Sigma DP2 Merrill Experiences

[maxgruzen]

Hello Max,

Do you mean using the both key in the same time, to go in diagonal or just the keys alone ?

@ Larkis >> damn beautiful shoots.

For Cats amateurs :

 

Hello Huylss, Well I was just trying to use them one at a time. Up,left. etc. Nothing happens, except the screen blinks. Tried holding command key and arrow, etc, with no luck. I should just click on the color wheel center and the arrows should work.....correct?

[Hulyss]

Hello Huylss, Well I was just trying to use them one at a time. Up,left. etc. Nothing happens, except the screen blinks. Tried holding command key and arrow, etc, with no luck. I should just click on the color wheel center and the arrows should work.....correct?

Hello Max,

Yes exactly. You click with your mouse in the color wheel then, if planets are correctly aligned where you live, arrows of your keyboard should work.
Do not expect it to be quick, it go blink by blink. If it doesn't work, try with another keyboard. If it really doesn't work, maybe its a problem on mac SPP version BUT I ask ppl who have MAC SPP version to try it before sending any support case to SIGMA.

It work perfectly nice on my windows computer.   

[Trevor Murgatroyd]

In his review, MR states "the DP1M and DP2M are limited in print size to what one would get from a 24-28MP camera; let's call it about an 20X30" print".

Assuming a good print would require about 300 ppi, then 20X30" would need 6000x9000 pixels, but the DP2M cameras only have 3136x4704, which at 300ppi would seem to support a print of approximately 10X15" only.

I am interested in buying one of these cameras, partly to allow me to make larger prints, so I would appreciate if anyone could explain this apparent contradiction - am I missing something?

Many thanks

Trevor

[Rand47]

In his review, MR states "the DP1M and DP2M are limited in print size to what one would get from a 24-28MP camera; let's call it about an 20X30" print".

Assuming a good print would require about 300 ppi, then 20X30" would need 6000x9000 pixels, but the DP2M cameras only have 3136x4704, which at 300ppi would seem to support a print of approximately 10X15" only.

I am interested in buying one of these cameras, partly to allow me to make larger prints, so I would appreciate if anyone could explain this apparent contradiction - am I missing something?

Many thanks

Trevor

Trevor,

I'm certainly not "the expert" here by any means and hopefully one of the real experts will jump in.  But, in my workflow printing via Lightroom 4.x the upressing is done "on the fly" by the LR print module.  And as a practical matter the quality of the DP Merrill files is so very good in terms of detail rendering and sharpness, that making 20x30" prints is well within their capability - assuming of course that you have a good capture to begin with.  In the LR tutorials from LULA, Jeff Schewe recommends (for Epson printers such as I have) that one send 360 to the printer from the print module.  If the "native resolution" is below that, I just check the box for 360.  If it is well above that (for smaller prints, obviously), he recommends sending 720.  

I used to think that just the "number of pixels" (per given dimension of print - native) was the majority of the story in terms of print detail and sharpness.   The DP Merrill has changed my mind about that.  For instance, sometimes my DP2M files print larger with more detail than my Sony A900 files.  (Actually kinda bums me out, to be honest.)

Quentin Bargate discusses upressing his DP2M files in this very thread, and also here:  http://www.getdpi.com/forum/other-cameras/39705-sigma-dp2-merrill-shots.html

If you'd like a RAW to 16 bit tiff (out of Sigma software) file to test with, I'd be glad to provide you a link to download one of my original test shots.  Just send me a PM.

Rand

[Trevor Murgatroyd]

Thanks Rand

I had seen Jeff make the recommendation you mention, and it has also become my practice but I did not think it could be used to uprez by a factor of x2. I would like to get the file you offer and will PM you as soon as I figure out how to do that.

Thanks for the link to Quentin's discussion. I did look at the file he uprezzed 200% and to be honest I was disappointed with the result, however he did say he could probably do better, and it was a jpeg.

I need to try this for myself before I buy the cameras, and your file will help me do that - much appreciated.

Regards

Trevor

[Sauza]

Hello community,
today the AML-2 has arrived and I'd like to show you what this little glass is capable of in combination with the DP2M.

[Rand47]

Thanks Rand

I had seen Jeff make the recommendation you mention, and it has also become my practice but I did not think it could be used to uprez by a factor of x2. I would like to get the file you offer and will PM you as soon as I figure out how to do that.

Thanks for the link to Quentin's discussion. I did look at the file he uprezzed 200% and to be honest I was disappointed with the result, however he did say he could probably do better, and it was a jpeg.

I need to try this for myself before I buy the cameras, and your file will help me do that - much appreciated.

Regards

Trevor

PM and email sent w/ links for three tiff files.

Rand

[Hulyss]

Hello guys,

About printing with DP2 Merrill (and all other Merrill devices) just have a look at this video, I already posted it I think, but here we go

https://www.thecamerastore.com/blog/2012/12/22/sigma-dp-1-2-merrill-field-test-nick-devlin

[Pete_G]

It's a good video but looking at the downloaded jpegs of their comparison with the D800, which they feel has a slight edge over the DP2M, I'm not so sure...certainly the Merrill is more contrasty, so maybe that's it.

[nandadevieast]

[Rob C]

Attractive photograph; well projected mood.

Rob C

[kgelner]

If you want to see some commentary on a number of 30x48" Sigma SD-1 prints a friend and I made as part of an un-official "Sigma Large Print Tour", there's a great writeup here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/03/the-great-sigma-bigprint-national-tour.html

That's larger than most people will generally print, we just wanted to see how far we could push the images and still get good results.  Prints ranging up to that size are very doable, especially from the DP cameras which have generally very sharp lenses (only the sharpest lenses really looked good at that size).

[Quentin]

Diagonal girls (its all in the lines)

[Hulyss]

Hallo Quentin, WB on the topic And nice models by the way

Sand print :

[Quentin]

Models I can work with, Hulyss.  . Not too temperamental.

White balance is all over the place in that image, but I have another iteration where I have modified it slightly.  What intrigued me about the shot is the diagonal line that appears to run through the front mannequin's head at the line of the fringe, and across the whole frame.  A confluence of natural phenomena.

Now, about print size, which Trevor and others have mentioned

We need to bear in mind that doubling the size  ( i.e. doubling the dimensions, not the pixel count) gives you a near 60mp image which is fairly extreme, being 4 times the pixel count.  With a little effort it is possible to get great results at that size, and in my view significantly better than you could achieve from a 24mp camera.   Moreover the quality will extend to the edges of the frame, which cannot be said of many DSLR lenses.   But Lets not get too carried away because there is only so much data in even a DP2M file and a 4 x pixel count enlargement is a lot.

The DP2m also excels with panos

Quentin

[Hulyss]

Models I can work with, Hulyss.  . Not too temperamental.

White balance is all over the place in that image, but I have another iteration where I have modified it slightly.  What intrigued me about the shot is the diagonal line that appears to run through the front mannequin's head at the line of the fringe, and across the whole frame.  A confluence of natural phenomena.

Now, about print size, which Trevor and others have mentioned

We need to bear in mind that doubling the size  ( i.e. doubling the dimensions, not the pixel count) gives you a near 60mp image which is fairly extreme, being 4 times the pixel count.  With a little effort it is possible to get great results at that size, and in my view significantly better than you could achieve from a 24mp camera.   Moreover the quality will extend to the edges of the frame, which cannot be said of many DSLR lenses.   But Lets not get too carried away because there is only so much data in even a DP2M file and a 4 x pixel count enlargement is a lot.

The DP2m also excels with panos

Quentin

I see it now you say it ! Yes you was at the right place at the right moment.

About printing you are right. This is even simpler when we let the printer doing the interpolation job (If some of you have good printer, just have a try you might love it).

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Quentin, I hope you will keep posting your images for us.  Like Hulyss, it took the explanation for me to see the diagonal line, and once one has seen it, you wonder how it didn't jump out at you in the first place.  I am sure you are taking some pleasure at the number of views this thread has gotten and continues.  It was your intial posting that caused me to add the DP2M to my other "tools" and now that is the one I want to take everywhere.  Absolutely outstanding results and sweet gorgeous prints.  --Barbara

[tom w]

I have been delighted with the DP2m which I have had for about a month. But, when working on some images from a recent outing I noticed 2 spots on an image with a lot of cloudless sky in the frame. These were easily repaired with the spot healing brush but were disconcerting nonetheless. Anyone else notice this problem in your camera?

[Rob C]

White balance is all over the place in that image, but I have another iteration where I have modified it slightly.  What intrigued me about the shot is the diagonal line that appears to run through the front mannequin's head at the line of the fringe, and across the whole frame.  A confluence of natural phenomena.

Quentin

But Quentin, you miss the point of the image by raising that point: it doesn't matter a damn what the white balance 'should be'; it's the total effec that matters, and the total effect is bloody good! Stuff 'correct' balances every time if they only serve to meet some theoretical ideal.

Rob C

[Adam L]

Quentin, I can't help but notice that blur in the lower right corner.  What is causing this?