Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-23-2014, 06:14 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 392
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
How come? To my eyes the Sigma sky looks way more natural.
The blue sky in the sigma shot has a magenta cast.

10-23-2014, 06:28 AM   #17
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 12
Similar to the K-3 comparison, my thoughts are that this is not a good comparison. The K-5 IIs photo is out of focus, less exposed, and taken an hour before the Sigma photo, under completely different lighting, with a different color balance. As a former Sigma SD9 owner (briefly), I'm strongly biased against Sigma, but that doesn't change what I noted. Also, the Sigma mountains look fake to me, like a 3D rendering from a 3D modeling program, but that is subjective.
10-23-2014, 06:42 AM   #18
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,004
QuoteOriginally posted by Aboudd Quote
Out of focus and Rokinon inferior quality glass, different lens length, lighting contrast different in both frames. Why bother?
As much as I love my K-3 and Pentax glass for what they are capable of, I gotta admit that the Sigma is just sharper. Bitingly so. It's like it's taking a different picture.


Pentax K-3/FA31 vs. Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr


Pentax K-3/FA31 vs. Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr


Pentax K-3/FA31 vs. Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr

Read more about it here:
What Blog is This?: Damn You, Sigma DP2m
10-23-2014, 08:11 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,535
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
How come? To my eyes the Sigma sky looks way more natural.
On my calibrated monitor it looks distinctly unnatural.

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
As much as I love my K-3 and Pentax glass for what they are capable of, I gotta admit that the Sigma is just sharper. Bitingly so. It's like it's taking a different picture.
Not a fair comparison IMO Sigma sharpen their raw files - especially the red channel.

10-23-2014, 08:54 AM   #20
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,004
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Not a fair comparison IMO Sigma sharpen their raw files - especially the red channel.
I've tried sharpening the K-3 files in post and still can't replicate the sharpness of the Sigma. Believe me, I tried. After the Sigma trounced the K-01 and K-5, I was hoping that the lack of an AA filter and 24 megapickles would give the K-3 a fighting chance. It's closer, but still no cigar.

And, to be honest, I don't care much about a "fair comparison". I just want results. And the Sigma, under certain circumstances, gives me results that I can't replicate with any of my Pentax gear. It's a specialty tool for sure, but OMG it's great at what it does. As is the K-3 for nearly everything else.

QuoteOriginally posted by jrpower10 Quote
This is a better comparison, but it's still using different lenses. How much of the difference can be attributed to the lens? I love my 31, but if I'm looking for super-sharp from it, I'm stopped down to f8. A great comparison would be both cameras using the Sigma 30mm f1.4, set up side by side, same exposure set up and shot together to insure the same lighting. Probably asking way too much for anyone to own both cameras and both versions of the lens, but that'd be the true test (OK, maybe that's a bit overboard, but all you can do is ask).
Here's the Sigma DP2M:


Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr

If you can figure out how to hack off the fixed lens and then attach the Sigma 30mm F1.4, then let me know LOL. Seriously, I suspect that a part of the Sigma advantage is due to the fact that it's a fixed lens camera with tighter tolerances. And there's definitely a benefit to be razor sharp from F2.8 like the Sigma vs. having to stop down.

FWIW, I compared the Sigma for the K-3/FA43 as well. The Sigma still "won".

Last edited by johnmflores; 10-23-2014 at 01:36 PM.
10-23-2014, 08:59 AM   #21
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
The Foveon sensor has been shown to resolve as much as a D800. Of course a k-3 and a k-5 isn't going to match it. The complaints I have on this thread and the other is that the images look very processed, and have different colour casts/white balance that can be adjusted in post and do not provide a good representation of the natural results from either camera if we are to compare them. I wouldn't take the two images to use as comparison. I'd view the images as separate images of artistic interpretation of the scene.
10-23-2014, 09:09 AM   #22
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 12
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
I've tried sharpening the K-3 files in post and still can't replicate the sharpness of the Sigma. Believe me, I tried. After the Sigma trounced the K-01 and K-5, I was hoping that the lack of an AA filter and 24 megapickles would give the K-3 a fighting chance. It's closer, but still no cigar.

And, to be honest, I don't care much about a "fair comparison". I just want results. And the Sigma, under certain circumstances, gives me results that I can't replicate with any of my Pentax gear. It's a specialty tool for sure, but OMG it's great at what it does. As it the K-3 for nearly everything else.



Here's the Sigma DP2M:


Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr

If you can figure out how to hack off the fixed lens and then attach the Sigma 30mm F1.4, then let me know LOL. Seriously, I suspect that a part of the Sigma advantage is due to the fact that it's a fixed lens camera with tighter tolerances. And there's definitely a benefit to be razor sharp from F2.8 like the Sigma vs. having to stop down.

FWIW, I compared the Sigma for the K-3/FA43 as well. The Sigma still "won".
I say great, if you like that Sigma, and it works for you. Never used a DP2M, but I owned the SD9 briefly, and couldn't get rid of it fast enough. Worst camera I've ever used. Unbelievably bad. It was severely lacking in features, slow as molasses, and the images were often noisy, and full of artifacts.
10-23-2014, 12:33 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
God forbid that anyone should suggest that the little DP2M can outdo the flagship Pentax and those wondrous Limited lenses.

Obviously there has got to be something wrong with it and by golly we'll find it or die trying.

I find the Sigma more akin to shooting medium format than 35mm, full frame or otherwise. It does not compete in those areas where 35mm has its greatest strength. But if you are after stunning, medium format-like, image quality, either in black & white or color. I have to agree with John, this little Sigma is a real contender.

If I am leaving on a trip, it is one of the cameras that goes into my ready bag. Lousy battery life, software, low iso and all.

Sometimes I am after only 40 great images, not 4,000 ones I have to sort out when I get back home.

10-23-2014, 01:12 PM   #24
Pentaxian
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,439
Exactly, it's quite similar to the old medium format folders in the limitations and slownesss of use. But just as then some photographers today will trade away some usability to get increased image quality. The DP series aren't a threat to the K-3, so no need to be overly defensive, as they are completely different offerings.
10-23-2014, 02:00 PM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
I don't have a dog in this fight. I like the K5 and k3 and feel like they have enough detail, but for some reason, when I look at Sigma images, they feel over-sharpened, like they are on the edge of artifacts. But to each his own...
10-23-2014, 07:04 PM   #26
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,239
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
To my eyes the Sigma sky looks way more natural.
To my eyes as well, and I've driven to and through Jasper National Park at least 50 times over the last 37 years. There is a slight difference in colour between my two monitors, so I viewed the pictures in both monitors. The K-5II image is awful, maybe in PP you could increase the exposure and improve the sky colour, but that wouldn't help the unnatural colouring of the trees or the bushes, gravel and grass in the foreground. Could the problem be the Rokinon lens? I get better results with my K-30 and the much maligned DA 18-135.
10-23-2014, 07:54 PM   #27
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Posts: 545
Original Poster
The K5IIs and Rokinon lens had a polarizer while the Sigma didn't. That would account for some of the colour differences.

Dale
10-23-2014, 08:20 PM   #28
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,239
QuoteOriginally posted by DDoram Quote
The K5IIs and Rokinon lens had a polarizer
I should have guessed that, but I only use my CPL filters for sun reflecting on water or summer haze and since I wouldn't use them for this scene, it didn't occur to me that someone else might. The shot with the Sigma does a great job of showing the effects of a clear, dry sky and the lower angles of the sun in fall. That's one of the things I like about this season, how everything looks "crisp" because the natural light produces more contrast. For anyone who hasn't seen this type of scene at this time of year in this location, the real mountains have a "3-D" look to them, without any digital PP. Which doesn't say anything about the Foveon sensor being superiour, because this isn't a very well controlled experiment.
10-23-2014, 08:27 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
As much as I love my K-3 and Pentax glass for what they are capable of, I gotta admit that the Sigma is just sharper. Bitingly so. It's like it's taking a different picture.


Pentax K-3/FA31 vs. Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr


Pentax K-3/FA31 vs. Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr


Pentax K-3/FA31 vs. Sigma DP2m
by john m flores, on Flickr

Read more about it here:
What Blog is This?: Damn You, Sigma DP2m
Yikes, to me it looks like there's something wrong with your FA31. That's a kit-lens level performance.

---------- Post added 10-23-14 at 11:30 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't have a dog in this fight. I like the K5 and k3 and feel like they have enough detail, but for some reason, when I look at Sigma images, they feel over-sharpened, like they are on the edge of artifacts. But to each his own...
They probably are. The Sigma software really cooks the images at default settings - probably better for printing than web-viewing. I know some Sigma users turn down some of the processing for posting images.
10-23-2014, 09:33 PM   #30
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,004
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Yikes, to me it looks like there's something wrong with your FA31. That's a kit-lens level performance.

---------- Post added 10-23-14 at 11:30 PM ----------



They probably are. The Sigma software really cooks the images at default settings - probably better for printing than web-viewing. I know some Sigma users turn down some of the processing for posting images.

Nope, my FA31 is fine. I've gotten plenty of wonderful, eyelash-sharp photos with it. It's only when compared to the Sigma that it doesn't match up, and I bet it has more to do with the Bayer filter than the glass.

And I've tried sharpening the Pentax shots and while they are close to the Sigma, there's something different about the Sigma shots. When I returned the Sigma to my brother, I said, it's weird, because this camera takes photos that are just fundamentally different, almost hyper-realistic.

If you have tried one of the DP Merrills, I suggest you try. Seeing is believing.
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, dp2m, dslr, fall, flickr, flores, images, john, jokes, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, k5iis, k5iis vs sigma, pentax, pentax k-5, photo, polarizer, post, shot, sigma, steve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Neocamera - K3 vs. K5IIs Spodeworld Pentax K-3 59 04-08-2016 08:42 PM
K3 vs Sigma DP2M for Landscape DDoram Pentax K-3 23 10-26-2014 11:22 AM
K3 vs. K5IIs Fontan Pentax K-3 18 08-18-2014 01:40 PM
K-3 w FA 31 vs Sigma DP2M djc737 Pentax K-3 21 04-21-2014 10:51 PM
K5II vs K5IIs - A New Choice Tested mcgregni Pentax DSLR and Camera Articles 15 10-31-2013 02:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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