can share the experience...I had troubles when I lock the exposure as I mentioned above...but when you dont overexpose you get a very good spectra of midtones to my experience...I still need to explore it...I liked the noise though so far! I will post more images.

It unfortunately has upto 800 iso capability...

 

[Pherdinand]

they are tiny. there's no way for any reasoning.

 

[ashrafazlan]

LeicaFoReVer & ashrafazlan,

Very interesting observations. So do you think (I'm assuming we are talking about RAW), DP1/2 enables you to think a bit like shooting negative films: can recover highlights (with good RAW developer), watch out for the bottom end, don't have to NAIL the exposure like slide film/typical digital? And has the tonality of scanned Tri-X?

Yes, highlight recovery is quite good (atleast better than my D700) and shadows can be opened up quite well if you use Sigma's X3 Fill Light feature in SPP. I wouldn't say the tonality is like Tri-X right out of the box but it gives you a lot of flexibility to tweak the photos into any kind of look you want because of how much data you get from the files. It's quite similar to Tri-X souped in diafine, where the midgreys seem to go on and on forever.

 

[coelacanth]

Yes, highlight recovery is quite good (atleast better than my D700) and shadows can be opened up quite well if you use Sigma's X3 Fill Light feature in SPP. I wouldn't say the tonality is like Tri-X right out of the box but it gives you a lot of flexibility to tweak the photos into any kind of look you want because of how much data you get from the files. It's quite similar to Tri-X souped in diafine, where the midgreys seem to go on and on forever.

You, sir, certainly know how to sell a camera. 😀 I know what you are saying. TriX's strength is not a certain look, but the extreme flexibility and tonality. If Foveon does even a bit of that (and you said hight light recovery is better than D700!), maybe I should give it a try... :angel:

 

[ashrafazlan]

If you're interested in the DP1, i'd wait for Sigma to release the new DP1X which will be considerably faster in terms of AF speed, operation and capture time compared to the previous DP1 and DP1s version. Let me know if you want any raw files from the DP1 to play with, I have plenty 🙂

 

[jan normandale]

Where is Magus to tell us the second is the M6, obviously- the zinc top-plate is a dead give-away.

is Magus even around here these days? I may have missed his posts if he is.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

wow I have lots to learn. I need to try RAW with Sigma software...

By the way I realized that I chose correct film to compare 🙂 I dont usually use tri-x. This was the first roll I used ever...

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

By the way I see that voting is still going on 🙂

well the answer is given just look at the previous posts...

 

[Soothsayerman]

Aye, I think the left is film.

 

[ramosa]

i'd say the left image is from the film M6 and the right image is from the digital DP1. the left image seems to have stronger grain, while the right image seems a bit "smoother" and more generic. that said, i suspect someone good in PP could make a DP1 image look grain and visa versa.

 

[filmfan]

I am surprised so many people guessed wrong, even considering how unrepresentative each sample is... Come on, really?

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

if you claim that they are not representative you should not be surprised by the wrong answers, am I missing something?

 

[filmfan]

if you claim that they are not representative you should not be surprised by the wrong answers, am I missing something?

I guess what I meant was that they are clear EVEN though they are unrepresentative.
However, it does show that most people [ :-( ] cannot see the difference between a good BW digital sensor and film (making this a worthwhile thread).
Don't let my username (filmfan) fool you, for I do appreciate the merits of digital and use a Ricoh digital point and shoot quite often.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Well I use dominantly film too but now enjoying the benefits of Sigma 🙂

I know the images posted are too small maybe that is the reason, however still the most people selected the correct answer...I have to post them in original sizes later on...Thanks

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

Here is the original size image from sigma:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28512365@N08/5034458131/

And the one from tri-x:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28512365@N08/5034485753/

well some people were saying film has more pronounced grain, of course as it is pushed to 1600iso whereas sigma is taken at 800 iso. Come on people, pixel peepers...

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

sigma noise vs tri-x grain
first 1:1 crop is tri-x @ 1600 iso
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5034531471_4c33cf1639_b.jpg

second is sigma at 800iso
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/5034531147_0332d311be_b.jpg

 

[Frank Petronio]

This is so f-ing stupid, my cell phone can look like my 8x10 online.

 

[Cron]

This is so f-ing stupid, my cell phone can look like my 8x10 online.

never seen such a comparison, so this really would be interesting to see 😎

 

[JayGannon]

I guess what I meant was that they are clear EVEN though they are unrepresentative.
However, it does show that most people [ :-( ] cannot see the difference between a good BW digital sensor and film (making this a worthwhile thread).
Don't let my username (filmfan) fool you, for I do appreciate the merits of digital and use a Ricoh digital point and shoot quite often.

I think it says more that a lot of people dont have a very critical eye.

 

[MIkhail]

Here is the original size image from sigma:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28512365@N08/5034458131/

And the one from tri-x:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28512365@N08/5034485753/

well some people were saying film has more pronounced grain, of course as it is pushed to 1600iso whereas sigma is taken at 800 iso. Come on people, pixel peepers...

That was my guess too. But here is one point: looking at small previews, even at computer screen size pictures, you can fool yourself and others relatively easily. As soon as you print it in decent size- it's all clear now, to even untrained eye. Digital is not film, never will be. It can be sharper, but it's not film.