Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Sigma DP1 + Canon WD-46 wide converter
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:28 pm    Post subject: Sigma DP1 + Canon WD-46 wide converter Reply with quote
Sigma DP1 (28mm equiv)




PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
With WD 46







Looks very terrible Shocked Shocked



Last edited by yadisl on Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I tried 16:9 to cut off the dark corner



PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tweaked a bit



PostPosted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
interresting, in my opinion its usuable (but makes it little lomo-like, if you not going to kill me for this word Smile)


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob van Sikorski wrote:
interresting, in my opinion its usuable (but makes it little lomo-like, if you not going to kill me for this word Smile)


I also think of 'lomography' when I bought this cheap old video wide converter - quite expect all the vignette. Razz

I'll give it a more serious tests today. But, the sky is so cloudy and wet today - well, lets see ...


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
yadisl wrote:
Looks very terrible Shocked Shocked


Just curious, have you tried adjusting the distance between the converter and the lens, either by unscrewing it a bit or holding it in front of the adapter tube, or by removing the tube and holding it closer?

If you go back about 2 years in the archives in the dpreview forums, there were quite a few people testing different conversion lenses on the DP1. One of the biggest conclusions was that the distance from the lens to the converter had a significant impact on the resulting image quality.

Getting the converter further away is pretty easy... but if you find that you need to get it closer, you can either trim down the front of your adapter tube, or purchase one of the 52mm Lensmate adapter tubes and use step-down rings. Note that there were two revisions of the Lensmate adapter, and the first version was shorter. I don't believe they are marked.... So you would have to buy a used one and hope for the best. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Genuine picture wasn't good either in my opinion.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1

I have never been really negative (no pun intended) about anyone's pictures here as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though some, like those from Trifox, Orio, Lawrence etc. (amongst many others) are so beautiful they cry out to me.

These examples howver make ME want to cry out.. and the words are desist, stop, halt, they hurt my eyes, my aesthetic sense and my love of photography! lol

They are: Out of focus, have horrible colour, no contrast, poor framing, no saturation and.. the list would be endless.

Some experiments (such as seeing if a brick dropped on your foot from 1 metre hurts more than one dropped from two) are, as my dad said, best not attempted as the answer (if any) will only hurt! Smile

Doug



Attila wrote:
Genuine picture wasn't good either in my opinion.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nemesis101 wrote:
These examples howver make ME want to cry out.. and the words are desist, stop, halt, they hurt my eyes, my aesthetic sense and my love of photography! lol

They are: Out of focus, have horrible colour, no contrast, poor framing, no saturation and.. the list would be endless.


Whoa... Time to go back to bed, Doug. Wink

They are overexposed, sure.
The color & saturation suffered from the overexposure, but are easily recovered in PP.
Contrast also suffered from the overexposure, but isn't that bad...
Not every lens test shot needs to be a photo contest winner. Rolling Eyes

And as for "out of focus"... did you look at the full size? Even at the very edge, you can clearly see the veins in the leaves...


... and many samples posted here in the galleries wouldn't come close to this kind of quality for a 100% crop in the far corner:



The crop areas, for reference:


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Scheimpflug wrote:
yadisl wrote:
Looks very terrible Shocked Shocked


Just curious, have you tried adjusting the distance between the converter and the lens, either by unscrewing it a bit or holding it in front of the adapter tube, or by removing the tube and holding it closer?

If you go back about 2 years in the archives in the dpreview forums, there were quite a few people testing different conversion lenses on the DP1. One of the biggest conclusions was that the distance from the lens to the converter had a significant impact on the resulting image quality.

Getting the converter further away is pretty easy... but if you find that you need to get it closer, you can either trim down the front of your adapter tube, or purchase one of the 52mm Lensmate adapter tubes and use step-down rings. Note that there were two revisions of the Lensmate adapter, and the first version was shorter. I don't believe they are marked.... So you would have to buy a used one and hope for the best. Wink


AHA! That's an enlightenment. Thank you.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nemesis101 wrote:
+1

I have never been really negative (no pun intended) about anyone's pictures here as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though some, like those from Trifox, Orio, Lawrence etc. (amongst many others) are so beautiful they cry out to me.

These examples howver make ME want to cry out.. and the words are desist, stop, halt, they hurt my eyes, my aesthetic sense and my love of photography! lol

They are: Out of focus, have horrible colour, no contrast, poor framing, no saturation and.. the list would be endless.

Some experiments (such as seeing if a brick dropped on your foot from 1 metre hurts more than one dropped from two) are, as my dad said, best not attempted as the answer (if any) will only hurt! Smile

Doug



Attila wrote:
Genuine picture wasn't good either in my opinion.


Indeed it hurts my eyes too, but it just a test. Laughing
I shot it in JPEG, not RAW. The goal is not to produce good pictures. But, I made sure it's well focused - and it is, as Scheimpflug has shown. The original files may contain even more details - I down sized these to 1400 pix wide.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agreed, it's a test..

But to what end I wonder?> lol

Have a great day,

tot ziens,

Doug.



yadisl wrote:
nemesis101 wrote:
+1

I have never been really negative (no pun intended) about anyone's pictures here as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though some, like those from Trifox, Orio, Lawrence etc. (amongst many others) are so beautiful they cry out to me.

These examples howver make ME want to cry out.. and the words are desist, stop, halt, they hurt my eyes, my aesthetic sense and my love of photography! lol

They are: Out of focus, have horrible colour, no contrast, poor framing, no saturation and.. the list would be endless.

Some experiments (such as seeing if a brick dropped on your foot from 1 metre hurts more than one dropped from two) are, as my dad said, best not attempted as the answer (if any) will only hurt! Smile

Doug



Attila wrote:
Genuine picture wasn't good either in my opinion.


Indeed it hurts my eyes too, but it just a test. Laughing
I shot it in JPEG, not RAW. The goal is not to produce good pictures. But, I made sure it's well focused - and it is, as Scheimpflug has shown. The original files may contain even more details - I down sized these to 1400 pix wide.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey.. you missed the 'lol' showing this was a jokular comment not a serious ctritique! Smile

I shall make sure such comments are ringed with Smile Smile next time Smile Smile

Doug Smile Smile

PS What's 'bed' I have heard rumours but....?

Scheimpflug wrote:
nemesis101 wrote:
These examples howver make ME want to cry out.. and the words are desist, stop, halt, they hurt my eyes, my aesthetic sense and my love of photography! lol

They are: Out of focus, have horrible colour, no contrast, poor framing, no saturation and.. the list would be endless.


Whoa... Time to go back to bed, Doug. Wink

They are overexposed, sure.
The color & saturation suffered from the overexposure, but are easily recovered in PP.
Contrast also suffered from the overexposure, but isn't that bad...
Not every lens test shot needs to be a photo contest winner. Rolling Eyes

And as for "out of focus"... did you look at the full size? Even at the very edge, you can clearly see the veins in the leaves...


... and many samples posted here in the galleries wouldn't come close to this kind of quality for a 100% crop in the far corner:



The crop areas, for reference:


PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No worries Doug. Very Happy
I loved Foveon pictures produced by those who can master the SPP, but so far I found it a hit and missed operation, really. I already tried SD9, SD14, DP1 so far - but always have this mixed feelings with the camera. I wish Olympus (or somebody else, Sony perhaps) adopt Foveon, then it would be interesting. Razz


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Without WD46



PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With WD 46

Not so bad as before



PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
yadisl wrote:
No worries Doug. Very Happy
I loved Foveon pictures produced by those who can master the SPP, but so far I found it a hit and missed operation, really. I already tried SD9, SD14, DP1 so far - but always have this mixed feelings with the camera. I wish Olympus (or somebody else, Sony perhaps) adopt Foveon, then it would be interesting. Razz


Have you tried processing the images in LR, i use LR 90-95% of the time now. I find it very intuitive and the results are great. Silkypix was also outstanding but i found the interface limited, hopefully it will mature in the near future.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rpo83 wrote:
yadisl wrote:
No worries Doug. Very Happy
I loved Foveon pictures produced by those who can master the SPP, but so far I found it a hit and missed operation, really. I already tried SD9, SD14, DP1 so far - but always have this mixed feelings with the camera. I wish Olympus (or somebody else, Sony perhaps) adopt Foveon, then it would be interesting. Razz


Have you tried processing the images in LR, i use LR 90-95% of the time now. I find it very intuitive and the results are great. Silkypix was also outstanding but i found the interface limited, hopefully it will mature in the near future.


Never tried LR nor silkypix.
Yeah, SPP is so slowww.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Page 1 of 1