[redcat]

I'll tell you what. I'm getting my K-3 any minute now (UPS is running late, camera was due in by 10:30, its now almost 11:30) and as soon as I have it charged and ready, I'll go outside, take a photo of the church next door (one with the K-3, one with my PowerShot) and post the Canon, unprocessed K-3 RAW shot, and then one I took a little time to work on after the fact.

interesting comparison, wait for your K3 photos ^^

So, you can check the picture here: http://www.gurroa.com/Milos/

seeing these photos, the coolpix A sure is a good camera with a fixed 28mm f2.8, it's not to be underated

[stevebrot]

Down-sample your K-3 images to 3872x2592 pixels (K200D resolution) and redo your comparisons.


Steve

[photosbyspeed]

I was unable to zoom in on your backyard photo taken with the sigma... but the coolpix photo looks way better across the frame than the one taken with the kit lens(that lens sucks). Seriously, you mounted the cheapest lens to the flagship camera and wonder why they suck... Sure, processing would make them all better, but just scroll from the bottom of that image to the top and you can tell you are using a lens with horrible corner performance(it actually looks really good in the center)
I have a little bit of experience with the Sigma, and so far I liked it pretty well for across the frame sharpness. I've heard of auto focus issues from others but I normally shoot nature mounted to a tripod and manually focus for hyper focal distance, so I don't have a lot of experience with its AF.

[Docrwm]

Again, you did a straight RAW conversion. RAW images have everything the camera took in in the data, and just doing a straight JPG shift without doing anyactual postwork (contrast, saturation, sharpnes, etc) is going to give you an awful result.

Try setting the camera to JPG and see what you get from the in-camera processing, I'd bet they'll be worlds better then the ones you posted without any postwork done to them.

A RAW/DNG file is kind of like an unstirred soup. It has everything in it, but its not prioritized or made 'nice' in any way to be really palatable. You need to spend a little time (usually only a few seconds) to get that image how you want it. Think of the RAW as an unprocessed negative in a darkroom. Unless you actually process it (ie, do some port process work), its not going to be much use to you.

Is there any chance you could post a RAW file from the K-3? To me it looks pretty much like user error and not the camera (not meant to be a slam here) itself, only because there was a missed step in the process of getting the shots off the camera and into something useful.

How about setting SD1 for RAW and SD2 for JPG? I have enjoyed doing it that way and the JPGs straight out of the camera that way are easy to sort and nto half bad in most cases. RAW to RAW from different platforms without post is setting things up for failure. As Sagitta said - try JPG to JPG comparisons OR try doing post with each and see which is easier to work with and produces the best results after some work.

[manntax]

So, you can check the picture here: http://www.gurroa.com/Milos/

Your photos basically say this :
1) Nikon appears to have MASSIVE sharpening applied where K-3 files are UNDERPROCESSED. SOLUTION: Apply more aggressive sharpening during developing RAW file

2) K-3 has SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution - especially kit lens will be outresolved easilly by this massive sensor - SOLUTION: down sample images to similar as Nikon resolution with SHARPENING (aggressive ) applied.
ADDITIONALLY : Use better lens, with higher resolution , adequate for this 6000x 4000 pix sensor. Your kit lens really isn't up to it. Sigma art looks better but still the focusing technique can affect the IQ terribly.

3) your focusing method for these shots has a lot to improve - in most cases your focal point is shifted towords the front too much and so distant subjects are blured with sharper foregroud ( especially visible with Sigma Art lens. ) - it is VERY EASY to get more foreground in sharp focus - at the expense of far distance. - SOLUTION: Use LIVE VIEW to confirm the sharpness and double check - pay attention to distant objects and edges. It is VERY easy to ho beyond infinity with scenes like that with AF lenses.

4) Lastly use better developing technique - your K-3 files looks like RAW converted just to show it on the screen , where Nikon files are totally over-processed and over-sharpened - with UGLY textures and artificial patterns. SOLUTION: Learn to post process your files with wide range of modern tools.

hope these helps

[FunnyUncle]

interesting comparison, wait for your K3 photos ^^


seeing these photos, the coolpix A sure is a good camera with a fixed 28mm f2.8, it's not to be underated

Nikon Coolpix has APS-C so I think it´s good choice to compare with K3. Canon Powershot is 1/1,7" I think, so it´s not good, bro...

---------- Post added 02-03-15 at 06:09 PM ----------

I was unable to zoom in on your backyard photo taken with the sigma... but the coolpix photo looks way better across the frame than the one taken with the kit lens(that lens sucks). Seriously, you mounted the cheapest lens to the flagship camera and wonder why they suck... Sure, processing would make them all better, but just scroll from the bottom of that image to the top and you can tell you are using a lens with horrible corner performance(it actually looks really good in the center)
I have a little bit of experience with the Sigma, and so far I liked it pretty well for across the frame sharpness. I've heard of auto focus issues from others but I normally shoot nature mounted to a tripod and manually focus for hyper focal distance, so I don't have a lot of experience with its AF.

I like to read an inteligent comment... actually I don´t want to devalue K3. I am only searching the way to do better pictures. And I am afraid to buy other expencive lens becouse of the same results as Sigma 18-35 Art.

And you are right, Sigma had front focus, I think...

[photosbyspeed]

Nikon Coolpix has APS-C so I think it´s good choice to compare with K3. Canon Powershot is 1/1,7" I think, so it´s not good, bro...

---------- Post added 02-03-15 at 06:09 PM ----------


I like to read an inteligent comment... actually I don´t want to devalue K3. I am only searching the way to do better pictures. And I am afraid to buy other expencive lens becouse of the same results as Sigma 18-35 Art.

And you are right, Sigma had front focus, I think...

Where are you located? Is there a rental shop that will ship to you or one where you can pick one up? I use lensrentals.com all the time just because I like to try before I buy.

[FunnyUncle]

Your photos basically say this :
1) Nikon appears to have MASSIVE sharpening applied where K-3 files are UNDERPROCESSED. SOLUTION: Apply more aggressive sharpening during developing RAW file

2) K-3 has SIGNIFICANTLY higher resolution - especially kit lens will be outresolved easilly by this massive sensor - SOLUTION: down sample images to similar as Nikon resolution with SHARPENING (aggressive ) applied.
ADDITIONALLY : Use better lens, with higher resolution , adequate for this 6000x 4000 pix sensor. Your kit lens really isn't up to it. Sigma art looks better but still the focusing technique can affect the IQ terribly.

3) your focusing method for these shots has a lot to improve - in most cases your focal point is shifted towords the front too much and so distant subjects are blured with sharper foregroud ( especially visible with Sigma Art lens. ) - it is VERY EASY to get more foreground in sharp focus - at the expense of far distance. - SOLUTION: Use LIVE VIEW to confirm the sharpness and double check - pay attention to distant objects and edges. It is VERY easy to ho beyond infinity with scenes like that with AF lenses.

4) Lastly use better developing technique - your K-3 files looks like RAW converted just to show it on the screen , where Nikon files are totally over-processed and over-sharpened - with UGLY textures and artificial patterns. SOLUTION: Learn to post process your files with wide range of modern tools.

hope these helps

1) There is no sharpening on both... The answer is more simple, Nikon is better
2) We downsize the pictures to 12Mpix, 16Mpix and results was the same
3) I will try improve but I can work with other stuff like Nikon 5100, Fuji XE-1, Nikon D600 and others... so the Pentax have some special button to make a good picture, I don´t know where (sorry for sarcasm... but actually the Nikon is Really sharp... there is no other processing... but the Raw was not looked so good, but after Export the JPG was amazing...)

I will see later what the service center for the Pentax will say about the quality. I am looking forward to get this infoemation soon...

[Giklab]

Try setting the JPEG sharpening on your K-3 to fine or extra fine and wayyy to the right. TBH the images from the 18-55 are about what you'd expect, and the Sigma has focusing issues. I suggest tuning the Sigma, and if it doesn't focus correctly then, return it and get some other lens.

[csa]

"I will see later what the service center for the Pentax will say about the quality. I am looking forward to get this infoemation soon..."

I think it's rather soon to contact the service center, before you try other settings. I have problems myself with shooting RAW, simply because I'm not familiar enough with pp to work with it; so I use JPEG. There are so many settings on the Pentax cameras that will "fine tune" photos, it takes awhile to get a new camera set to your liking.

For those of us on a budget, I don't agree with "kit lens(that lens sucks)". I have it, and am satisfied with it. Of course I haven't been able to compare it to other lens that cost triple or more.

[manntax]

1) There is no sharpening on both... The answer is more simple, Nikon is better

I am sorry to disillusion you on this matter but Nikon indeed has LOADS of native sharpening applied. It is clearly visible from your samples. I don;t have the time for this but I could pull better results from your K-3 and RAW file - provided lens was focused correctly and for this comparison I suggest to use a decent PRIME 28mm lens instead of crappy kit lens , as I understand that Nikon is in fact a fixed focal length camera right ? If that is the case - even idea of comparing this with a low budged kit zoom lens is ridiculous.

I would advise you to stop any further testing until you get a well regarded, immune to sample variations good prime lens. Your Sigma lens isn't one of them - so I read online. I suggest you getting a SMC-F 28mm f2.8 - this lens will definitely squeeze every single photon out of that K-3.

[Sagitta]

I'm assuming the Nikon is a RAW file as well (the EXIF hints at it), but looking at the two shots of the church two things jumped at me:


First, the Nikon Coolpix has one of the best fixed focal length lenses permanently adhered to the camera with all in-camera software and hardware geared to make the most out of that one, single lens. Said lens is a 28mm, and for all intents and purposes should be classed as a prime (and a very decent one at that).


The K-3 was shot with the 18-55 kit lens. The 18-55 is a good lens, but its also very much a budget lens, and its also a zoom.


Except for very rare cases, a zoom will *never* be as sharp as a prime, especially at the ends of its focal range In this case, you shot the 18-55 at 18mm - which is a weak point for that lens.

Looking at the two shots, it also appears that you either stood closer to the church with the 18-55 or you cropped the 18-55's shot down to make it the same general frame as the 28mm. At which point in the process of making the shots the same size, the K-3 shot was them upsized to match the Nikon, which would only make any troubles with it all the worse.

Your 18-55 shot also shows signs of heavy fringing, which is a little surprising at the aperture you chose (at f/11 any fringing should basically be gone, even with the kit lens). This could indeed be a case where the lens itself is bad, and may be worth watching for. The fact that its overexposed and against a bright background didn't help the shot either, of course.

Without being there to actually look at your K-3, if I were to guess whats going on, I'm now going to say user error (not processing your RAWs properly) combined with what could be a bad or underperforming lens.

If you really wanted to level the playing field, you really do need to stick a 28mm prime on the K-3 and compare the results then.

If and when my K-3 ever decided to show up (c'mon UPS, you're 2 1/2 hours late now...) I'll put my old Sears prime on my camera and use that along with my 18-55 just for kicks to see how things work.

[ruggiex]

Ignoring the cathedral for now because there's something else going on there and just looking at the second set of images. Also, ignoring lens quality differences. Assuming these are converted from Raw files (hinted by the EXIF), I'll mention that, the first day I had my K-3 I was very unimpressed compared to K-5. The output was very flat looking, which looks kind of like the results you are posting here. After some PP (and learn to change my PP process for K-3 files), I happily sold my K-5. Were you changing K-3's sliders in camera raw to match Nikon? Were you exporting the raw to jpeg with default profiles? There are so many variables and unknown. If K-3 was really this bad, you would have heard way more complaints.

[FunnyUncle]

I am sorry to disillusion you on this matter but Nikon indeed has LOADS of native sharpening applied. It is clearly visible from your samples. I don;t have the time for this but I could pull better results from your K-3 and RAW file - provided lens was focused correctly and for this comparison I suggest to use a decent PRIME 28mm lens instead of crappy kit lens , as I understand that Nikon is in fact a fixed focal length camera right ? If that is the case - even idea of comparing this with a low budged kit zoom lens is ridiculous.

I would advise you to stop any further testing until you get a well regarded, immune to sample variations good prime lens. Your Sigma lens isn't one of them - so I read online. I suggest you getting a SMC-F 28mm f2.8 - this lens will definitely squeeze every single photon out of that K-3.

I will try it, thx...

[aleonx3]

interesting comparison, wait for your K3 photos ^^


seeing these photos, the coolpix A sure is a good camera with a fixed 28mm f2.8, it's not to be underated

I thought the fix lens is 18.5mm focal length, no?