[outsider]

Interesting that you would give up using pentax lenses for that camera. Although sigma has enough decent lenses, it would be too much to pay that much for a camera when i'm so used to the flexibility of pentax bodies. Yes even though the SD1 is full frame, high MP. But I guess it's not that bad a thought considering the lack of pentax full frame. And the thought of replacing a pentax with an evil Canon

[Pentaxor]

Interesting that you would give up using pentax lenses for that camera. Although sigma has enough decent lenses, it would be too much to pay that much for a camera when i'm so used to the flexibility of pentax bodies. Yes even though the SD1 is full frame, high MP. But I guess it's not that bad a thought considering the lack of pentax full frame. And the thought of replacing a pentax with an evil Canon

actually the SD1 is not FF, but APS-C. although the high res would somewhat emulate a Medium format system. so it's more or less better than an APS-C or any existing FF dslr in a sense. I have seen some sample photos from the pre-production SD1 camera (using the 85mm) and I am definitely impressed.

I don't think I would necessarily give up the entire pentax lenses but rather use a different body for specific lenses that Pentax seems to lack. there are a lot of lenses that has been discontinued for the K-mount which doesn't help the Pentax cause.
one is the Non-OS Sigma 150 macro which can be had for the similar amount as that of the DFA100 WR. the discontinued Sigma 100-300 zoom for less money. and Pentax doesn't have production 85mm lens at present. so personally, my needs for such system is in the telephoto end and which a higher MP resolution would be ideal. having said that, something at the wide end would also benefit from this.

[Asahiflex]

Great series! I'm not entirely convinced about the colors, but that's possibly due to the K-x and not the Sigma.

From what I have seen so far, the Sigma trounces the FA* 85/1.4 at wide open aperture. At least it seems more contrasty (not necessarily sharper though).

How does the Sigma do when stopped down a little? Shooting portraits at f/1.4 is something I also did when I just had my FA* 85/1.4, but in reality you would use it a bit stopped down. Otherwise it would be impossible to have at least the two eyes in focus.




At f/3.5 the FA* 85 is just stunning.




I think the ultimate litmus test for the Sigma is how well it renders materials like glass and shiny metal. Because I found that some lenses rendered those materials more or less "dead".

[outsider]

Great series! I'm not entirely convinced about the colors, but that's possibly due to the K-x and not the Sigma.

From what I have seen so far, the Sigma trounces the FA* 85/1.4 at wide open aperture. At least it seems more contrasty (not necessarily sharper though).

How does the Sigma do when stopped down a little? Shooting portraits at f/1.4 is something I also did when I just had my FA* 85/1.4, but in reality you would use it a bit stopped down. Otherwise it would be impossible to have at least the two eyes in focus.




At f/3.5 the FA* 85 is just stunning.




I think the ultimate litmus test for the Sigma is how well it renders materials like glass and shiny metal. Because I found that some lenses rendered those materials more or less "dead".

So far, I've been having so much fun with the DOF, that I haven't even taken a photo beyond f 1.8. I haven't had any trouble getting eyes in focus with fair lighting and several feet distance, maybe 8 feet, getting the eyes in focus. It is super contrasty. I've heard some say it's too contrasty, but I've no problem with it at all. I was converting photos yesterday in photoshop and suddenly realized that I hadn't felt any need to adjust the contrast in any of them. Maybe i'll stop down to 2.8 or so soon and check things out I am a bit curious how sharp the FA 85 is with close portraits like the ones I've posted compared to the Sigma 85. The FA definitely has softer, dreamier bokeh! Classic FA Pentax. But yes, this sigma is a dream to use. I even read one review of a freelance photographer who rated it so high, he was handing down his Canon 1.2 to use the sigma. It apparently is as sharp at 1.4 as the Canon is at 1.2, much faster autofocus and a bit better in grabbing in low light. Time will tell how it is widely accepted, still few pentax users out there.

[outsider]

Great series! I'm not entirely convinced about the colors, but that's possibly due to the K-x and not the Sigma.

From what I have seen so far, the Sigma trounces the FA* 85/1.4 at wide open aperture. At least it seems more contrasty (not necessarily sharper though).

How does the Sigma do when stopped down a little? Shooting portraits at f/1.4 is something I also did when I just had my FA* 85/1.4, but in reality you would use it a bit stopped down. Otherwise it would be impossible to have at least the two eyes in focus.




At f/3.5 the FA* 85 is just stunning.




I think the ultimate litmus test for the Sigma is how well it renders materials like glass and shiny metal. Because I found that some lenses rendered those materials more or less "dead".

Oh, and i'm REALLY enjoying your FA 85 pictures! Thanks!!!

[Class A]

Thanks, outsider, for sharing these pics.
I like the last two the best.

That makes 2 thousand-dollar lenses that I know I want.

Which one is the other one?

Yeah, I think the main thing missing is the lack of pixel power.

I don't think so. The K-x is more than sufficient for capturing images at the size you posted them.
If your images had a different white balance (I'd go warmer) and less harsh lighting, they would already look more impressive. A bit of PP would increase the "WOW" factor of your shots.

... the pseudo-MF resolution SD1 which has an estimate of over 30+MP (46MP foveon resolution numbers).

Note that the SD1 has 46 Mega-Dots which amount to 15.3 Mega-Pixels. It has higher colour resolution than a conventional Bayer array 15-16 MP sensor (e.g., as used in the K-5). The "pixels" in a Bayer array sensor are "dots" as well but by clever demosaicing techniques you get more than MP/3 resolution out of a Bayer array sensor. A comparison is difficult and depends on the image and colour content. I'd say stating that the SD1 has 46MP is misleading but the common practice to refer to the "dots" in a Bayer array sensor as pixels is misleading as well.

Even if the SD1 had more resolution, the advantages of an MF sensor are enabled by its size, not a high count of pixels. I wouldn't trade my 6MP DSLR for a 12MP P&S, would you? I think the Sigma SD1 is a very interesting camera but I wouldn't expect near MF performance from it.

I'm not entirely convinced about the colors, but that's possibly due to the K-x and not the Sigma.

I think the shooting conditions (and the (automatic?) white balance) play the major role.

At f/3.5 the FA* 85 is just stunning.

Awesome!
Not sure the Sigma 85/1.4 can do this. I'm keeping my fingers crossed it can.

I think the ultimate litmus test for the Sigma is how well it renders materials like glass and shiny metal.

Seems to be a good test for lenses. The Sigma 70/2.8 excels in rendering metal as well.

[outsider]

Thanks, outsider, for sharing these pics.
I like the last two the best.



Which one is the other one?



I don't think so. The K-x is more than sufficient for capturing images at the size you posted them.
If your images had a different white balance (I'd go warmer) and less harsh lighting, they would already look more impressive. A bit of PP would increase the "WOW" factor of your shots.



Note that the SD1 has 46 Mega-Dots which amount to 15.3 Mega-Pixels. It has higher colour resolution than a conventional Bayer array 15-16 MP sensor (e.g., as used in the K-5). The "pixels" in a Bayer array sensor are "dots" as well but by clever demosaicing techniques you get more than MP/3 resolution out of a Bayer array sensor. A comparison is difficult and depends on the image and colour content. I'd say stating that the SD1 has 46MP is misleading but the common practice to refer to the "dots" in a Bayer array sensor as pixels is misleading as well.

Even if the SD1 had more resolution, the advantages of an MF sensor are enabled by its size, not a high count of pixels. I wouldn't trade my 6MP DSLR for a 12MP P&S, would you? I think the Sigma SD1 is a very interesting camera but I wouldn't expect near MF performance from it.



I think the shooting conditions (and the (automatic?) white balance) play the major role.


Awesome!
Not sure the Sigma 85/1.4 can do this. I'm keeping my fingers crossed it can.


Seems to be a good test for lenses. The Sigma 70/2.8 excels in rendering metal as well.

Class A....as far as the pixel power goes, it seems that the high MP photos seem to have a "polish" or "shine" I don't see in the K-x. It's something you can't necessarily "see", but is very apparent. Kind of like bokeh. At least the portraits i've seen with the Sigma attachted to the Canon 5D Mark II. Maybe it could have to do with the white balance settings, not sure. Maybe it is my settings. I haven't yet learned enough about white balance/custom settings to bring out the best in the photographs featured here

[outsider]

Great series! I'm not entirely convinced about the colors, but that's possibly due to the K-x and not the Sigma.

From what I have seen so far, the Sigma trounces the FA* 85/1.4 at wide open aperture. At least it seems more contrasty (not necessarily sharper though).

How does the Sigma do when stopped down a little? Shooting portraits at f/1.4 is something I also did when I just had my FA* 85/1.4, but in reality you would use it a bit stopped down. Otherwise it would be impossible to have at least the two eyes in focus.




At f/3.5 the FA* 85 is just stunning.




I think the ultimate litmus test for the Sigma is how well it renders materials like glass and shiny metal. Because I found that some lenses rendered those materials more or less "dead".

What camera was this taken with?

[Asahiflex]

What camera was this taken with?

Thanks for the kind comments, and those were taken with the K-7 (I now have a K-5).

[Pentaxor]

Note that the SD1 has 46 Mega-Dots which amount to 15.3 Mega-Pixels. It has higher colour resolution than a conventional Bayer array 15-16 MP sensor (e.g., as used in the K-5). The "pixels" in a Bayer array sensor are "dots" as well but by clever demosaicing techniques you get more than MP/3 resolution out of a Bayer array sensor. A comparison is difficult and depends on the image and colour content. I'd say stating that the SD1 has 46MP is misleading but the common practice to refer to the "dots" in a Bayer array sensor as pixels is misleading as well.

Even if the SD1 had more resolution, the advantages of an MF sensor are enabled by its size, not a high count of pixels. I wouldn't trade my 6MP DSLR for a 12MP P&S, would you? I think the Sigma SD1 is a very interesting camera but I wouldn't expect near MF performance from it.

the SD1 MP count does seem sketchy. but I wouldn't think it is only equivalent to 15.3 MP in Bayer sensor terms considering the last Sigma camera, which is the SD15 was supposedly have an equivalence of 12 MP in Bayer sensor terms. in other words it's a small improvement over the previous generation. well just have to see more samples from this to confirm if it goes past 20MP. for what it's worth, the camera costs around $2,000 which is the price bracket where the 20+MP 5D MK II sits in. so it's still a possibility. if there's a 20MP FF, why can't an APS-C have one? besides. it's a foveon sensor, it may work out just fine.

it's true that the advantage of the MF is it's size, that is why the SD1 is a pseudo-MF which could appeal to those on a budget photographers for studio work or particular niche market. atleast they won't be broke investing on a $10,000 MF, much so for a $20,000+ MF alternatives. I would trade the 6MP dlsr for a 12MP PS camera as long as it's an X100. .

well, the point is, we are not really downgrading here but finding a cheaper, capable and professional efficient camera alternative. I don't think that the SD1 would be categorized as a PS camera. that would be an insult IMO.

anyway, as you stated, the SD1's advantage over the Bayer sensor is on it's color resolution, so this is one of those considerations I keep in mind. I'm not saying Pentax colors is bad, but I would think that the SD1 would have more color definition in this respect. noise reports seems to be promising, but we'll see about the DR performance. I'm hoping for the best for this product. as I had great faith in their 85mm which came out very well.

[DogLover]

Which one is the other one?

What else? The 31.

[outsider]

Pretty sharp. That last shot I like the best. Great details in the eyes.

Thanks! It's been pure joy using this lens...

[Class A]

Class A....as far as the pixel power goes, it seems that the high MP photos seem to have a "polish" or "shine" I don't see in the K-x. It's something you can't necessarily "see", but is very apparent. Kind of like bokeh. At least the portraits i've seen with the Sigma attached to the Canon 5D Mark II.

I think I know what you are talking about. I love the Sony A850/900 images for their smoothness in tonality changes.

However, note that when you are comparing the K-x to the Canon 5D, you are not only looking at a high MP sensor, but also a sensor with ~2.2 times the area. Bigger sensors make a difference. More MP usually don't.

What else? The 31.

Makes sense.

[outsider]

These FA 85 pictures have me thinking lately. The FA 85 bokeh definitely looks unique in itself. Different. Softer, dreamier, more gentle. Seems to tame everything, no matter how harsh or ridged the background is. The sigma equivalent, on the other hand, seems to have more "in your face" bokeh. Not a negative, but things are more apparent, less subtle, equally as pleasing, but in a different way. Bokeh has finer edges, things are more aggressive, like abstract art. Interesting. I should be kicked for saying this, but I'm tempted to buy the FA 85 to see just exactly what all this excitement is about.

[EricT]

Pretty sharp. That last shot I like the best. Great details in the eyes.

Great detail in the eye you mean, the other eye is slighly out-of-focus due to the very shallow depth of field The lens looks great, though. I would love to see some full-length portraits at wide apertures!