Once a product designer, always a product designer. Never mind that I established my design legacy in the arena of professional music software and hardware — my need to improve a product’s usability knows no boundaries.
So naturally (given my passion for BW photography), if a manufacturer misses a golden opportunity to produce a unique and affordable BW camera, an obsessive need to rectify the situation overwhelms me. Such was the case earlier this year, when Sigma announced their upcoming Quattro series of compact cameras. Looking at the Quattro’s specs and design dictates, I knew Sigma was zeroing in on a near-perfect camera for BW photographers — though I felt the addition of two specific features would help separate these photographers from their cash. Specifically, it’s my belief that Sigma needs to make the following software additions to the upcoming Quattro cameras:
1. Implement a user-selectable black & white raw format. This would have two significant benefits: First, it would allow photographers to implement a pure BW workflow — one in which files were never once rendered or viewed in color. Second, because the BW raw file would consist of a single layer of data, it would allow BW photographers to eliminate the extra workflow hassles of using Sigma Photo Pro software. Instead, BW raw files could be opened and edited directly within Lightroom, Aperture or whichever raw converter the photographer preferred.
2. Implement software-based contrast filters. By offering in-camera software-selectable contrast filters that emulate the use of traditional colored glass filters, photographers would be able to adjust a scene’s contrast before a photo is taken, rather than in post. These software-based filters would essentially alter the way the Foveon’s three layers are “mixed together” prior to writing the BW raw file, creating a “film like” BW shooting experience without necessitating the actual use of colored glass filters.
Rather than filing my email under “c” for “clown” (as many manufacturers have been known to do), Sigma actually responded — mentioning their intrigue with the suggestion, and asking if I’d like to borrow a DP3 to familiarize myself with Sigma’s unique Foveon sensor.
“Of course,” I answered. And a week later, the DP3 arrived at my front door for a two week loan.
While this might seem like plenty of time to familiarize oneself with a camera, there were a few factors that conspired against me: First, smack in the middle of my review period, I went on a 5-day trip that afforded me very little opportunity for photography. Next, I succumbed to a head cold that dampened both my energy and my enthusiasm for several days. Then, speaking of dampening, the two weeks also coincided with a significant stretch of typical Vancouver weather.
So my two week romp with the DP3 actually worked out to something more akin to a few days. But it was still long enough for me to form some rather potent impressions about both the camera and its Foveon sensor.
Part 1 and Part 2 of this series focussed extensively on the camera’s Foveon sensor — particularly on its unique capabilities for BW photography. Those two articles built a justification foundation for the two suggestions I submitted to Sigma.
Here, in Part 3, I’ll look specifically at the Sigma DP3 Merrill as a camera, rather than as a box that holds a Foveon sensor. As per my nature, I’ll also offer several other suggestions, which I believe would greatly improve the usability of future Sigma compact cameras.
A Semi-Organized Cacophony of Thoughts
I love cameras. All cameras. I believe there is no such thing as a bad camera — there are only bad matches between cameras and the photographers who operate them.
The Sigma DP3 and I were never meant to be a couple. We are not soul mates; we are not lovers; we’re not really even friends. Mostly, we’re like a pair of co-workers who have absolutely nothing in common — save for a moderate disdain for one another — but who must somehow coexist on a 2-week business trip. In other words, everything I’m about to write is a subjectively tainted observation of a photographer whose needs do not match the camera’s capabilities.
The single biggest reason for this mismatch is that I am a photographer of things that move. Sometimes the subject is moving. Sometimes it’s me that’s moving. Usually both of us are moving. Conversely, the Sigma DP3 is a camera that excels at photographing things that are stationary. If you primarily shoot landscapes, portraits, products or architecture, you’ll likely dismiss many of my observations as “irrelevant.” And you should — because if I possessed a broader photographic repertoire (or still had my job as the photographer for BC’s Provincial Parks), I would seriously consider owning a set of these cameras.
So with all requisite caveats out of the way, I present — in no significant order — a random collection of observations, recommendations, plaudits and complaints:
1. Autofocus is much slower than other current-generation mirrorless cameras. In good light the camera will, on average, focus in about 2 seconds. In dim light, look for something closer to 3 seconds. On paper, these values sound perfectly acceptable — unless you shoot things that move. In this case, both your subject and the context that surrounds it will have joined the annals of history long before the camera locks focus. Sigma has attempted to address this issue through a menu item, which lets you limit the distance through which the camera hunts for focus. This can speed things up a little bit, but it does require you to know that your subject will be within the specified distance limits — a non-issue for those shooting planned or static subjects, but a problem for a photographer who tends to dart in, out and around his subjects.
2. Speaking of mingling amongst subjects, another camera attribute I desire is inconspicuousness. In general, the Sigma does quite well in this category. It’s small(ish), black and unassuming. It allows you to disable all its various electronic beeps and burps. Its shutter is quiet, and its rear LCD can be disabled. That’s the good stuff. Unfortunately, when that rear LCD is off, a ring around the camera’s rather large power button pulses bright green. Having any large, bright and conspicuous light is bad enough — but having it pulse is like a beacon that draws people’s eye to the camera. I searched through Sigma’s menu items several times, hoping for a way to disable the Power button’s glowing light, but could find no such option.
3. Having just mentioned the LCD, this might be a good time to address the elephant in the room — this camera has no viewfinder. While it may be possible to blindly guess framing with a wide angle lens, the DP3’s 75mm (equivalent) demands that the photographer have some way to view and carefully frame his subject. Since I’m genetically unable to photograph with a camera held at arm’s length, I dug out my old Voigtlander 75mm optical finder and affixed it to the DP3. While this significantly improves the camera’s ergonomics, the solution is not without its own set of issues.
Focusing is one such issue, since with an optical viewfinder, there’s no way to see exactly what the camera chooses to focus on. As is my custom with every finder-less cameras, I “solved” this problem by first configuring the camera to use only the center focus point. Then I spent a bit of time “teaching” myself to know exactly where the center of the frame was when peering through the viewfinder. Through simple, rote practice, I’m able to train my eye to compensate for the vertical parallax that inevitably occurs whenever the focus distance changes.
Kudos go to Sigma for placing the hotshoe directly over the lens, so one needs only to compensate for vertical parallax, and not horizontal. And as long as I’m awarding kudos, I’ll award a second for Sigma’s placement of the focus confirmation LED, which sits atop the camera and is easily seen in one’s peripheral vision when peering through an optical viewfinder.
4. Getting back to the LCD, I should probably mention that images previewed on this screen are of relatively low quality. As such, the LCD is probably best used to verify that you got the shot, and not to judge an image’s focus, tonality, noise or color. Fortunately, as a Leica M9 shooter, I’m accustom to a quasi-useless LCD, and I rarely (if ever) chimp my shots.
5. If the lack of fidelity displayed by the LCD doesn’t convince you to stop chimping shots, the agonizingly long wait times will. Because, once you take a photo, you need to wait between 14 and 18 seconds before you can push the Play button and see the image on the LCD. Different levels of visual complexity seem to affect the wait time. If you’re the sort who takes a shot, then sometimes wants to verify that you got the shot, those 15 odd seconds might as well be an eternity — even for someone who shoots static subjects. But if you shoot things that move, the problem isn’t simply a case of boredom — it’s the fact that whatever scene you’re waiting to verify will be long gone should you realize you need a “do over.” Sure, you could simply take a second shot without bothering to verify that you need one, but wasting shots with the DP3 is not something you want to do. “Why not” you ask? Read on…
6. Throughout my time with the DP3, I averaged only about 24-25 shots per battery. In other words, each battery was basically the equivalent of a 24 exposure roll of film. Personally, I like shooting film. In fact, about 90% of last years’ shots were taken on one film camera or another. But here’s the deal: I shoot 36 exposure rolls, not 24. 24 exposures is simply not acceptable — at least not for a photographer who spends his precious few brain cells hunting for shots, rather than counting exposures. Plus, with film, you get a visible exposure counter to keep you abreast of how many shots remain. With the DP3, all you get is a tiny 3-bar battery indicator that’s of little real use. With so few exposures per battery, Murphy’s Law easily asserts itself: the battery always seems to be dead right when you’re presented with your best shot opportunity of the day.
Many reviewers have stated that they get about 70 shots on a charge, so I suspect my well-used demo camera came with a pair of equally well-used batteries. I know my paucity of shots per charge is definitely not due to any configuration issues. I set the LCD to economy mode, which turns off the LCD after a mere 10 seconds. I set the LCD’s brightness two-notches dimmer than its default value, insuring I couldn’t adequately see anything when trying to compose outdoors. I even set the Power Off time to 1 minute, but missed too many shots because the camera had turned itself off — so I reverted to the default setting of 5 minutes.
On one occurrence, I actually got 34 exposures from a single battery. I felt like a five year-old on Christmas morning! Alas, the extra juicy battery was but an anomaly. It’s great that Sigma ships the camera with two batteries, but if I owned this camera, I wouldn’t even think about leaving the house with less than 4 or 5 batteries in my pocket. Which brings up yet another problem…
7. … It takes 2 hours to charge a battery, and the charger handles only one battery at a time. Let’s do the math: If I shoot 5 batteries in a day, then it’ll take 10 hours to charge them all for the next day. That would require setting an alarm to wake me every two hours at night, so I could get up and swap batteries. Optionally, I could buy twice as many batteries as I need — meaning I could sleep through the night — but every waking moment would then be dedicated to swapping batteries out of the charger. A better solution is to purchase several additional chargers. The best solution would see Sigma selling a charger that handles multiple batteries simultaneously. Any way you slice it, batteries are an issue with this camera.
8. If the camera is turned off (which will be the case several times each day, since the battery drain issue necessitates very short auto-power off settings), it will take 2-3 seconds for the camera to power up and be ready to shoot. That’s a bit slower than today’s norm, but isn’t too bad if you’re shooting static subjects. Alas, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, I shoot things that move — if I have to wait three seconds for the camera to turn on, I’ve missed another shot.
9. Speaking of turning on the camera, I’d like the option of having it remember which menu item I used last. As it works now, powering the camera off and on causes it to default to the first menu page. I’d much prefer it remember the last setting so, for example, I wouldn’t have to scroll through a bunch of infrequently used menu items just to reach one that I use all the time, like “Format Card.”
10. Unlike many modern cameras, which have 1/4000s as their fastest shutter speed, the DP3 tops out at only 1/2000s. I’d be fine with this, except that you can only achieve this speed at f/5.6 or higher. From f/4 through f/5, the fastest speed drops to 1/1600s, and below f/4 the top shutter speed is a paltry 1/1250s. In other words, the more likely you are to need a faster shutter speed, the less likely Sigma is to give you one. Unless you want every photo to have expansive depth of field, you’ll need to rely on neutral density filters to shoot below f/4 on a semi-bright day. For this reason, I’d like to see Sigma include a built-in neutral density filter, much like Ricoh has done with their GR camera.
11. The model I tested, the DP3, is one of three nearly identical offerings in Sigma’s compact camera lineup. These three models are distinguished mostly by focal length. The DP3 sports a 75mm (equivalent) focal length; the DP2 has a 45mm (equivalent) focal length; and the DP1 clocks in at 28mm. Since the majority of my photography is on the wide side, I personally classify 50mm lenses as “telephotos.” 75mm might as well be a birding lens in my hands. Needless to say, a lot of my time with the DP3 was spent backing away from the subjects I wanted to photograph. Still, I enthusiastically applaud Sigma for releasing a range of compact cameras with varying focal lengths. It’s something I wish more manufacturers would do. I’m from the school that says “I’d rather carry multiple camera bodies with different focal lengths, than carry one body and have to swap lenses.” It’s the whole “shooting things that move” aspect — swapping lenses takes time — grabbing a body with the right lens attached takes far less. Personally, if I were to own an entire set of DP compact cameras, I’d probably use the 28mm model about 66% of the time, the 45mm variant around 33% of the time, and the 75mm DP3 for those 1% fringe cases. Your shot mix might be totally different.
12. Speaking of lenses, I feel the DP3’s f/2.8 aperture is a stop too slow for a camera that dedicates itself to 75mm photography. Many customers may wish to use this camera for portraiture and, though I don’t necessarily subscribe to the notion that “portraits = shallow depth-of-field,” that extra f-stop could be quite useful for anyone hoping to achieve this look. The issue is exacerbated further by the camera’s APS-C sized sensor, since obtaining a 75mm (equivalent) field-of-view means the camera actually uses a 50mm lens — and thus produces the deeper depth-of-field characteristics of that lens. All that said, the lens is already quite large, and I suspect an upgrade to f/2 would likely result in either a much larger lens or a more expensive camera (or both).
13. Writing about shallow depth-of-field leads handily into the next topic: bokeh. Bokeh rendering is a matter of taste, and thus purely subjective. Personally, I find the DP3’s to be particularly ragged and swirly when areas of high contrast are rendered out-of-focus. For a camera dedicated to 75mm photography, I would want and expect a smoother out-of-focus rendering. But that’s me and my own idiosyncrasies talking. Your photographic aesthetics are (very likely) quite different than mine.
14. Returning to focus issues for a moment, I want to touch on the camera’s manual focusing capabilities. Once again, as a photographer of things that move, I tend to rely heavily on manual focusing — if implemented correctly, it’s simply much faster (and sometimes more accurate) than relying on auto-focus. Alas, manual focus on the DP3 seems to be more of an afterthought than a feature.
One of my biggest issues with the DP3 (and many mirrorless cameras) is that setting a focus distance requires using the rear LCD. To set the focus distance, you need to turn the focus ring on the lens while squinting at the little distance scale on the rear LCD. Ergonomically, I find it quite cumbersome to hold a camera at arm’s length and rotate the lens — I would much prefer a focus dial somewhere on the camera body, which would enable me to set the focus distance with one hand (again, similar to the Ricoh GR). Actually, what I’d really like is a distance scale on the lens itself — that way I could quickly and easily zone focus, and not have to worry with the rear LCD at all. Of course, this has traditionally required a mechanically coupled focus ring, but there are ways around this. I’d suggest Sigma emulate Olympus’ clutch focus solution for its compact camera line. Since the DP3 possesses some quasi-pokey auto-focus times, it could be made much “speedier” if it just had a more thoughtful and useful implementation of manual focus.
15. My remaining issues relate to Sigma Photo Pro. I mentioned many of these in Part 2 — the instability of the software; its poorly developed UI; its intrusive addition of extra work into every digital photographer’s workflow. But there are a few other issues I’d like to address, as well:
First, Sigma’s file format and the software required to interpolate it, are both proprietary. This makes me instantly concerned about whether or not I’ll be able to access my images in the future. It’s never good to have the access to your photo library hang on the fate of a single company.
Second, one really needs to keep two versions of each photo on their hard drive. First, there’s the proprietary x3f file that the camera generates. Then there’s the TIF file that you’ll need to create using Sigma Photo Pro (which is necessary for working on your photos in Lightroom, Photoshop or any other industry-standard photo editor or filing program). You might think, once you convert an image from x3f to TIF, that you could throw away the x3f file. That would be a huge mistake. It’s always possible that Sigma will improve its raw conversion at some future date, or that you might want to re-interpret how you render a particular raw file. So, not only are x3f files much larger than standard raw files, but the need to retain both the TIF and X3f files means you’ll be making a significant investment in hard drives.
Wrap Up
It probably seems as if I’m being unduly harsh on the Sigma DP3, but the fundamental reason for this is actually one of positive intent: I like the look of the camera’s output so much, that I really want it to be a “better” camera (for me) than it actually is.
It’s important to note that, while I might have a significant number of complaints about this particular camera, I have very few complaints about Sigma’s Foveon sensor. Personally, what I need is better access to this sensor’s capabilities than what the DP3 provides.
Of course, I was aware of this long before Sigma lent me a DP3 — I know what my own peculiar needs are as a photographer, and I knew the current Sigma line would not be able to satisfy those needs. But what I didn’t know was just how seductive that Foveon sensor would be.
The bottom line is this: The files from the DP3 are so good that I’m almost willing to forgive Sigma for the sins of its camera, its firmware, and the Sigma Photo Pro software. And this says a lot about the Foveon sensor, because I really didn’t much care for the camera, its firmware or the Sigma Photo Pro software. Because the upcoming Quattro series will likely address several of my DP3 complaints, I’m now even more convinced that Sigma would be crazy to not implement my BW software suggestions. But then, anyone egotistical enough to maintain a photography blog all these years is bound to think such thoughts…
ABOUT THESE PHOTOS:
All photos were, of course, shot with a Sigma DP3 with its fixed, 75mm equivalent lens. They were rendered to TIF files in Sigma Photo Pro, using its Monochrome tab, then further processed in Lightroom and/or Photoshop. Because of both the 75mm lens and the camera’s rather deliberate handling dictates, you’ll notice a dearth of my signature “people” shots. Fortunately, the gentleman depicted in “Covert Pursuit (version 1)” was moving quite slowly and cautiously as he crept up on the tulips — allowing for one of the very few “candid” photos I managed to secure with the DP3.
If you find these photos enjoyable or the articles beneficial, please consider making a DONATION to this site’s continuing evolution. As you’ve likely realized, ULTRAsomething is not an aggregator site — serious time and effort go into developing the original content contained within these virtual walls.
Wish you luck getting any changes made by faceless imaging companies…
A friend took up “chemical” photography because he thought he would get results more quickly than making water colour paintings, it turned out that he was wrong…
There seems to be a widely held view that “digital” photography is quicker and more convenient than The old chemical system slowly evolved over 180 years. I think that you have proved that there is far more to this question than most people imagine…
Most think “photography” is now so much easier and convenient than before but this is because they use their phones usually much like their parents used their plastic non focusing instamatics and accept any result they get as close to a modern miracle. Only those of us who wish to have some form of conscious control over the medium are frustrated. All direct controls from the “obsolete” film cameras have been abandoned in favour of an infinite multitude of button and menu controlled choices which feel akin to using rubber handled brushes to make a painting.
I have boxes of archivaly stored negatives which could long out live me and are of a “universal” format but all my digital files were recently “rewritten” after upgrading the editing program to a newer version of the same program. This makes me feel that digital is very much a use now and delete process for most of us and little may remain from this generation which last year is said to have created 10% of all the photographic images made in nearly 200 years of it’s history.
A new generation now holds sway over the direction of photography and their sense of history seems to be minimal and their concerns for the majority who shall never have our concerns. In the past it would have been possible to modify an existing camera to give you the controls which you desire, no chance of that now…
The vast range of random interpretations of “B & W” from the chip contrast with the past where we were able to choose a predictable film which gave us the results we desired, so predictable that an exposure meter could be an optional extra! Perhaps I am more old fashioned than I thought, I like to visualise the result before making the exposure, not spend an age in front of a screen with an ache in my right wrist.
In my ignorance long ago I thought digital would make life easier. For example, all those stored negatives from 35mm to 7 inches across would be dropped onto a scanner one after the other and a few weeks later my whole catalogue would be there at the touch of a button. Was there ever a button on the scanner for “only ever use this setting because all the negatives are how I like them”? No, digital messed each one up individually… Digital messes us each up individually…
This post really comes across as a Luddite rant. Yes digital is not the same as film, does that make film better than digital? No, it makes it different. If you prefer film, do film, but don’t blame technological advances for your inability to adapt.
thanks for the extensive review/feedback on this camera; i am glad to see we came to the same overall conclusion.
amazing output – foveon can generate the best rendering i have seen so far from digital cameras – but overall a ‘difficult’ camera to ENJOY shooting with.
the lack of viefinder is unforgivable, and it is the main reason i keep getting rid of my DP cameras (i go back to them because the files are so good, i get rid of them because the shooting is no fun).
the other big issue for me was the gigantic size of the files and the non compatibility with LightRoom; i am seriously hoping Sigma will be addressin some of the main issues with the Quattor, which, on paper, seems to be the best Foveon camera of all.
Time will tell!
I agree with the article. I get 20 -30 shots per battery! That alone handicaps the use of this camera. I can live without a viewfinder, but in the sun the DP2’s screen is washed out. (I own a DP2). Because it is so hard to work with this camera in the sun, I use it for night photography. As stated above, the camera sucks, but that sensor is extra-ordinary! It renders so artistically, there’s so much detail/texture that it dictates to me what I should be shooting. Sport? Forget it. To me it says urban landscape. I have to comply, and I don’t mind being a slave to its forte when I get back home and look at those images at 100%. Man. Seductive. It is what I want to see. So I keep looking at those images over and over. That is what I want out of the final image. It is like looking at large format images. It is such a polar experience, to hate taking the photos and to love looking at the end result. It’s bizarre! Sigma lenses are also becoming more and more compelling, thus a non-fixed combo sounds like a better solution. I’m tempted, but…but…but.
I can’t really disagree with your analysis of the operational faults of the DP3 (which it shares with the DP2 and the DP1 that I use). But if, as you say above, cameras and photographers are engaged in an act of match-ups, then I one of those for whom the DP Merrills are a perfect match. From the day I got it, it pushed all my other gear to a top shelf to collect dust. I love shooting with this camera like I’ve never enjoyed any other. For whatever reason, in my hand, its shortcomings are mostly invisible. The more I use it the better I get at overcoming its shortcomings and exploiting its prodigious gifts. In an era when so much of the photographic discussion centers around trying to find “perfect” cameras, I can live with the tradeoff to get those beautiful files.
And to Caroline, regarding your comment above and your comment to Part 2, whatever personal experiences you have had regarding digital photography, please discontinue attempting to extend that disappointment to the rest of us. Cameras don’t give photographs soul, photographers do. Any suggestion that digital photographs, by definition, lacks soul is profoundly offensive to those of out there trying to make art with whatever tool we choose to use. I hear a similar strain of comments from some my gray-haired photographer friends (at 54 I’ve got more than my fair share of gray coming in too) and I am, quite frankly, sick of it. Passing judgment on things they can’t even be bother to learn more about. My younger photography friends care deeply about photography and art and are very interested in studying photography’s past. They look in awe at the work of Atget, Kertesz, Leiter, Haas, etc. and are inspired by it. They do good, emotional, soulful work with whatever camera they use. Your comments reveal only that you know far less about anything than you think you do.
Thanks, everyone, for the comments. Naturally they’ve prompted me to compose a few of my own:
Regarding Caroline’s comment about “faceless imaging companies:” there are those companies for which I’d see her cynicism and raise her two curmudgeons. I don’t believe Sigma is one of these companies. They are small. I *think* they are family owned. They have more limited resources and must therefore pick and choose their niches. If they were “faceless,” they would never have responded to my initial email to them. I genuinely believe Sigma listens to their customers or, in my case, “potential” customers.
I would never have undertaken such a thorough “dissection” of the DP3, the Foveon, or its BW capabilities and methodologies, if I thought Sigma was faceless. Rather, I think they’re small enough and engaged enough with their potential customer base to consider thoughtful suggestions. And this is why I didn’t just write a review saying, “this camera isn’t for me.” Instead, I wrote a review saying “here are a few things that could make this a camera for me, and others like me.”
Obviously, Sigma isn’t going to make a camera just for me. That’s a bit TOO niche — even for Sigma. However, as a street-wandering, BW photographer I think my needs and proclivities are rather similar to tens of thousands of other street-wandering BW photographers — and that might just be a big enough niche to engage Sigma in further dialog.
Obviously, Sigma is already actively addressing some of my specific issues with the DP3 (in their upcoming Quattro series), but I think they are currently less interested in the BW market. In my last correspondence with Sigma, they mentioned their belief that a BW raw file wasn’t necessary because photographers could achieve the same results by using Sigma Photo Pro software. Obviously, the bulk of this three part article is an attempt to show Sigma the error in this logic, and how important a “true” BW workflow is to many BW photographers.
The more Sigma hears a similar message from other photographers, the more likely they are to consider these suggestions. But even if Sigma chooses *not* to implement my BW raw suggestion, I don’t believe it means they are “faceless.” It only means they don’t believe there are enough people like me to justify the engineering effort. And if this is the case, then the fault is not Sigma’s — it’s mine for failing to rally enough like-minded photographers to join the chorus that could convince Sigma that they’re failing to effectively tap a potentially lucrative niche market in the ‘traditional’ BW photographer.
Gregor, I bought a Sigma dp2 Merrill a couple of weeks ago and have just found your blog as a result of my interest in b&w image making.
Some of the things you say puzzle me a little and I would welcome your further comment.
For instance, if we view the Foveon sensor as the digital equivalent of colour film there is no way we can avoid a conversion process if we want to merge data from all three layers into a single b&w image. There may be some convenience in doing the merging ‘in-camera’ so that a single RAW image can then be opened directly in Photoshop, but I can’t see any qualitative advantage in doing this. Indeed if merging is unavoidable it might as well be done outside the camera to allow greater control over the process.
Actually Sigma appear to acknowledge this since the camera I have just bought has an option to preview and save images in b&w, but the RAW b&w file still contains discrete rgb channels which can be tinkered with or converted back to full colour in PPS if desired. Evidently, the purpose of the in-camera b&w preview is that it (a) helps the photographer to visualise how his b&w print will look and (b) allows conventional filters to be used without tinting the image in the view-screen.
You explain that the top layer on the Fovean sensor is panchromatic (like the two layers below it). It strikes me, that given the relatively small market for b&w cameras, a cheap & cheerful but nevertheless effective approach to addressing the issues you have raised would be to create some RAW software that discards the information contained in the two lower layers altogether and simply extracts maximum panchromatic information from the top layer. A range of pre-sets might then be implemented to allow simulation of Tri-X and any number of other film/developer permutations. This approach would address your desire for a ‘pure’ process since colour conversion would be completely eliminated, file sizes would shrink without any loss of data and the effective speed of the sensor could be boosted without incurring the noise problem associated with the red layer.
Obviously there are technical reasons for not pursuing this path but as a mere rookie on Foveon sensors I can’t quite grasp what they are. Perhaps you can enlighten me?!
Andrew McIntyre.
Hi Egor,
Thanks for the long review about these DP merrill cameras. I just bought a DP2m to use it as a pure B&W digital camera. The main reason to chose this camera was its compact size, along with the quality of the produced images. I will see if I can cope with its defaults (battery life seems to be a real problem though).
As you stated, it would be a real pleasure to have a pure B&W workflow, to avoid being distracted by the color versions of the images. I do not mind that much having to use Sigma Photo Pro, because anyway I do not like to spend too much time in post-processing. Nevertheless some improvements on SPP itself would be appreciated 🙂
To my mind the possible improvements to the camera and SPP are in two categories
– practicality from a classical photography perspective: lack of viewfinder, battery life, pure B&W workflow, missing tools in SPP (curves!)
– modern AND useful functionalities: good quality in-camera raw processing (I really liked it on Pentax cameras, when you rapidly need a jpg from a raw), connectivity between camera and mobile phone (sometimes I want to share a picture with friends without waiting to connect the camera to the computer… the Leica T is really interesting for that), export for web/flickr functions in SPP
I’ll probably try to make a photo project with this camera, for example a 365 project (1 keeper pic per day). If I can cope with its shortcomings 😉
Well, I shoot b/w with raw+jpg and lable the x3f as b/w. When I open the x3f files for editing, I automatically have monochromes.
But honestly, it is not damaging to see colors. Really not a big thing.
Regards. I think that the author exposes serious problems, which are not. Nothing happens for changing battery every 200 shots. I change the battery in less than 30 seconds. The manual focus is very good at situations of few light. And the result of the Foveon is to die of taste. Logician is that be necessary to have a knowledge of the color, colors, and his managing. And it is not obtained in one day. Without vision of the color there is no form; and it is not acquired in one month.
Hello Gregor
many thanks sharing your experience with us. I testing now DP2 Quattro and do have to agree with you.
All your complain about Sigma not have been done all in the new Quattro. The filtering effect (red, yellow, green, orange, BLUE) for BW is done! Also Toning Effect (BW, red, warm tone, Sepia, green, blue green, blue, cold tone, blue purple, purple) Wow! What a selection……
I will write to Sigma Japan and hope they will add focus peaking, live view mode with histogram and 4 color chart.
And they have to aprove the drain of battery life. You have to carry always 2 battery, if you not will be surprised about. The white balance is also a huge problem with the DP2 Quattro. AWB is not working well and manuel WB is not easy to handle with!
Generally I do have to admitt. Sigma makes an improvement with Quattro! I love the JPEG out of camera. The colors and details are beautiful! With Sigma Photo Pro 6 you can develop the X3F-file and the result is very good.
I do have to make further tests with the new SPP6.
And last but not least. Black and White will be my favorit part of the DP2Quattro! I will go ahead to look for, what I can do with it…….
I enjoy the DP2Q and it seems to be affordable for the price against the Leica Monochrome.
I use Sigma cameras a lot. I do not shoot things that move. If I did the Sigmas would have to go.
For the life of me I do not understand why Sigma does not make the .X3F format public. The problem I have with all of the Sigma cameras I have owned (SD9, SD14, SD1M, DP2, DP2M) is that I cannot tinker with the raw data or write a program to control the camera. I have been able to do this with Kodak and Canon cameras. As a programmer that has written software for many camera applications (if you have a fundus image taken you may have been touched by software I have written) I really do like to be able to control all aspects of a camera.
When I do play with the SD14 or SD1M, I use DCRAW to decode the images. Professional photographers may want to look into DCRAW to help their workflow when using a Sigma camera. DCRAW is open source and free. It was written by a more dedicated to digital cameras programer than me (Dave Coffin).
Sorry for the rambling. Sigma please release documents that fully describe all of the X3F file formats and a simple SDK to control at least the SD1. I know you have it for internal use. Let the community be the developers for your niche markets. And one last note for the SD1M, please add a zoomed live view for those of us the shoot IR.
Thanks,
Charles
Here are a couple of images I like from the Sigma cameras (the BW images are IR from the SD14):
https://flic.kr/p/86ipCz
https://flic.kr/p/anhQGA
https://flic.kr/p/5NtWyY
https://flic.kr/p/5NpEGr
Thanks Charles,
Oh yes Charles, that would be the best for all Foveon Fan. I don’t understand why Sigma makes it so mysterious. When I think that Tesla (electic car manufacturer) gave up to do ilselfs. It gives the product description free for all. So now a new community is creating and will push the developement! That is nowaday… and not to hold all in propre hand, as Sigma do.
The market has become so fast that cheap providers certainly do not rely on Foveon. And the owner of the Foveon manufacturer is Sigma!
Of course I do have to admit that Sigma is still in family hands and Japan like the olf fashion of leading a company! Maybe the time is comming to change it.
They could make a developer platform with password or a cloudsystem ….. It is possible.
When I think how much improvement all Sigma digicam will have with new firmware!! The hardware seems to be OK.
So, I do hope that Sigma will change their attidute to the comsumer and all programer…..
It cannot be that Dave Coffin has to do it for Sigma!!
Thanks for the write up of the Sigma DP2 Merrill. For various reasons I’ve just disposed of my, extensive and versatile, Micro Four Thirds system and am now using an iPhone 4S! I intend to replace the MFT system with something less versatile, restrict my photography to more specific subjects and to take a more deliberate approach to doing so. I’d like to restrict myself to a standard lens, for a while, too. My ‘ideal’ camera could possibly be the currently rumoured 50mp Fuji fixed lens, medium format, camera. However I’m unlikely to be able to afford that in the near future. What I could afford though is a DP2. These are available, here in the UK, for £339 new. I can live with the price, the slowness and the RAW format but the battery life I’m not sure about. 80 shots is bad enough – but 25! I think I’m going to assume that that’s an anomally and risk the 339 quid…
Caroline says “This makes me feel that digital is very much a use now and delete process for most of us and little may remain from this generation which last year is said to have created 10% of all the photographic images made in nearly 200 years of it’s history”
Then do something about it instead of complaining.
Find your best digital images and either print them, large, to archival quality, or create slides from them with either a slidfe writer or a decent Medium Format film camera.
Either way store store your hard copies in acid free boxes in a cool, dark, dry place.
Posterity will be grateful.
Digital photography has grown more or less in parallel with the internet. This has meant the images that once went to print – if only Boots or Jessops enprints – now rarely make it to hard copy. It may or may not ultimately matter that our visual aspirations live on a web cloud, or a memory box, but as someone instinctively suspicious of progress and even more wary of those who evangelise it unequivocally, the tangible picture has merits the virtual one will never acquire.
As digital memory requirements grow, and the associated technologies change, photography requires a hands on approach to make it accessible. This might not be a headache while the photographer remains extant and enthusiastic, but should he no longer be on top of his updates (soft and hard), where will those 3mp, 12mp, 36mp images live in a world of corporate and political takeovers and 100kmp photographs? It may only be simulacra of Uncle Ron and Aunty Doris that have been zapped to infinity, but for the family the loss of their image is a minor tragedy.
The personal computer age promised a paper free future. As of now the simplicity and cost of taking photographs is not reflected in the material world of pictures. Until they are they remain shadows, and just as fugitive.
My eyes usually glaze over during technical discussions of this depth, but you held me for all three parts and I both enjoyed it and, I think, understood it. Learned a lot. Thank you.
You also got me thinking about the MM again. Is there no end?
I’d like something a bit more down to earth like a Ricoh GR monochrom, applying the same approach as Leica did.
Just stumbled on your site. Very useful discussion on the DPMs. I added a Hoodman Customer Finder Kit – one of those things designed for video shooting on DSLRs – for use with a DpM2 and DpM3. Very helpful. Also, and I don’t believe you mentioned this, these things have leaf shutters and can be set to operate completely silently. Finally, Sigma has announced a new Quattro, a DP0 (as in zero) with a 14mm f4 lens. Which, having wide-angle-obsessive-disorder, I find quite exciting.
I don’t get Sigma. They have started to make lenses that are easily as good as those from Nikon and Canon so someone there knows what they are doing, and they have the marvellous Foveon sensor too, but somewhere in the organisation there is lack of joined up thinking.
You would think that someone would have realised that no matter how wonderful the images their cameras produce, most photographers have become used to superbly capable and responsive cameras, and they will not put up with the deficiencies of the DPMs.
Then there was the fiasco of the SD1. By all objective standards it is a wonderfuo camera, but when you compare it with its NIkon and Canon equivalents it has relatively poor battery life (about 300 … so not so bad as the DPMs, buit a long way from the 1500+ of a Canon 1-series). Then they put weather seals on the battery compartment, but not on the card compartment or around the flash. Not that it matters much, as most of the lenbses you’f want to use with this camera are not weather sealed either. In fact I think Sigma makes only two weather sealed lenses at the time of writing. The the AF is okay by the standards of the 1980’s and 90’s, but woefully behind the capabilities of the competition. It starts to hunt in coditions when both Nikon and canon cameras lock onto the subject instantly. But the worst annoyance in use is the painfully slow clearing of the buffer.
And then there is SPP. Again, we would have thought it was marvellous a couple of devades ago, but when you nhave used Lightroom or Adobe Camer Raw then having to struggle with SPP is just another obstacle to test the resolve of those of us that really love the Foveon chip.
But the biggest mistake was to price it in 1-Ds mark iv and D4 territory. Who in their right mind could have expected to sell more than a handful of units to rich hobbyists and die-hard Foveon fans. I suspect this had a big impact on Adobe’s decision not to bother adding support for the SD1 to its imaging products. It is now down to a sensible price, the price it should have been in the first place, but you can tell how unwanted the SD1 is b y the second hand prices. I got mine in virtually as-new condition for under 500 pounds sterling, adn the quite capable (if not stellar) 17-70 OS HSM zoom for a little over 100 more. But the damage has already been done. Photographers are wary of buying into the SIgma system, and software houses are wary of putting in the effort to support a technology that may never become mainstream.
So given that the X3F Merrill chip is unique in capturing full colour at each pixel, and gives images sharp and detailed enough for just about any use, but the cameras and supporting soiftware have substantial drawbacks as practical image-making tools you would think that Sigma would get to work on improving write times, and AF responsiveness, adding Live view and Video capability, increasing the resolution of the rear screen, incorporating two card slots rather than one, and either reducing power consunmption, giving us faster charging and higher capacity batteries, and completeing the weather-selaing of their “professional camera”. FItting a wider and faster data bus would help too. And when they had done that they could employ some software engineers that understand interfaces, usability and performance to write plug-ins for the market-leading image management and manipulatiuon programs that we actually use, or even a simple batch processor that converts X3F to DNG.
What do they do instead? They start messing with the chip, and with the way they encode and decode images. Yet that is the one thing that was already absolutely outstanding, and did not need to change. And they came up with the (commercially doomed) Quattro which is some sort of unnecessary halfway house between the original Foveon concept and Bayer-Matrix philosophy, and put it in the most absurd and impractical camera body that I have ever seen.
Who, in Sigma, approves these ideas for production? What have they been smoking?
I really, really want the Foveon chip to succeed (the X3F Merrill, not the Quattro version) but it seems to me that if Sigma was trying everything it could to sabotage its chances they could hardly do so more effectively than they are doing with their misguided approach to their cameras.
I fear that it will end up as a side-note in the history of photography, just as so many other superior technologies in recent years have lost out commercially.
What statistics do you have on the wariness of Sigma buyers? That SD1 happening is old news.
Better to get some real life experience rather than just repeating things you’ve read and conjecture. There’s more positive to be found. Sigma has been moving ahead with this technology, not just sitting on their hands.
Well slowly here. The changes theyintroduced with the quattro were strange. The sensor is better in terms of dynamic range, but the body is worse. It is hideous, to be honest…
Sorry about all the typos, but there does not seem to be any way for me to edit my previous post.
Very informative article and I actually learned something new today with the Monochrome processing methods.
In regards to the camera being bit of a dinosaur when it comes to usability I agree to disagree with the comments you have made about its shortcomings.
Just as you said about being purist for B&W photography, you have to be purist and accept this camera as being totally unique. Dare I say it is the only digital camera that will get anywhere near medium format in a compact body, and one of the best B&W digital camera as you have mentioned in your article.
In terms of processing, SPP is tolerable because your only going to get 70-100 shots with 2 batteries in full day shooting. Processing is easy if you know how to create presets and batch process. I reckon I can do 100 shots processed in 2-3 hours, and onto Lightroom for another 1 hour. I feel this is small time/price to pay for fine image quality.
Personally I’ve handled and shot with many Nikon, Canon cameras and I truly never had any issue taking photos of fast moving action such as my hyper active daughter, infact I’ve been getting more keepers with my DP1 and DP3 vs Fuji X-Pro1 with 18mm / 35mm lenses.
What really sadness me with many reviewers and photographers who have used the camera is they’re too stuck up comparing it against other camera providers and never truly understanding its main purpose. It is almost like saying the world is full of colour but why do you shoot B&W? because it is unique right?
“the only photographers who are going to be happy with this camera are ones who can ignore its few faults and rejoice in the remarkable image quality” “Definitely Not for Camera Pussys” from Luminous Landscape review
Reading the review, I’m feeling that you needed more time with the camera and to be feeling better. Battery life gets sucked if you delete images using the camera. Better to do it when downloading. Otherwise battery life is sufficient for real world shooting, not for playing with the camera. I have plenty of use on my Merrills and battery life is good enough when doing serious considered shooting, as in seriously shooting a roll of film.
Thank you Egor
This is the most enlightened review of the Sigma Merril range I have read. Having once owned a DP2 Merril and subsequently sold it, this review clarfies to me the shortcomings of the package that surrounds the Foveon chip.
It will be interesting to see if the sensor shift technologies coming from Pentax and Olympus can compete with Foveon.
Not yet, in any street friendly way as it limits use to a tripod and one shutter setting only. Foveon still rules.
Your ideas for native monochrome RAW files are great and are not at all ludite. Being able to shoot street B+W as per film will bring that genre back into its full beauty.
Reviving a genre to its full capability, in a camera body that is up with the times (such as including an EVF ) is a step that is screaming out to happen. Foveon has the potential to do this.
Malcolm in New Zealand
Hi,
I have today ordered a dp0 Quattro, so I opened the online manual and on pg82 under “Color Mode Detailed Setting”, I found the following setting: “Filtering Effect (Only with Monochrome). Contrast can be changed on Monochrome images. To the color of filters, similar colors are expressed brighter, and complementary colors are expressed darker.” The options are Off, Yellow, Orange, Red, Green, Blue.
Does this mean that Sigma has implemented Part 2 of your emailed wishes? i.e. where you wrote “Implement software-based contrast filters. By offering in-camera software-selectable contrast filters that emulate the use of traditional colored glass filters, photographers would be able to adjust a scene’s contrast before a photo is taken, rather than in post.”
cheers