Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-13-2013, 07:43 PM - 1 Like   #91
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,893
FWIW, came across a couple of shots on Photoble recently comparing the DP2M with a K-5 Classic w. FA 31 shooting the same scene:

DP2M:
?? - ID:130407003 [SIGMA DP2 Merrill] - Photoble Uploader

K-5:
?? - ID:130407002 [PENTAX K-5] - Photoble Uploader

The sharpness and clarity of the DP2M is very impressive indeed. Great lens and sensor on that little camera.

04-16-2013, 08:44 AM - 1 Like   #92
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,244
Here's my comparison for Imaging Resource
D800 on the left DP@ on the right.



Not only does the DP2 look shaper but it looks like it maintains a more accurate pattern and would have a higher extinction point, my guess is that this camera would give me better results than a 31 ltd on a Pentax FF. It's exactly what you'd expect comparing a bayer array and it's extrapolated images to a Foveon sensor.

I'm really tempted to get one, it's small enough to add to my camera bag for use when conditions warrant. I didn't test it against the D800e or K 5 IIs, I'm not willing to put up with the false colour. This looks like a great option. Everything it doesn't do I can do with my K-5. What it does do is exceptional.
04-16-2013, 08:54 AM   #93
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,726
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Not only does the DP2 look shaper
How can you tell unless they're viewed at equal size (resolution)?
04-16-2013, 09:12 AM   #94
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,244
I've done enough messing around with resolution to have some sense of how it works. It doesn't have the huge effect people seem to think it does (increasing your file size to match the image from a bigger sensor). If you watch the video above you'll see they come to pretty much the same conclusion, with caveats of course. For enlargement, digital is not film. If you enlarge an image that is a solid black and white horizontal lines 5 pixels across, you can enlarge it to horizontal lines 25 pixels across, and it will still appear to be sharp. That factors in somehow, I'm sure some day someone will come up with a formula to explain the effect, and how to factor it in. But until then, don't listen to guys from film backgrounds when it comes to discussing the effects of enlargement on IQ.

In this case the distinct lines at 4000 lw/ph on the DP2 will still be distinct if you enlarge the picture. Where as if you reduce the images size of the D800 image to 16 MP you will lose even more resolution. I am talking about the accuracy of extinction patterns only, in this case.The DP3 does not resolve to 4000 lw/ph, but what it does resolve is more accurate a depiction than what the D800 resolves in that it continues to show separate lines even though it doesn't show enough of them. The D800 shows a fuzzy mess, the D800e shows a fuzzy mess with false colour.

If we were looking at areas within the clear resolution patterns we could easily come to a different conclusion, and I haven't done that. I was mainly intersted in subject accuracy in the of the areas between the end of clearly defined resolution and pattern extinction, which to my way of thinking is critical for landscape.

08-21-2013, 03:32 PM - 2 Likes   #95
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,244
A couple more examples, tis time my K-5 and DA 35 2.4 and then a DP@ image as close as possible to the same set up...

I'll try this again, two of the images were the same...

Pentax DA 35 2,4 @ 5.6 ( the 2.8 shot was moved by the wind)


DP2 @ ƒ2.8


Pentax DA 35 @ f11


DP2 @ƒ16


The normal level of sharpening on a K-5 image causes artifacts on a DP2, just as a casual observation.

Last edited by normhead; 08-21-2013 at 03:56 PM.
05-22-2015, 06:20 AM   #96
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
Sorry for being so late to the party.
But after seeing this I just had to add that the K-5 can do so much better than this people
05-22-2015, 06:42 PM   #97
Loyal Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,122
I still use the best test on earth...the "Old Granny" test. You plop down two photos 4x6 ( the size Granny loves most...they fit in her purse!) shot by two different cameras or two different lenses. Let her pick the one she likes best. If she can't decide which is best and one was with a kit lens and one with a Ltd...then you know you might have spent a lot of cash unnecessarily! If she picks the kit lens shot, then you KNOW you spent a lot of cash unnecessarily!

There are more Old Grannies in the world than there are Pro shooters...keep that in mind!

Regards!
05-22-2015, 07:38 PM   #98
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,244
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Sorry for being so late to the party.
But after seeing this I just had to add that the K-5 can do so much better than this people
It was a pretty informal test, but the DP2 can also do much better than this so, all things being pretty much even, the DP2 still out resolves my K-5 and 35, and probably would do the same for my K-3. The test was, different cameras, same conditions pop of a few pictures. How did the two cameras handle the conditions. They both could have done better, in better conditions. That the K-5 could have done better under those conditions... ummm... probably not.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I still use the best test on earth...the "Old Granny" test. You plop down two photos 4x6 ( the size Granny loves most...they fit in her purse!) shot by two different cameras or two different lenses. Let her pick the one she likes best. If she can't decide which is best and one was with a kit lens and one with a Ltd...then you know you might have spent a lot of cash unnecessarily! If she picks the kit lens shot, then you KNOW you spent a lot of cash unnecessarily!

There are more Old Grannies in the world than there are Pro shooters...keep that in mind!

Regards!
What I care about Rupert is about what people think when they look at my 13x19 prints or 30x20 canvases. And when and if they plunk down a few hundred dollars for a print, I honestly don't care what granny might think.

But you are right about one thing Rupert, this has been largely a discussion contributed to by pros, who care more than the average person about the topic discussed. I hope granny doesn't mind if we undertake discussions that aren't really of interest to her. Tell her to enjoy her tea without us.

05-22-2015, 08:43 PM   #99
Loyal Site Supporter
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,122
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I hope granny doesn't mind if we undertake discussions that aren't really of interest to her.
I'm certain Old Granny doesn't mind your discussions...and she has little interest in paying for photos when she can snap all she wants with her I-phone or view a trillion free ones on a half million different sites. Most photos are for people to view...and a few are for others to buy...very few.
My point is that comparing two distinctly different cameras with similar results does not constitute any real accomplishment either for a Pro or Old Granny. The cameras compared here are not similar in most any manner other than the result at one range...because one of them only has one range...how is that useful?

Regards!
05-23-2015, 04:26 AM   #100
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It was a pretty informal test, but the DP2 can also do much better than this so, all things being pretty much even, the DP2 still out resolves my K-5 and 35, and probably would do the same for my K-3.
I agree. And don't get me wrong. I'm not stating the K-5 can outresolve the DP2 as the resolution advantages are quite clear. Though, it always erks me when I see images used for comparison without making full use the files potential, ie, throughout this thread, most every comparison image post involving the K-5 isn't showing the K-5 potential. IOW. None of these showing the detail and/or sharpening adjustments used to extrapolate for Bayer sensor output. Whereas the Foveon camera's on the other hand, are reknown for delivering highly optimized OOC images. And while this should not be viewed as a user error, I'd add that most camera manufacturers(safe Fuji) simply don't seem to care enough to provide anything more than what I'd call, the bare minimum for their camera's. - Whatever the case, and I say this purely from personal observation. But I see few(if any) K-5 samples in thread that actually qualify for showing what the K-5 sensor can do in terms of IQ and detail.

However, it remains that if/when the K-5 files are processed for detail, that it will not only match, but exceed the Foveon file up-to a given size. And the reasons for this are quite obvious. The K-5 holds better; DR, SNR, and colour potential, than any Foveon camera on the market. And so with regards to the test, I'd add that the DP2 will only exceed the K-5 in resolution(pixel detail) once it exceeds the K-5's potential output size. Though not in DR and colour.

Having said that. From what I've observed, it looks as though the current crop of Foveon camera's seem on par(print wise) with 36mp sensor camera's, which can be observed with higher resolutions sensors such as the 5DSR which shows significant per/pixel detail advantages in all but the red channels. At which point, the differences seem minimal. And so from as resolution stand-point, I'm thinking we should give credit where credit is due, as Sigma has certainly showed what the Foven sensor is capable of with proper development.

Whatever the case, I take no issue with Sigma's compact wonders, as I've always been a fan of what they've managed to pull off in terms of output size and IQ in what looks like a rather undersized camera body. But if I had to choose between a K-5(or better yet, a K-5 IIs) and a Foveon camera for landscape work, street shooting, sports or wildlife, you can be sure I'd take the Pentax over a DP/0/1/2 without as much as a second thought. Unless of course, I had to contend with very specific conditions, or was intent on a larger than 13in prints.

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-23-2015 at 04:59 AM.
05-23-2015, 04:52 AM   #101
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,432
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
I agree. And don't get me wrong. I'm not stating the K-5 can outresolve the DP2 as the resolution advantages are quite clear. Though, it always erks me when I see images used for comparison without making full use the files potential, ie, throughout this thread, most every comparison image post involving the K-5 isn't showing the K-5 potential. IOW. None of these showing the detail and/or sharpening adjustments used to extrapolate for Bayer sensor output. Whereas the Foveon camera's on the other hand, are reknown for delivering highly optimized OOC images. And while this should not be viewed as a user error, I'd add that most camera manufacturers(safe Fuji) simply don't seem to care enough to provide anything more than what I'd call, the bare minimum for their camera's. - Whatever the case, and I say this purely from personal observation. But I see few(if any) K-5 samples in thread that actually qualify for showing what the K-5 sensor can do in terms of IQ and detail.

However, it remains that if/when the K-5 files are processed for detail, that it will not only match, but exceed the Foveon file up-to a given size. And the reasons for this are quite obvious. The K-5 holds better; DR, SNR, and colour potential, than any Foveon camera on the market. And so with regards to the test, I'd add that the DP2 will only exceed the K-5 in resolution(pixel detail) once it exceeds the K-5's potential output size. Though not in DR and colour.

Having said that. From what I've observed, it looks as though the current crop of Foveon camera's seem on par(print wise) with 36mp sensor camera's, which can be observed with higher resolutions sensors such as the 5DSR which shows significant per/pixel detail advantages in all but the red channels. At which point, the differences seem minimal. And so from as resolution stand-point, I'm thinking we should give credit where credit is due, as Sigma has certainly showed what the Foven sensor is capable of with proper development.

Whatever the case, I take no issue with Sigma's compact wonders, as I've always been a fan of what they've managed to pull off in terms of output size and IQ in what looks like a rather undersized camera body.

But if I had to choose between a K-5(or better yet, a K-5 IIs) and a Foveon camera for landscape work, street shooting, sports or wildlife, you can be sure I'd take the Pentax over a DP/0/1/2 without as much as a second thought. Unless of course, I had to contend with very specific conditions, and had was intent on a larger than 13in prints.
The Foveon files always look really cooked to me -- more sharpening than I would be comfortable with in particular. Colors look a little funny at times as well. Probably I'm just used to Bayer sensors.
05-23-2015, 05:06 AM   #102
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The Foveon files always look really cooked to me -- more sharpening than I would be comfortable with in particular. Colors look a little funny at times as well. Probably I'm just used to Bayer sensors.
This is likely from camera processing. Though the RAW files can be adjusted to avert this. ie, I've had good success with RAW Therapee on older Foveon systems in this regard.

That said, there are other advantages from the Sigma camera's to be considered also. Namely with the depth of field. Which is something that works very well for landscape shooters. ie, if you look at the flower shots posted by normhead, it becomes apparent that the Foveon camera has no issues capturing the entire flower in the focal plane. Whereas the Pentax, even at f/11 can't pull it off. Now, I'm not going to knit-pick on the fact that a different lens and framing could have done the trick, but it does show however why Sigma's compact camera has grown so popular with the point and shoot crowd. ie, it makes taking sharp, vibrant shots very easy for the shooter. - and so in that sense, I think Sigma has been very smart in their working formula
05-23-2015, 06:08 AM   #103
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,432
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
This is likely from camera processing. Though the RAW files can be adjusted to avert this. ie, I've had good success with RAW Therapee on older Foveon systems in this regard.

That said, there are other advantages from the Sigma camera's to be considered also. Namely with the depth of field. Which is something that works very well for landscape shooters. ie, if you look at the flower shots posted by normhead, it becomes apparent that the Foveon camera has no issues capturing the entire flower in the focal plane. Whereas the Pentax, even at f/11 can't pull it off. Now, I'm not going to knit-pick on the fact that a different lens and framing could have done the trick, but it does show however why Sigma's compact camera has grown so popular with the point and shoot crowd. ie, it makes taking sharp, vibrant shots very easy for the shooter. - and so in that sense, I think Sigma has been very smart in their working formula
Why would a Foveon sensor provide more depth of field? I thought that was controlled by aperture combined with sensor size and distance to subject and in Norm's shots, the K5 shot is at f11 and the Sigma is at f16 (bokeh is pretty rough on that f16 shot).

I do like the look of some Sigma shots. As you say, probably the biggest thing is that out of camera jpegs from Foveon sensors rival what you can get out of some pretty intensive processing with Bayer sensor images.
05-23-2015, 06:30 AM   #104
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Why would a Foveon sensor provide more depth of field?
I'd say this is likely the combination of sensor(size) and optics.

QuoteQuote:
...and distance to subject...
Without seeing the original photo's, it looks as though the Pentax subject is framed closer than with the Sigma.

QuoteQuote:
..intensive processing with Bayer sensor images.
That's so true. And what I've noticed is that that many of the mainstream RAW developers(safe a few) seem to have fallen into a lull by remaining oblivious to the growing needs of RAW files in recent years. Which may be the result of having become accustomed to what I'd call common standards. Whereas other developers like; RAW Therapee, Iridient Developer and DXO Optics, seem to have taken the initiative by setting their sights on keeping-up with developments by providing tools to help users extrapolate as much detail from Bayer files as possible. And while profiling certainly makes short work out of processing, it remains that the learning curve required to process Bayer files for maximum detail remains somewhat obscured for all but the most seasoned of digital photographers. Which is an area that is definitely needing more attention as Bayer sensors continue to evolve in the future. - my two cents of course
.

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-23-2015 at 07:07 AM.
05-23-2015, 06:56 AM   #105
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,244
The Pentax was using a 35mm lens, the Sigma is a 30mm lens, but I used the same tripod position. And even though I have sharpening turned way down on the Sigma, many images appear overshare right off the raw converter, but they generally look quite good pixel peeping, so I'm not sure if it's sharpening artifacts, or artifacts introduced by the software reduction algoritthms that take a 3000 pixel wide image and reduce it to screen size.

Also note, it was a windy day, I had trouble getting good exposures, that's why I'm not showing images taken at the same ƒ-stop and the carrying DoFs. When it comes to testing I really prefer cheap and dirty.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, color, comparison, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, lens, light, pentax k-5, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 645D colours and the Sigma Merrill larkis Pentax Medium Format 8 11-13-2012 10:45 AM
Are Tv and Av obsolete on the K-5? Yeti Pentax K-5 9 03-31-2012 04:32 PM
New Sigma DP1 and DP2 Merrill with the same 46MP Foveon X3 sensor from the Sigma SD1 UdonUdon Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 29 02-20-2012 12:30 PM
Sharpness and metering problems with Bellows on the K-5 Matchete Pentax K-5 25 02-14-2012 12:31 PM
Is the Autofocus up to speed on the K-5 or K-7? GLXLR Pentax K-5 30 06-03-2011 10:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top