Sigma DP Merrills worth getting now?

<p>Have read about the image quality from the Sigma DP Merrill camera bodies.<br>

Considering what else is currently on the market are the DP-1,2 or 3 Sigma Merrill bodies worth getting?<br>

Have no problem with using the camera on a tripod much of the time. Just looking at image quality in print up to about 16x20, with most being 11x14 or so.</p>

<p> </p>

These are really for specialized uses. They are high resolution but bad at high ISO, very slow in operation and only

supported by Sigma's raw software, which is terrible. Buy one if you really need resolution and have no other priorities.

Otherwise there are better options with fixed prime lenses from other manufacturers.

IMO, the lens on the DP1M isn't up to the standard set by the 2 and 3. So if your preference is for a wide-angle, you may be disappointed when you see what the sensor can do in the center of the image, and then how it falls off at the edges.

<p>I'd think twice before I 'd buy one.</p>

<ol>

<li>How horrible will the image processing software be for you on your current machines? - Maybe get it first (free download) and dabble with the about 5 sample RAW files provided by dpreview? - At luminous landscapes a reviewer needed to rely on RAW conversion results provided by Sigma, because the code didn't run on his box - <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/sigma-dp2-quattro-review/">click</a>. - that article was kind of like a red flag for me. See also dpreview's review of the SD1, where they go a bit into details about the software.</li>

<li>Although I might take in fact longer to blink an air bubble under my contact lens away and (hopefully) get my Leica focused, I rather try to <em>do</em> that than <em>wait</em> for a P&S camera's AF to accomplish the same goal.</li>

<li>Math: Sigmas produce a lot of data junk capturing 3 colors per pixel. - It seems worth it; IQ earns praise. But are there enough individual MP for the print sizes you are aiming at? And is Sigma's own Foveon - Bayer equivalent claim really true? </li>

</ol>

<p>Prices might be fair by now. - Around 500 Euro / camera. I'm hard to convince to get some myself. - I like responsiveness, EVFs and articulated screens, low light photography and ditching my files on somebody else to process them way too much. Maybe if you are just taking a few pictures the software hassle won't bother you too much. - I think I coped with similar running Silkypix in the early 6MP SLR days. - But still: time advanced and everything else can be processed quite instantly.</p>

Iridient software will also open Sigma DP1m raw images. You can download it for a free trial period. I've

used it for my DP1s but haven't studied it enough to say whether it is better than Sigma's own software.

<blockquote>

<p>Considering what else is currently on the market are the DP-1,2 or 3 Sigma Merrill bodies worth getting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would say no, but YMMV. looking at amazon pricing, the DP2 price has only fallen about 15% since introduction if you're buying new, and the DP1 is even more expensive. $850 for a grey market compact which acts like a land camera isnt a good buy IMO. the Foveon files look amazing in some situations but can look weird in others. it's not just that they're happier on a tripod, it's that they have clunky UI and ergonomics. for me, the frustrating thing would be the constant facepalm of expecting a compact camera to be snappy and responsive, sooooooo... if you can get over that, and wrap your head around a quirky, "technical" camera which is unusable past ISO 400 with an outdated TFT monitor and no OVF or EVF which is slower than molasses while repeating the mantra "image quality" over and over again as you wait for the camera to write to card, then i suppose the DP merrills could work for you. what's really funny to me is that sigma replaced these with a body --the quattro-- which has even worse ergonomics and UI. for my money, i'd rather have an LX100, X70, or GR. But if you're a landscape-y kinda person who works slow and is ok with self-torture, then go for it. but i really think this wouldnt work as a primary camera, except for a very particular type of photographer.</p>

<p>The Sigma software is not as scary as people describe it in its current incarnation. <br>

The camera is unique, I tested Dp2 Merrill it against the Quattro and decided to go with Merrill. Quattro files look rather generic where Merrill stands out; it is also more compact. I also enjoy the fact that it has a near 50mm lens - I can't stand 35mm focal length personally, it's neither here nor there, and there are no other offerings on the market. I am using it as a travel camera and couldn't be happier with a 2012 camera in 2016. As a side note, I use Nikon full frame for digital (d810 and d700 with zeiss glass for work) and medium format analog for serious shooting (scanned on a flextight scanner). <br>

With current prices used prices, I'd say it is worth it. </p>