[JJ_SO]

Due to some of those irrelevant nonetheless funny battles about Sigma lenses and cameras I had the idea of going out, find some details and take comparable images to see if there's any visible difference between those slightly outdated Sigma Merill DP cameras and up-top-date D810 as well as outdated D5100.

 

Lenses were all Sigma - I just have no more Nikon 50 mm but I could have used a 70-200/4 and set it  to 75 mm to get comparable images. I think, it wouldn't have made a huge difference. If somebody feels, "I bet it would!", please feel free to add your comparison into this thread.

 

So, the D5100 had a 50/1.4 Art in front of it. The D810 a 24-105/4 Art as well, which was set to 75 mm. Aperture was f/5 for the APS C cameras and f/8 for the FF model (5 × 1.5 = 7.5, so I think that's close enough). It's not much about pixel peeping. It's about clarity and contrast, as I see it, but of course I'm looking towards your opinions.

 

I'm completely aware that downsampling the D810 pictures although they went from RAW to JPG, was not doing justice to them. But again, it's not about resolution in absolute terms. To me it's about a believable texture. It's like lifting the mist produced by interpolation of a Bayer-pattern. I just want to be clear: I don't want to convert anyone to Sigma, I wouldn't want to give up my Nikons for such a heavily handicapped camera (slow, old fashioned display, not even a cable release socket). But for some pictures those tiny and these days cheap DP Merills still show the fat-ass, high resolving FF sensors who's boss.

 



 

That was a box I found, with a nice structure and nicely punched text on it. Now, in order of appearance some crops: D5100, D810, DP3M, no sharpening except what Aperture did by default. I adjusted exposure and colour. Large pictures can be found here

 



 



 

Another one:

 



 

Same order of appearance: D5100, D810, DP3M