The differences to my eyes on the 1st test are small but there. As much as I hate the phrase normally, the Sigma output seems to have more "3D effect". The 2nd test is more obvious, especially on the bridge details and also the fine details of the tree branches.
I know this was "no sharpening except what Aperture did by default", but I did try sharpening the middle image to see if I can make it look closer to the Sigma. In terms of fine details, I randomly used about 40% sharpening at 0.5 pixel radius, which made the trees look much closer although still not quite as good. This didn't help the bridge detail at all. There I went into unsharp, didn't note exact settings but think it was again around 40% with 2 pixel radius and that help enhance the bridge texture, although as I didn't spend time to work around it, it introduced obvious halos in other areas. Perhaps other software would have other options to more easily allow enhancement. I know sharpening comes with the risk of making noise worse too, but working out equivalents is too much here.
At the pixel level, the Sigma output might even feel a little too edgy for my tastes. I can't put my finger on it. It feels like borderline oversharpening, or is it just me being used to the bayer blur?
Remind me, does it use an AA/low pass filter or not? That may be a contributing factor also.
I know this was "no sharpening except what Aperture did by default", but I did try sharpening the middle image to see if I can make it look closer to the Sigma. In terms of fine details, I randomly used about 40% sharpening at 0.5 pixel radius, which made the trees look much closer although still not quite as good. This didn't help the bridge detail at all. There I went into unsharp, didn't note exact settings but think it was again around 40% with 2 pixel radius and that help enhance the bridge texture, although as I didn't spend time to work around it, it introduced obvious halos in other areas. Perhaps other software would have other options to more easily allow enhancement. I know sharpening comes with the risk of making noise worse too, but working out equivalents is too much here.
At the pixel level, the Sigma output might even feel a little too edgy for my tastes. I can't put my finger on it. It feels like borderline oversharpening, or is it just me being used to the bayer blur?
Remind me, does it use an AA/low pass filter or not? That may be a contributing factor also.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.