[normhead]

Here are a few pictures taken out my kitchen window. What dose 1024 get you?
All images were taken at 5.6, the Sigma images taken at 200 ISO , it's natural base ISO, and the K-5 and K-3 images were taken at 100 ISO. All three camera were mounted on a tripod and pictures taken with the 2 second delay to avoid vibration.
The scene, cropped to 1024 for the pixel peepers. I did a 1024 pixel crop to show what each lens camera combo can do.

The centre focus point was used with all lenses focussed on the picnic table.




K-5 DA 352.4


K-3 - DA 35 2.4


Looking at these top two images, you can clearly see the additional magnification you get with the K-3.

K-3 Tamron 17-50 at 28mm


Sigma DP2


The next thing was to take a crop of the DP2 Merrill and reduce the other images to it's size to see if they matched sharpness. I believe the SD2 was 1179, the K-5 was originally 1450, and the K-3 was 1620. Reduced to 1024 for display on the forum, the SD2 was still the sharpest image. The three images below are the K-5 DA 35 2.4 , K-3 35 and Tammy 17-50, the bottom is the SD2.

K-5 DA 35-2.4


K-3 Tamron 17-50


k-3 DA 35 2.4


SD2M


My conclusion, I still need my SD2 for what I bought it for. To my eye, there's more difference between a K-3 and the SD2 than there is between the K-5 and K-3. ANd the Tammy 17-50 looks just as good as the 35 2.4.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-27-2013 at 05:12 PM.

[rawr]

A useful comparison. The Tamron looks great on either the K-5 and K-3, which is nice to see, but I agree the Sigma still comes out best.

The Sigma also has the advantage of compactness and portability, of course. A very useful attribute for field work. If I was in your shoes, I'd still keep it.

[kenyee]

Wow...clearly shows how good the Sigma sensor is.
It's too bad the package around it isn't that great...I looked at buying one to try but 50 shots per battery? That killed it for me :-P

[normhead]

Wow...clearly shows how good the Sigma sensor is.
It's too bad the package around it isn't that great...I looked at buying one to try but 50 shots per battery? That killed it for me :-P

I have 4 batteries, but ya, I carry it in case I get a chance to use it, but there are a lot of times it's just not worth getting it out. It's like a lottery ticket. If you don't buy one, you can't win. But you might not win if you do buy one.

[ivoire]

I routinely get 180 shots from a battery. Technique make a big diff in how many shots you get

[fuent104]

ANd the Tammy 17-50 looks just as good as the 35 2.4.

Based on your history of posts, I can guess the answer to this question. Is your copy of the 35 2.4 a good one? I bought one brand new, and it was unbelievably awful. I sold it about a month after buying it. I have been told it was a bad copy. However, to be honest, when I look at the thread that features that lens, I am not impressed by what I see in terms of sharpness.

My M series lenses crushed my 35 2.4 in that category. So much so that, when I shot a video with my lenses, the shot taken with the 35 2.4 stood out as not belonging with the other ones, due to an overall poor image quality compared to M lenses.

I assume you have done the research and concluded that your copy is a good copy, and that it just isn't that great of a prime lens.

[Rondec]

I agree with fuent. I wonder if your copy of the 35 f2.4 is up to standard. The Tamron looks better than it does, in my opinion. I bet if you got the Sigma 35 or, the FA 31 you wouldn't miss your DP2 very much.

I also think that we need to wait for judgment on the K3 until Adobe and Apple start supporting the RAW format (which may take a while). I still feel like editing them is not where it should be yet.

[normhead]

That's a possibility, (that it may not be a good copy) I should look into it more… Panoguy did a comparison of a 31 with this camera, with a k-5 I believe, and the DP2 was better. He has an SD1 now, maybe we could talk him into doing a comparison.

The main issue I have with my 35 is the bokeh isn't what I'd like it to be. If you look at the bokeh in the 31, the two just aren't comparable. But the 35 is a pretty highly rated lens. one of the sharpest Pentax lenses according to photo zone… so for now, I'm sticking with bad copy. Although photozone tests also lead one to believe the Tamron 17-50 is just that good. I say "lead one to believe" because it's not tested on a Pentax so direct comparisons are not encouraged. Still without using exact numbers, it would be odd if a lens was really good on one system and just average on another.

It's hard to find a lens at any price rated as high as it is across it's zoom range.
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Canon) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

[panoguy]

That's a possibility, (that it may not be a good copy) I should look into it more… Panoguy did a comparison of a 31 with this camera, with a k-5 I believe, and the DP2 was better. He has an SD1 now, maybe we could talk him into doing a comparison.

When I did my comparison of the K-5 & 31mm Ltd and the DP2M, some people immediately said "your 31mm is faulty" but it is far from it, and still working great on my K-3! I've already sorta started that K-3 vs. SD1M test, now that I can properly process all raws with Iridient Developer (which already has K-3 .PEF profiles and can read SD1M .X3F files!) but I really need a Sigma 70mm macro for Pentax to make it truly apples-apples. The DA70 is nice, but not on the same level as a good macro lens. So it might take a little longer... good thing ice is my favorite test subject!

[normhead]

You can campaign for my 70 macro all you want, you aren't getting it!!! I will be south over Christmas, but South meaning Niagara Falls, not south meaning Toronto/Mississauga. I will be driving through, if across the 407 counts as "through", it's more kind of like "around".

[scratchpaddy]

Thanks for doing this comparison, Norm. I wondered how the K-3 would compare, but my ~30mp estimate still stands for the Sigma.

@panoguy , when did you get that SD1M, and when were you planning on telling us about it?! That makes you owner #3 on this entire forum so far. I have the 50mm macro in both K and SA-mount, but I don't think anybody cares about a K-5 comparison anymore.

[barondla]

I've already sorta started that K-3 vs. SD1M test, now that I can properly process all raws with Iridient Developer (which already has K-3 .PEF profiles and can read SD1M .X3F files!)

Not sure this is an apples to apples test. Every thing I read says the Sigma program is the best with Foveon files.

30mp might equal Foveon, depending on the light. Bayer sensors do not have the same resolution at all colors. In the "wrong" light even the 36mp FF Nikon struggles against our Sigmas. Even if resolution matches the Foveon will have more color info.
It will be interesting to see your results.
thanks
barondla

[panoguy]

@panoguy , when did you get that SD1M, and when were you planning on telling us about it?!

Yeah, well... I was gonna say something when I got used to it and fully compared it to the K-3. That's the ticket!

An old coworker bought an SA-mount 70mm thinking it was Canon EF, so I got it for a song, which pretty much "made me" jump on the low-low Japanese SD1M prices. I really missed the colors and resolution of the DP2M (that Norm now has), but always wanted that Foveon goodness with a true 1:1 macro lens. DP3 is close, but for just a bit more...

BTW, showing off your new 18-35mm isn't helping my pre-holiday bank account stress!

Not sure this is an apples to apples test. Every thing I read says the Sigma program is the best with Foveon files.

Well, it's more apple to apple than using two different raw converters, since SPP can't read Pentax DNG or PEFs. From my brief time with Iridient and the SD1M, the only thing Sigma's software does better is removing chroma banding noise and the automatic lens corrections. Iridient has much better color control and luminance NR (which the K-3 needs just as much), as well as being so much faster than SPP it's silly! Not the greatest UI, but I'm finding my way around pretty well...

Perhaps the best part is that the guy who writes Iridient is willing to converse about which of his tools work best on .X3F files. Scaling the Merrill files up is the way to do a true pixel-level comparison, since they can take it!

[johnmflores]

I had tested my brother's Sigma DP2m against my K-01 with the FA31 and the Sigma blew the Pentax kit away. I was hoping that the extra megapickles of the K-3 and the lack of the AA filter would even things out, but it still isn't close
















Some words here, but it's just me saying how much better the Sigma is:

What Blog is This?: Damn you Sigma DP2m

I'm not ready to get one myself (famous last words), but if ever I get a project that warrants the Foveon, I now know what it's capable of.

[normhead]

Thanks for posting those john…. I guess the thing for me is it isn't hard to carry as a second or third body, and I've already had one shoot where the extra sharpness made a difference…