Will the DP 1/2/3 merrill resolve more detail than my Canon 6D + TS-E 24 II?

[Rand47]

+1  I love my DP2 & 3.  I also shoot a900s w/ Sony-Zeiss glass. The Sony is much more flexible as a system, but the Merrills are magic "detail-monsters" within their limited range of functionality.  As said above, I also find myself photographing things I normally might not, just to see the detail in the files and prints. It is almost like "another way of seeing things."

Rand

[powerslave12r]

Your curiosity is not at all unusual. I was one of many so afflicted when I read (I am paraphrasing this) Reid Reviews describing the images from these cameras as being etched with a razor, and I believe (going from memory), he said they were the most detailed images he has even seen from a small camera. These comments made me look to see if Michael had tested them, and his report was the catalyst to pursing these discussion forums. I saw the same images you’ve seen, so I rented the DP2M and DP3M from Lens Rentals. The very first thing I did after indulging my curiosity with a few snapshots, was to shoot the same things with my D800E and the Merrills just to see how the little Sigmas compared. The D800E Tifs are over 200 MB, and the detail is incredible, but I’d be hard pressed to say there is any signifiant quality difference between the detail recorded by these very different cameras. In one of the reviews I read, the reviewer said you had to approach the use of the little Merrills the way you would medium format cameras. Having spent a lot of time with view cameras and medium format film cameras, I understood what he was saying. The obvious difference is the size and weight. I hike with the dogs every day except in the summer when it is too hot. Carrying the DP2M and DP3M on one of these hikes was a real treat. I’ll take the D3s when I have to photograph action, and the D800E when I don’t need a high fps rate, but if I was traveling and planning to shoot scenics, the Merrills would be my choice of cameras because they combine light weight with incredible image quality. If I knew I would be taking photos at night or in low light (I try not to use anything higher that ISO400 with the Merrills - and that is not the limitation for me that it seems to be for some others) - I’d look into the Sony RX1/R to use in those situations. The last thing that occurs to me to tell you is the detail and image quality is such I find myself photographing things I wouldn’t even consider with the Nikons, just so I can look at the images later.

If you are undecided, rent one or two of them - I discovered I used the DP3M around two thirds of the time I had it and the DP2M rental cameras. You will almost certainly discover all the images you see are representative of what you find in your own photos from the Merrills. You’ll surely see comments grumbling about the software, but I have yet to see anyone say the images are anything other than superlative.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sigma_dp3_review.shtml

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

Thank you billh for confirming what I've been suspecting for so long. I do look at them as film cameras but better, limited exposures, slow processing of film, no fancy electronics, but when it comes to image quality, absolutely delivers. I think Nick Devlin mentioned this in one of the videos with 'TheCameraStoreTV' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3VjyHQiqdE)

+1  I love my DP2 & 3.  I also shoot a900s w/ Sony-Zeiss glass. The Sony is much more flexible as a system, but the Merrills are magic "detail-monsters" within their limited range of functionality.  As said above, I also find myself photographing things I normally might not, just to see the detail in the files and prints. It is almost like "another way of seeing things."

Rand

I am really tempted by the DP2M at this point.

Thank you for all your insights about these little monsters.

Life would be so much easier if they were priced $499 or lower. At $800 I'm tempted to consider the x100s (it's much costlier than $800 but might as well etc.) even though I fully understand both those are very different cameras.

[chichornio]

I make print for customers as a business. I also print my own pictures from my Dp2m (I had a Dp2s before). I wouldn`t call the files as a 3Ds...but once you print one of the foveon´s, you´ll notice the difference between a right print (from some other cameras) an a beatiful print. It´s something that can´t be put in words...that´s the magic of the foveon sensor. An in the case of the Dp Merrils, you can make big prints!

[rljones]

I own all of the cameras discussed in the OP, including the 24II TSE lens, and feel that the DP2M, when rotated at the entrance pupil and stitched, will out-resolve a 3 panel shift with the 6D, in certainly a much smaller package. But obviously, the 24II TSE is much more versatile as is the 6D body (in terms of using other lenses).

The DP1M is a little soft in the corners, while the DP2M and DP3M are sharp across the entire frame and thus lend themselves to precise stitching. [In case you're interested, my measurements show the entrance pupils (aka nodal point), when focused at distance, at 38mm (DP1M), 32mm (DP2M), and 36mm (DP3M), as measured from the center of the tripod mount on the base of the camera. I've seen a few variations of these numbers on the net, so some disagreement in interpretation, I suppose.]

While this site won't specifically answer the 24II portion of the OP, it does describe in detail the resolution of both systems (use Google translate).

6D: http://www.optyczne.pl/207.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_6D_Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87.html

DP1M: http://www.optyczne.pl/227.4-Test_aparatu-Sigma_DP1_Merrill_Optyka.html
DP2M: http://www.optyczne.pl/228.4-Test_aparatu-Sigma_DP2_Merrill_Optyka.html
DP3M: http://www.optyczne.pl/230.4-Test_aparatu-Sigma_DP3_Merrill_Optyka.html

[powerslave12r]

I own all of the cameras discussed in the OP, including the 24II TSE lens, and feel that the DP2M, when rotated at the entrance pupil and stitched, will out-resolve a 3 panel shift with the 6D, in certainly a much smaller package. But obviously, the 24II TSE is much more versatile as is the 6D body (in terms of using other lenses).

The DP1M is a little soft in the corners, while the DP2M and DP3M are sharp across the entire frame and thus lend themselves to precise stitching. [In case you're interested, my measurements show the entrance pupils (aka nodal point), when focused at distance, at 38mm (DP1M), 32mm (DP2M), and 36mm (DP3M), as measured from the center of the tripod mount on the base of the camera. I've seen a few variations of these numbers on the net, so some disagreement in interpretation, I suppose.]

While this site won't specifically answer the 24II portion of the OP, it does describe in detail the resolution of both systems (use Google translate).

6D: http://www.optyczne.pl/207.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_6D_Rozdzielczo%C5%9B%C4%87.html

DP1M: http://www.optyczne.pl/227.4-Test_aparatu-Sigma_DP1_Merrill_Optyka.html
DP2M: http://www.optyczne.pl/228.4-Test_aparatu-Sigma_DP2_Merrill_Optyka.html
DP3M: http://www.optyczne.pl/230.4-Test_aparatu-Sigma_DP3_Merrill_Optyka.html

Thanks for that information! I almost ordered the DP2M last night, and I'll be going through the details in your post soon. I have a feeling I'm going to end up with a DP2M.

[powerslave12r]

I have one question.

I understand the DP2M is sharpest at f/4 - f/8. I'm obsessed with infinite depth of field. And the TS-E 24 II works excellent for this purpose. In theory, this should also work with the DP2M using the hyperfocal focusing right, so I don't have to go beyond f/8. How easy is it to do this on the DP2M?

Thanks!

[powerslave12r]

I bought the DP2M just to satiate my curiosity. It's going to be a fun comparison.

[allegretto]

going to DC and will be taking a lot of pics.

already have an RX-1 and am getting a DP3M. I'm leaving the Nikon and heavy glass at home.

Expect the Sigma to be a bit sharper than the already stunning RX-1, but would buy an RX-2 with a fixed 75mm if it was available and be done. But it's sunny in DC this time of year so the DP3 should be in heaven taking building and detail pics...

[powerslave12r]

going to DC and will be taking a lot of pics.

already have an RX-1 and am getting a DP3M. I'm leaving the Nikon and heavy glass at home.

Expect the Sigma to be a bit sharper than the already stunning RX-1, but would buy an RX-2 with a fixed 75mm if it was available and be done. But it's sunny in DC this time of year so the DP3 should be in heaven taking building and detail pics...

I may have taken your picture inadvertently walking around in DC yesterday with my DP2m.

So far I am blown away by this camera. Didn't carry my 6d. Just this guy.  Cant wait ro open thw photos on the computer.

[allegretto]

Got my DP-3 yesterday.......  OM(F)G!!!

I really thought the RX-1 was killer. Actually it still is

But when I take pics with the DP-3 and the RX-1 and correct for distance... no contest, I mean none. My wife can see it immediately

The Sony is still better built and far more versatile, but this is un-real.

[Deardorff]

It is a good question and one I would expect an easy answer to.

Some of us still shoot 5x7 to 12x20 film so we can contact print for the quality it gives us.

Most of the cameras on the market, film or digital, will do a nice job for many purposes. Small differences are what help us choose one over the other. Nothing wrong with ultimate image quality being a deciding factor.

I find it puzzling that this type of question is not asked more often as it seems to me that ultimate image quality is more important than anything else much of the time. Format, subject matter and final image size requirements help with the decision, but wanting the highest image quality possible taking those into account mkes sense.