« Becoming a Sigma Fan (Sigma FP) | Main | Sample Album on Flickr »

Monday, 22 August 2022


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

“By the way, just as an aside, I'm having great fun shooting with this. It's very satisfying to me.”

Well that’s all the justification you need for using any camera, at least avocationally!

Nobody needs to tell me that summer and fall are times to make expeditions with tools and techniques new (to you). I have drawers full of mementos from such experiments. (Few were productive but all were fun!)

And I agree; Sigma’s newer series of lenses are absolutely terrific in every dimension! Having recently sold my entire L-mount kit I no longer have a Sigma lens. But the clarity of your images does reflect those lenses. But it also reflects working with a native camera/lens kit in the digital era. Adapted lenses never in my experience produce superior images on digital cameras.

Your aside is the reason that I was encouraging you to convert the A6600. You should be having some fun with this!

I trust that you will be doing OL/OC/OY?

Those images and your enjoyment taking them will probably cost you a fair amount of money fairly soon. I don’t think you will need much more time and experimentation before you take the plunge into a B&W monochrome digital system. The images remind me of 4x5 B&W film, they are creamy smooth and the way the shades of gray and tones blend with one another is so film like. Perhaps your site would showcase more of your B&W images and on a regular basis once you commit to a Monochrome system. Thanks for taking us along on the B&W ride.

I'd say the Sigma passed these tests with flying, er, grays. Looking forward to low key tests, and of course beyond the tests. Glad you're having fun!

Mike I know you can't do it, but it would be nice to see an image made with a monochrome camera compared with a similar image made with a similar camera and lens that was converted into a monochrome image ... and not tweaked differently. That would show the true differences.

Cool. It would be interesting to compare with a regular FP where the files have been converted to monochrome.

Mike: It's very difficult to make sure everyone everywhere will see this properly...and the blogging software does soften sharpness somewhat, unfortunately.

One option that might give you better control over image quality would be to use a link to an external public site for photographs. Even better, and, although I don’t use Typepad myself, I suspect the software will let you do this: use a small image in your weblog entry as a link to a higher-quality one on the external site.

Subjective vs objective. I completely understand this entire path you are going down. The same impulses have me shooting some film lately and have me very intrigued with your monochrome sensor envy. But from my seat watching you, I have more objectivity than with my own pursuits. The bottom line is that the sample images on-screen aren't really different than what would come from a similar conversion of a color sensor. And I would argue the same could be said for a well-printed version. In the end, you as the photographer are getting more joy because it feels better. It feels more real. But I'm lead to believe that 99% of the benefit is how it makes you feel. Not any actual objective difference that others see. Same can be said for the "idea" of shooting a Leica as opposed to a Sony/Nikon/Canon?

[When I get the A6600 conversion, one of the things I'll do is compare the output to a 24-MP Fuji X-H1 color file converted with Nik Silver Efex Pro 2. --Mike]

Looks like very nice monochrome rendition ….. enjoy the camera.
I would love to use an M camera.

[Wait, do you mean M as in monochrome, or M as in Leica M? Or both? --Mike]

Now you just need a non-converted Sigma FP to compare to converted colour files...

3D. The top two photos in particular, are astoundingly 3D on my screen.

Nobody else has mentioned this? I'm very much into 3D video/photography, so maybe I'm more attuned to noticing it than most folk.

I'm used to seeing that with Sigma cameras (The DP1,2 and 3). Less used to seeing it with non-stacked sensors.

One point of confusion though. The website of the place that converted that Sigma camera you have, make no mention of doing the conversion on Sigma cameras?

[Daniel confirmed that the Sigma FP uses a Sony sensor, which he's familiar with. He says he's done four conversions of FP's so far. --Mike]

Senor Don Quixote! 🤠👍

Well, it does look like that camera is holding up its end!

I rather like the second interpretation of the clouds over the lake!

And I hope we get to watch you learning to do B&W digital! I'm sure it will be educational.

It's true, image files viewed on monitors may not be the same everywhere. It's an even bigger issue than lighting on paper prints.

But most of us, if we use our computers in our photography, are likely to have good monitors and probably even calibration on them—the end result may be that we see things more accurately than paper prints under random mixed lighting (which is what most rooms have, even rooms owned by photographers).

It’s been a busy week so I’m just seeing this now (Friday). But dang, my legs are getting all wobbly just looking at those…

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007