SDQ Dynamic Range

Iconoscope wrote:

Dynamic range is less likely to be your main problem with the SDQ than the very limited usable ISO range. I have found no difficulty recovering highlights or shadows with the SDQ and I usually shoot ETTR about 1 full stop, though under bright sunny conditions, maybe only 1/3 stop over exposure. You already have lenses for your Pentax, so I would stick with that. Those Pentax lenses may physically fit on the SDQ, but they will not function properly and may require mechanical modification to achieve a good fit that doesn't damage the SDQ. Buy another Pentax!!

I would avoid fitting Pentax lens onto the sdQ unless you want to damage the Sigma or remove the aperture pin and guard on the Pentax lens, that and the flange distance is different so wide lens might not focus at all and longer focal lengths can focus past infinity. 
M42 lens work well with the correct addaptor.

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.

It was measured in another topic, the photographic DR was little under 8 EV.

But for landscape the HDR is is possibility.

First off, you have some great photos!

I have a K3-II and a DP2 Quattro.

Probably the K3-II is not the one you should get, I would recommend the full-frame K1 instead, if you can swing it (and if enough of your lenses cover full frame.  K1 has 36MP and thus is pretty close to the sd Quattro sharpness.

Have you made any prints from both Pentax and Sigma source files?  I would recommend printing them both at 8x10 or larger size and looking at how the prints come out.

The sdQ can be considered, however it is a different way of operating and different way to handle exposure (which I haven't quite nailed yet, in difficult lighting situations).  Probably you should spring for the sdQH, if you want to make 20x30 or higher prints.

A pixelshifted k1 image is very close to the quattro, maybe even better however pixelshift depends on still weather for landscape while a quattro can shoot in any weather.

I had the k1 and loved the pixel shifted images but limited utility, restricted lenses and the size of the camera led me to sell it and stay focused on sigma and sony.  Hopefully, sony will at some point implement a pixelshift feature.

Mike

MrImprovement wrote:

First off, you have some great photos!

I have a K3-II and a DP2 Quattro.

Probably the K3-II is not the one you should get, I would recommend the full-frame K1 instead, if you can swing it (and if enough of your lenses cover full frame. K1 has 36MP and thus is pretty close to the sd Quattro sharpness.

Have you made any prints from both Pentax and Sigma source files? I would recommend printing them both at 8x10 or larger size and looking at how the prints come out.

The sdQ can be considered, however it is a different way of operating and different way to handle exposure (which I haven't quite nailed yet, in difficult lighting situations). Probably you should spring for the sdQH, if you want to make 20x30 or higher prints.

Jozef M wrote:

lockhrt wrote:

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?

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

Read the review on DPreview, main complaint is lack of DR.

I should buy another Pentax.

Jozef.

+1

Iconoscope wrote:

Dynamic range is less likely to be your main problem with the SDQ than the very limited usable ISO range. I have found no difficulty recovering highlights or shadows with the SDQ and I usually shoot ETTR about 1 full stop, though under bright sunny conditions, maybe only 1/3 stop over exposure. You already have lenses for your Pentax, so I would stick with that. Those Pentax lenses may physically fit on the SDQ, but they will not function properly and may require mechanical modification to achieve a good fit that doesn't damage the SDQ. Buy another Pentax!!

Thanks for your candid response! Although I mentioned ETTR, in practice, this typically means I underexpose (I expose to the so far as I do not blow the highlights). The K5 lifts shadows beautifully, amazingly, even. I know a SDQ won't have that latitude. But, I hope I wouldn't get solid black in the shadows.

The lens issue is real. If I got a SDQ, I would probably stay with Pentax, too. I have some great Pentax glass that would be expensive to replace with Sigmas, and lovely Voigtlander lenses that have no counterparts.

Yes, I am aware of the issue. Before I jumped into Pentax some time ago, my research told me that although the mounts are similar, they are not transferable without ruining backwards compatibility. (Seems dumb for Sigma, but oh well).

Yes, this is what I am afraid of.

Such scenes used to require HDR of your sensor could not handle the dynamic range. Mercifully, my broken Pentax could handle 12+ stops, practically negating the need for HDR.

It completely agree about ETTR. Often, this means that I underexpose, and lift shadows. My K5 lifted shadows wonderfully.

Since you have both cameras, do you happen to have the same scene from both the SDQ and K3? Preferably something outside? The lab tests photos at DPReview don't do much for me.

Hmm. That is almost half of what I am used to. Exposing correctly would definetly take a lot more work!

lockhrt

I ran a quickie comparison test between my FF K1 + 31mm ltd lens and my SDQ + 18-35mm A lens set to approx same 31mm focal range as my Pentax lens. Same aperture, same tripod no sharpening but images adjusted for brightness. There was little difference generally but I thought that the SDQ images were a little sharper. Don't forget that the Pentax is FF and the 31mm is one of Pentax's best lens! I use the Pentax as an alternative when conditions or subject matter does not favour the Sigma. Both systems are excellent at what they are designed for. I suspect that my post may not clarify your dilemma but in reality I get more satisfaction from my Sigma. I do not find that the DR is much of a problem.

Jozef,

You are right.These pics were a quickie to compare sharpness more than anything else so I enclose 2 images of a local church taken within minutes of each other, See clock. Both images (K1 31mm: SDQ 18-35mm) were under exposed but after some work on Photoshop the Sigma has blown highlights of the sky compared to Pentax.. In other respects the images are not too much the same. To me both images show how useless I can be on days of high contract light!!:-D

k1

SDQ