[Stagnant]

Regular
Pixelshift Resolution.

Sigma 18-35 art. Processed in Silkypix DS Pro 7. These are shots with a very long exposure (13 and 15 seconds). The only artefact I noticed was a moving bird on top of a building.

[Stagnant]

Sigma 18-35 F1.8. Processed in PDCU.

Regular RAW file.
Pixelshift enabled, motion correction enabled.
Pixelshift enabled, motion correction disabled.

The water certainly looks weird in both version of pixelshifted images, but the one developed with motion correction enabled, certainly looks more natural. In my opinion, an object like ship, did not really benefit from PS feature. Certainly you can discern more fine details and the dark portions of the image look cleaner, but I am not sure if it is worth it, because Sigma 18-35 produces damn sharp images without any PS magick.

[Stagnant]

Sigma 18-35 F1.8.

- PS .
- Regular

- PS
- Regular

The files were processed in SilkyPix Developer Studio Pro 7. Each set received exactly the same treatment. PS files look more contrasty and slightly brighter. Check the trees in the background to see the effect of pixelshifting. I was not able to find any artifacts.
Technically speaking this is NOT a static scene, but the amount of movement was minimal, so the resulting images look good.

[jimr-pdx]

Ok - now I know that you guys are in a conspiracy to get me to buy one

Do Not look at the silver ones!
That's what did me in..

[MJSfoto1956]

Just before my vacation I bought K-3 II as a replacement for my K-3, that died some months ago. On one of the days I took my camera and a tripod to the mountains, to test the pixelshift resolution in the field, so to say. I used two lenses Sigma Art 18-35 F1.8 and Pentax DA* 60-250 F4. Images were processed in SilkyPix DS Pro 7.

PS images without matching regular files.





Matching pairs.

Sigma.

PS.
Regular.

PS
Regular.

PS
Regular

PS
Regular

PS
Regular

Pentax

PS
Regular

PS
Regular

PS
Regular

Click on the preview images to see them on Flickr and download in their original size. Alternatively here is a link to a folder on Google Drive where these images are uploaded. It might be easier for some to download from Google drive as opposed to Flickr. Download the files to your computer and compare them side by side. FastStone Image Viewer is perfectly suitable for this.

so tell us about your travel kit: you clearly have the DA* 60-250mm & 18-35mm f/1.8. Do you take any other lenses along? Or is that you "minimal" kit? If so, any issues with just the two lenses?

Michael

[Stagnant]

@MJSfoto1956 ,normally it is just two lenses. DA* 60-250 and either DA* 16-50 or 18-35 F1.8 Art. If I am shooting mostly landscapes in good light I use 16-50, if I am shooting architecture or some events / conference I stick to 18-35, because it is far superior optically, especially at wide apertures. During my last vacation in Croatia I had the following lenses: 16-50, 18-35, FA 50, 60-250 and A 70-210. I used full frame lenses almost exclusively on my film SLR. On some days I carried both SLR and DSLR.<br />
[Edit] I carried only one standard / wide zoom at a time.<br />
<br />
Problems / challenges.<br />
<br />
60-250 has some issues with focusing at the long end, especially wide open. Perhaps it is just my copy, as I tested it on K-01, K-3 and K-3 II. A faster apertue and / or better performance of camera at higher iso would be very helpful. A steadier autofocus of the combination would be helpful as well (both CDAF and PDAF). <br />
Sigma can be quite unpredictable when it comes to focusing in certain situations, especially for portraits at wide apertures. Also sometimes 18 is not wide enough and 35 is not long enough. But the latter is easy to fix by cropping - 24 mp gives me enough room for manipulation.
[Edit #2] The kit I described is quite heavy, and a typical shooter would opt for something lighter, but I mostly concerned about the optical quality of the kit and flexibility. If I had money for K-1, I would most likely stick with the zooms to cover the entire range. 15-35, 24-70, 70-210 and 150-400.