SDQ Dynamic Range

lockhrt wrote:

Hi all, long time lurker here.

As a Pentaxian, I've always much interest in Sigma cameras, but I never took the plunge. The other day, my much-loved Pentax K5 took a dive onto sharp rocks, completely shattering the back screen. And so, here I am.

My photography had changed gears somewhat. A Bayer sensor frame made more sense earlier because I needed a more balanced camera - landscapes, and kids.

But now, candid kid shots will likely be recorded by my phone. This means that a replacement camera can be a landscape-recording engine, and nothing else.

I tested the waters and purchased a used DP1s on EBay. Yeah, I know, ancient. I was surprised how the little DP1s held its value. The results are evactly what I was expecting from Foveon - that look, and the artifact-free fine detail.

However, the DP1s has a woeful dynamic range. A serious landscape camera needs to record a respectable dynamic range. How is the dynamic range of the SDQ? Is the Super Fine Detail Mode a bandaid for a limited dynamic range? Using ETTR with the K5 yielded virtually unlimited dynamic range - more than I usually needed. And the shadows lifted wonderfully.

I know the SDQ will not have the dynamic range. But, how bad is it?

My head is telling me to get a K-3ii. But, my heart is pulling me to the SDQ kit...

Opinions?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/serac/

I have the SD Quattro and the K3II, if dynamic range is important to you then go for the K3II, it has quite a bit more latitude. In bright contrasty light you will either have to go for that look or make some decisions on what you wish to sacrifice, or bracket and blend afterwards. SFD may also be an option depending on movement in the scene. The Quattro undoubtedly has worse highlight DR than my Merrills, it can pull shadows a bit better but highlight dynamic range is its Achilles heel. Though others talk about ETTR I would avoid that, you will end up with blown highlights in bright scenes (which may or may not matter). The right exposure is critical with the SD Quattro, I use the on screen histogram to keep away from the right where possible.
The K3II has a lot more latitude in both the highlights and shadows, unless you are familiar with Foveon and like what it can do (Superb resolution, colour and a natural look with high contrast) then go for the K3II. Shooting the SD Quattro is exactly like shooting positive film, you don't have much of margin for error at all. Unless you are really serious about shooting with foveon, and are prepared to accept the compromises, go with the K3II, both are excellent cameras, one is a specialist tool which takes time to learn and appreciate, and will often need a tripod, the other is a swiss army knife which will do pretty much everything well and rarely needs a tripod.