Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-24-2014, 07:54 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,226
QuoteOriginally posted by DDoram Quote
I recently visited Jasper National Park in Canada and had the K5IIs and Sigma DP2M with 15 MP foeven sensor with me. A few shots were of similar subjects but not exactly the same focal lengths. In this comparison the K5IIs is paired with the Rokinon 24mm TS and of course the Sigma has a 30mm prime lens. The 1st photo is the K5IIs and the 2nd is the Sigma. The less sharpness on the K5IIs photo is likely a slight focussing error. Let me know your thoughts.

Dale
A slight focusing error would be putting it mildly. Manual vs Auto seriously? You used all camera manual modes with a truly non comparative TS prime manual lens against a camera using non manual modes and an AF prime lens using AF. The only thing IMO this shows is you may want to consider working on your manual skills, nothing else is really comparative in your testing, especially with the time of day variance in EV lighting difference. You can't remotely expect the light casting on your subject at around 1pm to be the same at 6pm and expect the same bright detail. I suggest if your going to do camera comparisons, set up both cameras side by side using comparable lenses with the exact same settings. Then compare your results.

I am not disputing the Sigma being a fine camera and could render a sharper image but anyone with a K5 lls and some knowledge using it knows it can and does perform better than your example.


Last edited by Oldbayrunner; 10-24-2014 at 08:09 AM.
10-24-2014, 01:38 PM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Posts: 555
Original Poster
Yes you are correct that I did not do a good job focussing with the Rokinon, my bad. However, the photos were taken just minutes part so light is very similar. My point was more to show sensor tonality variations as I admitted in my original post that the K5IIs was not focussed as well as it should have been.

Dale
10-24-2014, 02:11 PM   #33
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,097
QuoteOriginally posted by DDoram Quote
The K5IIs and Rokinon lens had a polarizer while the Sigma didn't. That would account for some of the colour differences.

Dale
I quit using polarizer filters on my digital cameras years ago due to strange and unpredictable color rendering.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-24-14 at 02:15 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by DDoram Quote
However, the photos were taken just minutes part so light is very similar. My point was more to show sensor tonality variations as I admitted in my original post that the K5IIs was not focussed as well as it should have been.
According to the exif, the two photos were taken almost an hour apart (13:03 for the K-5 IIs and 13:58 for the Sigma)

The K-5 IIs shot is underexposed and the mountain is fully shaded as well. Bleh...

Quite simply, the Sigma shot had a superior subject to start with and benefited by better technique. That being said, it is an impressive image regardless of any comparisons being made. The K-5 IIs image would not have survived the first cull in my flow.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 10-24-2014 at 04:12 PM.
10-24-2014, 03:12 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,226
QuoteOriginally posted by DDoram Quote
Yes you are correct that I did not do a good job focussing with the Rokinon, my bad. However, the photos were taken just minutes part so light is very similar. My point was more to show sensor tonality variations as I admitted in my original post that the K5IIs was not focussed as well as it should have been.

Dale
MY bad on the time of day difference I looked at the File date on one and the date taken on the other. Still and all though you can't compare sensor tonality when your exposure settings are vastly different coupled with the polarizer on one and not the other.

10-25-2014, 06:00 PM   #35
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 14
I downloaded the Sigma software for PP and it's terrible. I wouldn't buy a Sigma because of it. I would love to own an SD1 honestly, but because of that terrible software I wont buy one. When Adobe supports their raw files I will probably jump right on board to one of their cameras.

I wish the new line had interchangeable lenses, it's too bad you have to buy a camera for each lens size.
10-25-2014, 06:23 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,832
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
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.
Huh. Its not just that it looks bad next to the super-sharp Sigma, it looks bad on its own. If someone had posted that FA31 image solo, I would have asked if there was an issue with the lens. Maybe the camera just eff'd up the focus on that shot.

Personally, I find that many Sigma shots too cooked-looking for my taste, but I think that is more due to how people use the Sigma software than the camera itself. I do keep a lookout to see if I can pick up one of the DP Merrills at a bargain price.
10-25-2014, 06:55 PM   #37
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,226
Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is the Sigma was taken at a much closer distance to the subject and at a different angle then the K5 lls.
10-26-2014, 11:39 AM   #38
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,097
QuoteOriginally posted by Oldbayrunner Quote
Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is the Sigma was taken at a much closer distance to the subject and at a different angle then the K5 lls.
Yes, there are a combination of factors.
  • Different time of day. One hour is huge at that latitude at that time of year.
  • Poor lighting on the background peaks for the K-5IIs image
  • Ineffective PP on the K-5IIs image
  • Polarizer filter on one and not the other
  • Different location and FOV
  • FOV normalized by cropping (yes, the K-5IIs image appears to be a crop)

I actually did a little work with the K-5IIs image in LR and noticed almost immediately that there is a distinct lack of contrast overall. I attribute that to the polarizer filter (veiling flare?) and to the lack of higher values in general. I did little work and was able to manage a more striking image, though with a fair amount of artifact and not nearly as arresting as that from the Sigma. Light! Light! Light!


Steve

10-28-2014, 01:19 PM   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,771
Exposure and lighting are playing a role here too - this isn't the best comparison, or at least an unfavorable one to the K5.
This doesn't detract from the image via Sigma, which is a very good image - though it has some "HDR" quality to it.
10-28-2014, 07:29 PM   #40
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,097
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I actually did a little work with the K-5IIs image in LR
Ok...here is the K-5 tweaked a bit in Lightroom. It would have been a bit easier with the RAW. What I essentially did was to increase exposure by 1.5 stops with a little dampening of the low values to enhance contrast. I also dropped the luminance of the orange and yellow channels to enhance contrast.




Steve
10-28-2014, 07:50 PM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,226
And the winnah is!!!!

Sigma

(It took almost 6 days of Photosopping to get the K5 image to look anywhere near as good. )
10-28-2014, 07:55 PM   #42
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,114
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
And the winnah is!!!!

Sigma

(It took almost 6 days of Photosopping to get the K5 image to look anywhere near as good. )
LOL! I'm sold! I found someone selling the DPxM trio for $500 each. I'm very tempted...
10-28-2014, 08:06 PM   #43
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,097
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
(It took almost 6 days of Photosopping to get the K5 image to look anywhere near as good. )
Actually, the massaging was done the day the original was posted and took about 15 minutes. The task would have been easier if the original had been taken at the same time as the Sigma image, minus the polarizer. I would have been very, very interested in seeing a true side-by-side comparison of a truly compelling subject.


Steve
10-28-2014, 08:09 PM   #44
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,625
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Actually, the massaging was done the day the original was posted and took about 15 minutes. The task would have been easier if the original had been taken at the same time as the Sigma image, minus the polarizer. I would have been very, very interested in seeing a true side-by-side comparison of a truly compelling subject.


Steve
I believe he was making a joke, Steve
10-28-2014, 08:11 PM   #45
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,226
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Actually, the massaging was done the day the original was posted and took about 15 minutes. The task would have been easier if the original had been taken at the same time as the Sigma image, minus the polarizer. I would have been very, very interested in seeing a true side-by-side comparison of a truly compelling subject.


Steve
Let's not be grumpy now.

The contest was undeniably fair. Now go eat your spinach young man!
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 08:21 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