Ahmad Bhai
Well-Known Member
I think mostly with Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 & Sigma Photo Pro 3.5
Dug these out just for Foveon discussion.
Square crop on the first ?
Just Four B&w From Sigma Sd9
- Thread starter Ahmad Bhai
- Start date
I think mostly with Sigma 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 & Sigma Photo Pro 3.5
Dug these out just for Foveon discussion.
Square crop on the first ?
Andrew Cotterill
Well-Known Member
Those are fantastic. I think you're right about the square crop, although there is something about large areas of inky blackness in a photo that I like, it focusses the eye on the subject if you don't want to crowd the image.
I also really like the 3rd one, great composition and looks a tricky shot the get the exposure right on. I don't think I've ever seen anyone shoot the sunlight coming through/under a door like that before. I'd try something similar myself if I ever got that much sun (we've just this second had hailstones and thunder).
I also really like the 3rd one, great composition and looks a tricky shot the get the exposure right on. I don't think I've ever seen anyone shoot the sunlight coming through/under a door like that before. I'd try something similar myself if I ever got that much sun (we've just this second had hailstones and thunder).
Brian Moore
Moderator
Lovely images, Ahmad. The flower and the light under the door are especially appealing.
I had asked @Pete Askew and @Julian de'Courcy a question about the DP1 in a different discussion but my question must have got buried because neither responded. I realized later I should have included you in the question so I'll do so now: The Sigma DP cameras clearly have their limitations. Would it be fair to say that the limitations one accepts when shooting with a DP1 or DP2 (slow, poor high ISO performance, AF difficulties in low light, etc.) are not unlike the kinds of limitations one accepts when shooting with an older semi-automatic film camera?
I had asked @Pete Askew and @Julian de'Courcy a question about the DP1 in a different discussion but my question must have got buried because neither responded. I realized later I should have included you in the question so I'll do so now: The Sigma DP cameras clearly have their limitations. Would it be fair to say that the limitations one accepts when shooting with a DP1 or DP2 (slow, poor high ISO performance, AF difficulties in low light, etc.) are not unlike the kinds of limitations one accepts when shooting with an older semi-automatic film camera?
Lesley Jones
Otherwise know as Zooey
Oh Ahmad... these are absolutely stunning - and in your unique style as ever 
Pete Askew
Admin
Lovely stuff Ahmad and shows what the Sigma is capable of. Definitely square for the first although I too like black safe in this sort of image. The light through the door is stunning.
Pete Askew
Admin
Sorry @Brian Moore, I missed that question. Yes, you are probably pretty close with that analogy. I only have experience with the DP3 Merrill (although I have the DP2 but have yet to use it!
) but the limitation with ISO, poor AF (I have yet to play with the MF) and the need for an extra step in processing is pretty analogous. But the output is very film-like and capable of amazing resolution and delicacy. As I said elsewhere, they are terrible everyday cameras but, for certain purposes, are capable of producing an output that s hard to reproduce another way.
Brian Moore
Moderator
Nae bother, @Pete Askew. I figured you missed my question as it was pretty deep inside the responses to the original post. Anyway,...thanks for your opinion on my question. I'm struggling with whether a DP would be too limiting for what I typically shoot. Which I think is to say I am something of a photographic cavalier, shooting anything that attracts my eye. With a film camera I'm shooting manual focus (or distance scale estimates) and usually either aperture-priority or full manual exposure. Sometimes I miss stuff I could have captured with a faster camera. But I accept that because I like film. And with film I shoot usually 400 or lower ISO. I expect to steady the camera with a pod of some kind (knee, table, wall, etc.) in low light. So would shooting a DP be so much different or off putting to me? (I'd be grateful too for any thoughts @ahmad bhai or @Julian de'Courcy may have should they care to respond.) Thanks again.Sorry @Brian Moore, I missed that question. Yes, you are probably pretty close with that analogy. I only have experience with the DP3 Merrill (although I have the DP2 but have yet to use it!
Ahmad Bhai
Well-Known Member
Thank you kindly Andrew, Brian, Lesley, Pete.
With the SD9 it was like developing a 12 roll, 24, 36 and perhaps 1 or 3 were alright. The satisfaction of getting that
one shot ...
Sigma Photo Pro can do recovery yet the SD9 had little leeway and is probably why one of my favourite digital cameras.
Brian, at least with a semi auto, film wind to next frame was quick.
Original DP series RAW is like 7-9 seconds even fastest cards (as the internal electronic write slow), and with just a three shot buffer.
(Shooting jpeg just doesn't bring out the best of Foveon).
...
With the light under door, I cannot say for certain how another of my faves from ten years ago Fuji S2, Nikon D1H, Kodak SLrc (all known for their film like look) would have rendered.
When Foveon calculates analogue to digital it does so with all colour info, Bayer with 1/3 colour info.
Thus subtle nuances of shades, gradients, bumps, creases are more held by Foveon, more averaged out by Bayer,
(which I must say given the large pixel counts these days Bayer are doing a fine job of detail).
Further, having a 3 layer sensor as film gives Foveon a more rounded look, whilst I feel Bayer's 1 layer can give it a more flat look.
This isn't evident in all photos, quite often not. However for the light under the door I feel it is evident in quite a few aspects.
With the SD9 it was like developing a 12 roll, 24, 36 and perhaps 1 or 3 were alright. The satisfaction of getting that
one shot ...
Sigma Photo Pro can do recovery yet the SD9 had little leeway and is probably why one of my favourite digital cameras.
Brian, at least with a semi auto, film wind to next frame was quick.
Original DP series RAW is like 7-9 seconds even fastest cards (as the internal electronic write slow), and with just a three shot buffer.
(Shooting jpeg just doesn't bring out the best of Foveon).
...
With the light under door, I cannot say for certain how another of my faves from ten years ago Fuji S2, Nikon D1H, Kodak SLrc (all known for their film like look) would have rendered.
When Foveon calculates analogue to digital it does so with all colour info, Bayer with 1/3 colour info.
Thus subtle nuances of shades, gradients, bumps, creases are more held by Foveon, more averaged out by Bayer,
(which I must say given the large pixel counts these days Bayer are doing a fine job of detail).
Further, having a 3 layer sensor as film gives Foveon a more rounded look, whilst I feel Bayer's 1 layer can give it a more flat look.
This isn't evident in all photos, quite often not. However for the light under the door I feel it is evident in quite a few aspects.
Last edited:
Brian Moore
Moderator
Thank you, Ahmad. 7-9 sec is slow. It's even slower than a manual wind camera, which is what I usually shoot with. What do you mean about the three shot buffer? Does it mean I can shoot three RAW images and then the camera will require 7-9 sec to process?
Ahmad Bhai
Well-Known Member
As original DP2 series is F2.8 & Foveon is fine for b&w even on iso3200 (original DP2 series), I think could get away with 1/125 1/250 for people in low light.
Ahmad Bhai
Well-Known Member
Brian welcome, from what i recall, taking three shots in RAW then waiting about 14-21 seconds for the three shots to be processed.
Pete Askew
Admin
I could image that a DP2 Merrill would suit you very well Brian and that you'd have no problems coping with its limitations.
Julian de'Courcy
Well-Known Member
The buffer on the Merrill's, will take 7 Raw shots . Like may things Brian knowing someone else's tolerances is not easy, but I think the camera would be fine for yourself. The DP2 would be easier because of the focal length,
and slow shutter speeds.
I have the canon G11 and that is not as fast as the DP3 in use on the street, even on quick mode. In fact it is not much slower than the Nex 5n which is a pain to use for anything fast.
I'd say the biggest problem is the processing, that would be my greatest concern.
and slow shutter speeds.
I have the canon G11 and that is not as fast as the DP3 in use on the street, even on quick mode. In fact it is not much slower than the Nex 5n which is a pain to use for anything fast.
I'd say the biggest problem is the processing, that would be my greatest concern.
Julian de'Courcy
Well-Known Member
Ahmad, like the set of images, specially the light under the door.
Brian Moore
Moderator
Thank you @Julian de'Courcy. Julian,...when you mention "the biggest problem is the processing," are you referring to the in-camera processing of the RAW images at the time of shooting, or are you referring to post-processing issues? Thanks again, Julian!
Julian de'Courcy
Well-Known Member
Processing at the computer, the software is very slow. I mean very very slow in today's standards. By looking on the web it does not appear to be a computer power issue in itself , rather there has not been a lot gone into the software development.
I will be getting the DP2 when the next price drop happens or cash back is on, so the DP3 has not put me off. That is purely by the image quality. I know it suits my type of photography.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Hi Ahmad. That door shot is superb, and lovely toning on all images. Good to have you contributing again.
Ahmad Bhai
Well-Known Member
Sigma Photo Pro when you move a slider, it thinks about it, scratches its chin, then looks out the window,
just when you are about to hurl some abuse, it smiles knowingly and changes the picture accordingly.
Brian Moore
Moderator
Thanks again, Julian!
