Pentax K10 with Sigma 170-500 Vs Canon 400 with Sigma 100-400 (1 Viewer)

Keith Reeder said:

Aye, they're OK considering, Paul.

I'll have to do some proper PP on 'em and see how they turn out - and maybe have a proper look at the other 30-odd I haven't converted yet..!

Click to expand...

30 odd still to convert....!

Must admit, when I was there they were not very confiding (or didn't like Sarah's hat and coat, but thats another story) This was the only shot I was vaguely happy with. 20d, 100-400 no TC. ISO800 as well, do people only go to Pensthorpe when its raining?

Keith Reeder said:

If there'd been some light about when I took these I suspect they'd really look rather good, but even at 800 ISO (and with no NR) I'm happy enough with them.

Click to expand...

No NR!

They look the same as my Neat Imaged one. I'm definitely over processing mine somewhere!

Edit Sorry David, I've hijacked your thread.

Apologies from me too, David.

But while I'm here - that BT looks great too, Paul.

2 more questions please.
1) MACSHARK Why did you switch from 50-500 to 400 ?
2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

David Smith said:

Incidentally I noticed another, unrelated thread where someone was bemoaning the slow AF on his Canon 350 & 100-400mm. Any thoughts??

Click to expand...

I often use my 100-400 on a 350D and think the AF is fast enough, sure it's not as quick as a fast prime lens, but is noticeably faster than the AF on the Sigma 170-500. A friend who uses a 350D recently changed from a Sigma 170-500 to a Canon 100-400 IS, they have commented on how much faster the new lens focuses.

While the Sigma is a good lens the Canon is better in almost all ways, AF is faster, it's sharper wide open, much better close focus and IS... but it does cost a good deal more. Be warned, if you ever end up buying a big prime lens you won't want to trade in the 100-400 IS, it's such a useful lens!

David Smith said:

2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

Click to expand...

Personally I use Neat Image for my NR...

how do you sharpen your images? If using unsharp mask in PS try altering the settings to give a 'nicer' image, there's a thread somewhere on here all about sharpening. Personally I'd rather look at a slightly soft image than one that has been over sharpened.

David Smith said:

2 more questions please.
1) MACSHARK Why did you switch from 50-500 to 400 ?
2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

Click to expand...

Hi David,

The comments in this gallery post may be of interest
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/137704/ppuser/4913

Keith seems to have mastered smooth, natural looking images.

Sharpening does in my opinion increase the 'harshness' of images and obviously emphasises noise. Using a noise reduction program such as neat image, free download at http://neatimage.com will help.

It may be worth posting an image you think looks harsh, so that we can have a look at the problem
Edit, and describe how you presently sharpen images.

Edit II, sorry Peter didn't see your post.

Paul

NR and sharpening are a bit of a Black Art, but I take a straightforward approach to both.

1) Start with a sharp, in-focus image! I sometimes don't really need to sharpen: the attached for example are RAW files which I've opened, resized, cropped and saved as a jpeg in Irfanview - not even a proper RAW converter - they've had no sharpening whatsoever (there's a Kenko TC on these too).

2) After I convert (usually in RawShooter Essentials where I also add "just above default" sharpening, adjust exposure and contrast) I will open the image in Paintshop Pro X where I generally add one pass of the basic "sharpen" algorithm (as opposed to USM).

3) If I need to NR (and I actually run pictures through NR even when they're not noisy in order to blur the background more - an instant "DOF" effect) I use NeatImage 5.5 Home Edition.

I usually let NeatImage "Auto Profile" the picture and work out the best settings, but I've also got a couple of sets of Canon 30D profiles installed too and sometimes use them instead. I let my eye decide what looks best.

Personally I NR last: some people say that NR should be the first stage in the editing process, but last works for me...

When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.


try taking a photo in raw format
rawshooter is a good program for converting raw files

prefrebly on a tripod or rest the camera on some thing

your camera is probaby already processing the image so when you try and sharpen it you are probably over doing it

postcardcv said:

Personally I'd rather look at a slightly soft image than one that has been over sharpened.

Click to expand...

Yep, me too - though it's easy to get carried away sometimes.

I think it really is important to remember that PP sharpening can't perform miracles: if feel that if an image needs to be sharpened to the extent that it generates sharpening artifacts, then it wasn't sharp enough in the first place.

I'm very fussy about sharpening artifacts though!



The single most important thing is starting with a sharp image - one reason I'm so impressed with my current toys is that AF seems extremely accurate, and that helps immensely: I'm getting better at focussing on the eye of the bird, even though I only ever hand-hold the camera.

It's also worth remembering just how different the same picture can look on different monitors.

Quote;
When we reviewed the K100D we thought Pentax had got their image processing just right, however the single element of the entire K10D equation which left us scratching our heads was just that. Either a poorly implemented demosaicing algorithm or a strange choice of sharpening parameters means that while the K10D's JPEG images have plenty of 'texture' they can lack the edge sharpness we're used to seeing from semi-pro digital SLR's.

And:


Quote:
In-camera image processor unable to deliver crisp sharp edges, better to shoot RAW
About a third of a stop less highlight dynamic range than the competition
Turning up sharpness setting doesn't deliver crisper edges


What an absolute load of twaddle, where do these reviewers get the imagination to make up such stories? probably from the backhanders they get from Canon!
it is a well known and publicized fact* that Pentax DELIBERATELY leave the sharpening algorythyms out of the equation so that the photographer can decide the level of sharpening to apply, maybe reviewers should do a little research and maybe even try reading the manual before making these and other wild assumptions.

*for those who care to actually take the time to research a product before making such assumptions as "oh its a Pentax so it'll probably be rubbish"

There's no secret about the the fact that some manufacturers keep in-camera sharpening to a minimum - so does Nikon - and I would expect Phil Askey to be aware of that fact.

He does in fact mention that even with in-camera sharpening turned up he was unable to get crisp images - so the fact that Pentax have chosen to leave the default in-camera sharpening low doesn't explain his results.

He also knows the difference, I imagine, between a camera with low in-camera sharpening and a camera that produces the kind of "weird" results he mentions.

Just for balance: Askey also reviews the K100D and is extremely enthusiastic about the IQ ("Canon handouts" hardly explains that, does it?)

He says:

About as good as six megapixel resolution gets, crisp and detailed, a big improvement

Excellent detail even at higher ISO's, overall noise levels on par with competition

Click to expand...

And

Not only has Pentax improved in-camera image processing but they appear to have overtaken some of the competition, the amount of detail delivered is about as much as we could expect to see from a six megapixel CCD.

Click to expand...

He's demonstrably not anti Pentax on principle, then.

I mention Nikon, so let's see what he says about the D200:

Default sharpness is too mild, first impression to a new user may be negative

Click to expand...

So as I suggest, he knows what soft by default looks like. (Funnily enough, I found RAW images from the D200 to be very acceptably sharp, even with a cheap Nikkor zoom - go figure).

That, to me, is a loud and clear indication that he's talking about something else in the K10D review.

I don't always agree with DPReview's reviews (I think test images of a stamp prove bugger all about noise performance for example, because there's no shadow noise in 'em, which is a big issue) but to completely dismiss what I quoted out of hand without providing anything to support an alternative position doesn't prove much.

Maybe he'd been provided with a sub-standard example of the camera, but you can't doubt the thoroughness of yer man's reviews.

Oh, the review of the camera by DCResource says:

with the camera at its default settings, the K10D's photo quality was somewhat disappointing by D-SLR standards. Photos are soft (which is, admittedly, common on midrange SLRs) and colors are fairly dull. When I started taking RAW and JPEG images at the same time, I was floored by the differences: the RAW images were significantly better, and truly show what the camera is capable of.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much what DPReview said - shoot in RAW if you want to get the best out of the camera.

I'm particularly persuaded by the two "woman with pram" pictures, one jpeg out of the camera, one RAW: you'll never get a sharp, detailed end result out of the first one no matter how much you sharpened it (have a go!) whereas there's clearly much more room to manoeuvre in the RAW image - that says "funny jpeg-RAW algorithm" to me.

As an aside, as a general observation I think it's sad that a camera which might be full of quality components and is well put together can still live or die IQ-wise on the strength of a few lines of code - and yet it happens all the time.

David Smith said:

2 more questions please.
1) MACSHARK Why did you switch from 50-500 to 400 ?
2) KEITH (& others) what software do you use for noise reduction ?
When I 'sharpen' it seems to leave them looking 'harsh' -will NR solve this. I am only learning so answers in simple terms prefered please.

Click to expand...

1) I switched to 400 f5.6L for the following reasons:

• 400L is sharper and has better contrast & colors
• 400L is much lighter, easier to handle w/o tripod/monopod
• 400L focuses much faster, crucuial for in flight shots
• 400L works much better with a 1.4x TC

Since I also have the 70-300IS zoom, the zoom aspect of the Bigma was not as important for me as it may be for others.

2) A quick comment on this one: I also use NeatImage and I am very happy with it. Even though its sharpening capabilities is not nearly as sophisticated as PhotoShop CS2, I have a few settings that take care of NR and sharpening at the same time and saves me a lot of time...

Hi David - and others,

Sorry for a long message...
You may already have made up your mind for Canon based on very good advice from "Canon people" here. As much as I hate to admit, I think they are right - Canon is the strongest in areas that count most in bird photography: long-fl lens selection, focusing speed and handling of high-ISO noise. And they do have the upgrade path all the way to the uber-pro level.

However...
I would like to bring about a couple of points if photography involves significantly other areas than bird photography - and if you perhaps think that investing thousands for high-end ("L"-glass) long lens telephotography is expensive and/or limiting. I wouldn't want this choice to be left a generalized "no-brainer" for Canon.

Firstly, Keith's quotes from Dpreview could deserve some comments.
- I agree that Pentax should include a "sharp jpeg" setting for those who like it, but for those who know and use RAW - all the sharpness *is* there (as Dpreview mentions).
- "soft" K10D jpegs still have more detail than any 6Mpix jpegs, which already is entirely sufficient for A4 prints (which is pretty large).
- 10Mpix K10D RAW actually have more detail than the 8Mpix Canon 30D RAW-pics (and even 10Mpix Nikon D80)
- dynamic range of the K10 RAW is no worse than competitors'
- if you usually shoot jpeg, using RAW is made extremely easy in the K10D (a dedicated button for your left thumb)

Again I agree that in long fl telephoto the sensor-based image stabilization loses to good in-lens IS (maybe 1-2 stops?), but it is nevertheless useful - and you do get it to all your lenses without paying extra. And contrary to Canon's claims it is very useful also in low-light wide-angle photography.

Speaking of which - with Pentax you could get a weather-sealed 10Mpix body and a stabilized high-end "normal" zoom.
- 16-45/4 corresponding 24-67.5mm (1.5x crop) for less than 1300€
- 16-50/2.8 (weather sealed & ultrasonic motor) corresponding 24-75mm for 1700€ (?)

With Canon 30D & 1.6x crop
- 17-55mm (IS) corresponding 27.2-80mm for something like 2000€ (?)
- no weather sealing, and to get a good "landscape"-24mm (film-equivalent) stabilized wide-angle you have to buy another expensive lens.

OK, so to someone who wants to seriously become involved in bird photography, Canon is probably the best choice - but for many of us a DSLR system is largely/mainly for other uses. And as such Pentax offers as good or better quality for significantly lower price - and it actually works very well also in bird photography.

Best regards - and, honestly, no intentions to offend anyone!

Ilkka

iporali said:

OK, so to someone who wants to seriously become involved in bird photography, Canon is probably the best choice - but for many of us a DSLR system is largely/mainly for other uses. And as such Pentax offers as good or better quality for significantly lower price - and it actually works very well also in bird photography.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that any of the current crop of DSLRs can produce good images. However the limited range of longs lenses available for some brands make them a less than ideal choice even for the casual bird photographer. The range of widely available long lenses for Nikon and Canon (both own brand and third party) make them a better choice for bird photography. From what I can see the cheapish Sigma zooms (135-400 and 170-500) are the only long lenses you can currently get for Pentax, there seem to be no Pentax long lenses and none of the top Sigma seem to come in Pentax fit. I just had a quick look online and can't see any lenses in the same league as the 100-400 IS available for Pentax.

postcardcv said:

From what I can see the cheapish Sigma zooms (135-400 and 170-500) are the only long lenses you can currently get for Pentax, there seem to be no Pentax long lenses and none of the top Sigma seem to come in Pentax fit.

Click to expand...

There are some top Sigma tele lenses with Pentax mount (like the 300, 500 and 800mm EX primes and at least 100-300mm f4) http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp , but they do not come with the HSM focusing motor - at the moment. I think it will be just a matter of time before Sigma incorporates the Pentax SDM compatible focusing for the K10D. Yes, there are better lenses available for Canon and Nikon, but I just wonder how much "casual bird photographers" can afford to spend for their tele lenses. With Pentax you can get optically great second-hand MF lenses for peanuts (compared to the L-lenses) and the image quality depends more on how much time you are willing to spend in hides than how fast your lens can focus.

Regards,

Ilkka

iporali said:

There are some top Sigma tele lenses with Pentax mount (like the 300, 500 and 800mm EX primes and at least 100-300mm f4) http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp , but they do not come with the HSM focusing motor - at the moment. I think it will be just a matter of time before Sigma incorporates the Pentax SDM compatible focusing for the K10D. Yes, there are better lenses available for Canon and Nikon, but I just wonder how much "casual bird photographers" can afford to spend for their tele lenses. With Pentax you can get optically great second-hand MF lenses for peanuts (compared to the L-lenses) and the image quality depends more on how much time you are willing to spend in hides than how fast your lens can focus.

Regards,

Ilkka

Click to expand...

Well I didn't know that. Its got to be a big plus for Pentax users. The strange thing is they aren't listed on Sigma's UK site
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telephoto/500mm.htm
for instance.

iporali said:

There are some top Sigma tele lenses with Pentax mount (like the 300, 500 and 800mm EX primes and at least 100-300mm f4)...

Click to expand...

As Paul has mentioned Sigmas UK website does not list these lenses as being available for Pentax. As a user of the 500 f4.5 I'd agree that they are very good lenses, and will give Pentax user some excellent long lens options.

iporali said:

With Pentax you can get optically great second-hand MF lenses for peanuts (compared to the L-lenses) and the image quality depends more on how much time you are willing to spend in hides than how fast your lens can focus.

Click to expand...

Indeed there are plenty of cheap MF long lenses out there, though personally I'd hate to have to rely on MF for bird shots... I'm just not good enough at it. I take my hat off to anyone who can get good flight shots with MF.

postcardcv said:

personally I'd hate to have to rely on MF for bird shots... I'm just not good enough at it. I take my hat off to anyone who can get good flight shots with MF.

Click to expand...

I take my hat off to anyone who can get good flight shots with anything :t:.

Ilkka

No offence taken here, Ilkka, but when two of the most respected review websites make - in essence - the same observation about the K10D (backed up very effectively by the pictures on the DCResource website) it's enough to put doubt in my mind about whether it would be the camera for me: why take the risk when there are proven alternatives?

And - just for clarity - I'm not blindly wedded to any one product line. I was an enthusiastic Nikon Guy before I became an enthusiastic Canon Guy, so I'm not averse to considering alternatives (no blind Brand Loyalty here - I'll use whatever does the job, and - for me - Canon currently does the job).

Based on the evidence I've been able to find and what was presented here, I don't see anything that would persuade me from my initial recommendation, a recommendation which clearly and demonstrably addresses each of the original poster's requirements - image stabilisation (specifically, proven long lens image stabilisation), reach, noise performance and image quality.

The simple fact is, this stuff works and works extremely well, whereas the suggested alternatives are comparatively a bit of an unknown quantity and/or don't quite tick all the right boxes.

In that respect then, a recommendation of Canon is arguably a bit of a "no-brainer" after all, if we want to put ticks in all of David's boxes first time round - I'm simply suggesting taking the easy option rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

What it isn't is simple Blind Brand loyalty - there is a wealth of evidence out there in support of my view (and my own experiences tend to bear out the evidence - it is less than a year ago that I was in much the same boat as David, and I put in a huge amount of time and effort before I reached the conclusion that the Canon approach would best suit my requirements - requirements which were very similar to David's) whereas there is little or none to suggest that the alternatives will satisfy David's stated requirements more effectively or more economically.

I'll close by saying that I'm not trying to convert anyone to using what I use - we should all spend our money as we see fit, and there's room in the world for everybody's opinions.

David asked a reasonable question and I believe I gave him a reasonable answer - but what happens after that isn't something I'll lose any sleep over, one way or another.

People should not confuse my willingness to try and help with missionary zeal 'cos - really - I'm not bothered what other people use: I'll still get very satisfying results from what I use!