will TLR lens resolution beaten by DP2M?

[pb908]

i was watching some JPEG sample from DP2m (sigma DP2 merril for those who don't know) and wondering if this really beats MF result (6x6, 6x9) in term of sharpness/detail/resolution.

i google here and there and can't find any direct comparison with medium format film (same image capture with two different camera). maybe planar, sonnar, mamiya, tessar + the best film vs dp2m?

if dp2m really beats TLR best lens in term of resolution/detail/sharpness, i believe the price of DP2M can be justified.
a pocketable "MF" for $1000 !

any other opinion/review from direct user? please share your thought

 

[sevo]

i was watching some JPEG sample from DP2m (sigma DP2 merril for those who don't know) and wondering if this really beats MF result (6x6, 6x9) in term of sharpness/detail/resolution.

Will the latest Vespa Piaggio finally beat the Austin Mini Abarth in pizza delivery rate?

 

[ruby.monkey]

Given the existence of abominations like the Holga, one would have to say - yes.

For $1000, though, I'd wait for this sensor to be passed on to someone who knows how to make the rest of the camera.

 

[mfogiel]

If you put a repro film into a 6x9 technical camera, and you scan on a drum, you will get a resolution of about 216 MP in absolutely clean pixels., whch would be like 12 times the Leica Monochrome.
And - so what?
...

 

[pb908]

assume that most people can only buy one tlr, cheap film, flatbed scanner (which already reach $1000), what the comparison result will be?

I agree that picture is not all about sharpness/detail/resolution, but that's one of several reason that people are looking after in medium format.

Or maybe i am asking to wrong forum.

 

[jsrockit]

When people say the DP2m is similar to medium format it is because they are able to get prints with the DP2m that are medium format like in sharpness / resolution up to a certain size. It certainly isn't like medium format film in its dynamic range or depth of field. This is the review that started these claims about MF like qualities:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_dp2m_review.shtml

The lens is incredible on this camera... sharp corner to corner, edge to edge at most apertures (even wide open). This will help with resolution versus other cameras in its class. It IS the sharpest camera I have ever used... including the M9. The lens does have a little bit of barrel distortion though.

That said, it is not like medium format anymore than the Leica M9 with a great lens is like medium format... or the Nikon D800 and a great lens is like medium format. Then again: http://digital-photography-school.com/samples-from-two-40mp-cameras-shot-side-by-side

I believe larger sensor / film sizes have a certain look that small sensors cannot emulate in total. However, for $1000, the DP2m is a steal for those who can put up with all of its shortcomings and need/want its unique abilities.

And like aperture64 says... there is more to photography than sharpness and resolution. Content first, technical masturbation second. 😉

 

[btgc]

I like my DP1 pre-Merril because of how pictures look like not how much pixels there are. If I want look of film, I load film; if I'd like to access benefits of medium format, believe me, I'd use appropriate camera and film. When I want Foveon look, I use Sigma camera.

 

[thegman]

I'm sure the OP knows there is more to photography than resolution.

As for the question, hard to say, Ektar 100 in 35mm would appear to out-resolve a Canon 5DMk2:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html

And that's a 21MP camera. How much more resolution does the DP2M have than a 5D MkII, and how much more resolution does a decent medium format camera have than the same film in 35mm?

The answer would appear to favour medium format film, quite significantly, but only your own tests would make it conclusive really.

 

[v_roma]

Maybe not to most people in this forum (emphasis on maybe), which is gear oriented, but I think to most people in the real world.

Not to most people.

 

[mfogiel]

"I agree that picture is not all about sharpness/detail/resolution, but that's one of several reason that people are looking after in medium format.

Or maybe i am asking to wrong forum."

Medium format is resolution, but above all the tonal quality and a distinct "Look" given by usage of longer FL lenses.

I will hazard a guess, that you will normally not print bigger than 16x20, therefore, I believe that any 10MP camera will be able to make a decent print at that size, and therefore most likely other qualities of the camera you are talking about might be more important. This is why I am shrugging my shoulders if you talk about the resolution alone.

 

[dnk512]

There are several usually discussed, GAS focused, differences between the two DP2M and say rolleiflex. Examples:
Depth of field
Bokeh
Tonality
Sharpness
Contrast
Grain/noise
Even the coating of the lens will render contrast/tones differently.

But those are just part of the issue. Even if you could judge one 'better' than the other, not everyone will ever agree in all the above (subjective comparison for some).

But, here is the kicker for me. The two mediums are so *much* different on the 'process/handling' that makes the above 'differencies' nearly irrelevant.
From the way you load the film, and options on film, to the inverted view on the focus screen, to the size and portability, to the processing (wet or digital), and finally 'outputting/printing', the two systems are night and day.

This and only this should be your driving force for selecting one system or the other. The rest/most of ones energy should remain toward coming up with interesting/expressive photographs.

 

[Godfrey]

... The two mediums are so *much* different on the 'process/handling' that makes the above 'differencies' nearly irrelevant.

From the way you load the film, and options on film, to the inverted view on the focus screen, to the size and portability, to the processing (wet or digital), and finally 'outputting/printing', the two systems are night and day.

This and only this should be your driving force for selecting one system or the other. The rest/most of ones energy should remain toward coming up with interesting/expressive photographs.

Yes.

Pick equipment that sees the way you want to see, that works the way you want to work. There are few equivalences.

Then put all your energy into making quality images. Image quality is already a given and not worth wasting time fretting over.

G

 

[lam]

I like my DP1 pre-Merril because of how pictures look like not how much pixels there are. If I want look of film, I load film; if I'd like to access benefits of medium format, believe me, I'd use appropriate camera and film. When I want Foveon look, I use Sigma camera.

Yes this! Each camera/format has its look, use wisely.

Everything else is BLAHHH :bang:

 

[pb908]

"I agree that picture is not all about sharpness/detail/resolution, but that's one of several reason that people are looking after in medium format.

Or maybe i am asking to wrong forum."

Medium format is resolution, but above all the tonal quality and a distinct "Look" given by usage of longer FL lenses.

I will hazard a guess, that you will normally not print bigger than 16x20, therefore, I believe that any 10MP camera will be able to make a decent print at that size, and therefore most likely other qualities of the camera you are talking about might be more important. This is why I am shrugging my shoulders if you talk about the resolution alone.

again, i agree.
as one (or the biggest) advantage over dpm1/2m is the matching lens/sensor resolving power capability, that's why i was limiting the discussion on "resolution" only.

there are people going to MF as it give you quality (in term of resolution/shapness/detail) for bigger print, but then come DP1/2M which have the same benefit in smaller form. aren't you intrigued to know if (by resolution benefit only) DP1/2m can replace MF, well i did interest to see what other people may answer. whether i will/not buy dp2m, that's another different story as i was not asking of it.

 

[mfogiel]

Personally, I believe that for what I do, sometimes 35mm film with a fast lens wide open has already too much resolution. If I want resolution, I have Hasselblad SWC/M or CWD with lenses like 100/3.5 or 180/4. If I wanted to shoot colour, I would look for resolution from Nikon D800E with my Makro Planars. I believe, that these small digi cameras are nice for what they do best: sit in your pocket ready to do some casual snaps.

Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 PG wide open on film:

201212612 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[mrisney]

The short answer ?
No.

I see that the DP2M is sharp, and contrary to much of what I read on line you can get sharp in low light.
Check out RAW from the DP2M, exported to .tiff, in Sigma ProPhoto 5.4 pardon the pun, but yummy.

Sigma DP2 Merrill 1/80ƒ/3.2 ISO 200 30 mm

Image link to Flickr here.


So here is the thing, I get a camera, I have this arbitrary new camera jaunt around the neighborhood,
and I take pictures of cars parked in front of houses. Partly inspired by SF photographer

Dead Slow/ Christopher Hall

Really what I am doing (this is not an artistic statement), when I get a new camera, it's my way of seeing what it can do.
Here is a shot in the aforementioned style, subject matter with the Sigma DP2M.

Sigma DP2 Merrill, 30 mm 1/100ƒ/6.3 ISO 200

Here is the Flickr link

And here is one, similar subject matter, but obviously different lighting with Kodak Portra 160 and
my all time favorite the Mamiya 6 and the Mamiya Sekor 75mm, that could be considered
similar in perspective to that of the Sigma DP2M APC size 30mm lens.

Mamiya 6, 75mm Mamiya sekor, Kodak Portra 160


Again link to Flickr image here

And here is one with my Minolta Autocord, 75mm Rokkor, again Kodak Portra 160

Minolta Autocord, 75mm Rokkor, Kodak Portra 160

Link to Flickr here

Finally one more of this series, and this was the second day that I got my Autocord back from Karl Bryan

Minolta Autocord, 75mm Rokkor, Kodak Portra 160

Flickr link here.

As you can see the DP2M does not render the way medium format film does, maybe it comes close to medium format digital,
but since I am not fortunate to have access to a digital Pentax 645D or a Leaf digital back, this is the best I can come up with.

Yes the DP2M is sharp, in fact it may very well outperform 35mm film, and it beats my Canon 5D MKIII sensor against the few L lenses;
the 35mm 1.4L and my 24mm MKII 1.4L, that I have. But the Canon 5DMKIII has more versatile usage, and it's an all around performer,
although the bulk of a DSLR is something to consider.

I would put it in the category of strong 35mm sized, maybe even besting full frame.
But lets be honest, images that are from medium format film - that is another matter.

I am not leaving medium format analog just yet, but I do like my DP2M, so much so, that I am not sure there is a need to continue
with 35mm roll film, the DP2M may outperform it's film counterpart.
Yes - keep your Rolleiflex, your Mamiya C220/330, your Yashicamat, your Minolta Autocord 😉

 

[pb908]

...
As you can see the DP2M does not render the way Medium format film does, maybe it comes close to MF digital
but since I am not fortunate to have access to a digital Pentax 645D or a Leaf digital back, this is the best I can come up with.

Yes the DP2M is sharp, in fact it may very well outperform 35mm film and it beats my Canon 5D MKIII sensor with a few L lenses
the 35mm 1.4L and my 24mm 1.4L ).

I would put it in the category of a strong performer in the 35mm size category, maybe even full frame.
But lets be honest, images that are from medium format film - that is another matter.

I am not leaving medium format analog just yet, but I do like my DP2M, so much so, that I am not sure there is a need to continue
with 35mm roll film, the DP2M may outperform it's film counterpart.
Yes - keep your Rolleiflex, your Mamiya C220/330, your Yashicamat, your Minolta Autocord 😉

this is the answer i am looking for, from a real user.

yes i see some of your picture if the dp2m thread, i wonder what kind of scanner did you use to scan those great images.

Not all people with MF/TLR has the access to a good scanner (or good photolab), or want to spend time/effort to struggle with scanner at home.
What do you think of this aspect?
i believe dp2m give you extra benefit of being instant. well, maybe not if you take raw picture, but still the effort is lesser than to shoot film and get it scanned properly. i try to be neutral to dig the benefit of both side, for me and for other having the same question

maybe someone already ditching their MF camera as they read LL review 🙂

 

[Godfrey]

...
And here is one, similar subject matter, but obviously diferent lighting with Kodak Portra 160 and
my all time favorite the Mamiya 6 and the Mamiya Sekor 75mm, that is actually close the Sigma DP2M APS-C size 30mm

Mamiya 6, 75mm Mamiya sekor, Kodak Portra 160​

​

The DP2M vs medium format comparison is a yawn to me, but I love the cool Volvo P1800 in this photo ... 🙂

G

 

[one90guy]

I crashed at the one thousand cost, will keep using my tlrs.

 

[thegman]

I think the DP2M is a bargain for what it is, which is an extremely high resolution camera, which very nice colour rendition, and a spectacular lens, which goes in a pocket. If I used digital, I'd probably get one, but I don't, so I won't.