No, it isn't a problem -- in fact I found the comment that Olympus was striving for higher resolution interesting, do you have a reference? -- I was just a bit embarrassed for not being clearer.

Lawrence

Most of the time I check things out rather than ask dumb questions, but on this occasion I did a cursory search, didn't get my answer, was having a frustrating day, and so asked the question on the forum. I got more corrections to my question than answers to it; however along the way I did get my answer which was that Pentax and Olympus had not achieved anything that was going to sink Sigma's Foveon enterprise. When one snaps the shutter on a Sigma one gets one Raw result. The Foveon layers are reflected in that Raw output. In the cases of Olympus and Pentax Four or Six (might have the numbers wrong) Bayer images are snapped in rapid succession and if the camera has been held still enough and the subject hasn't moved, the pixel shifting will produce something superior to the snapping of a single frame.

My inept question caused a good deal of confusion, for which I apologize.

Lawrence

Hmmm. Comparison. Hmmm. Not sure what you call it. All three had a system that purported to produce better color than the simple Bayer system. Did they manage? Did Olympus and Pentax achieve something by their multiple Bayer layers that might render the Foveon complexity and weirdness unnecessary?

With just the brief reviews of the Olympus & Pentax systems that I found, they seemed to be achieving what Foveon had achieved, but I learned that wasn't the case. As Hoopsontoast and some others explained, Olympus & Pentax require multiple Bayer shots with the end result being a JPEG. Sigma's Foveon takes a single shot, hence not absolutely requiring a tripod or a subject that remains still. The end result, however, is a sort of Raw file that only a cranky Sigma software system can manipulate. To get it into Photoshop (if you have Photoshop and if you don't, don't bother) requires that it be converted to a Tiff file first.

So the answers I got tell me that if I want Foveon quality I'm not going to get it from either Pentax or Olympus, but if I do choose a Sigma camera, even if only the Rangefinder-like DP1 (that doesn't require additional Sigma lenses) I'd better begin with a lot of patience and not complain when nothing functions smoothly.

Lawrence

Thank you, that was very helpful. If the K3ii or EM5 produced anything as good as the Sigma Foveon I might have be tempted, but I take most of my photos hiking and have no room for a tripod -- nor patience since I hike with two dogs. So if I were to get anything along this line it would have to be the Faveon DP1 or DP2. The DP1 at $799 from Amazon is almost tempting enough.

Lawrence

The "improvement" in the K3ii I find most interesting is the so-called "pixel shift". The reviewers I've read don't seem to think so, but I wonder if they've read all that much about Foveon. I've been reading Foveon articles for a long while, the idea of an alternative to Bayer, the Foveon three-level layers that manage to bring out more and more life-like color has been fascinating.

I woke up when I heard that Pentax was doing something like that with their K3ii, but was it as good as the Foveon original? The typical review comment was that you can get some really good photos but only stills and you must have a tripod on a clear day that isn't windy and nothing is moving -- and wait a long time. Sigma doesn't tell us that about their Foveon cameras. In fact they have a range-finder-like edition. Does Sigma expect users of their DX1 & DX2 to carry a tripod around with them when all they say is that you can carry the DX1 or the DX2 in your pocket and get some excellent shots with them. There is no turning the "pixel shift" (I forget what they call it) off for Foveon.

And then there is the Olympus OMD-EM1 which includes this capability, but in more than 4 layers. How well does the EM1 do? Is it better or worse than the K3ii, or than the Sigma Foveon? I don't know -- can't find a discussion. There should be a concussion somewhere about how well the K3ii with its "pixel shift" stacks up against the Sigma Foveon, or the EM1. If someone knows of such a discussion I would be grateful for the reference.

Lawrence

Amazon's ad indicated that they had only one 100mm WR left and continued to state that the manufacturer had discontinued the lens -- so I bought it.

Lawrence

Quite right! Agree almost completely! I do read the reviews but after using the lenses have grown to mistrust them. I recall especially the 18-135 review by Photozone. They hated it, but it is one of the most beloved lenses by Pentax users. I do occasionally notice soft edges when I am editing in Lightroom and will sometimes crop -- it all depends. If my focus is as you say on the centre it won't matter, but sometimes the photo won't have an attention grabbing centre in which case I'll crop or if it is too disturbing delete the photo.

I most recently acquired the 16-85 and notice as predicted the edge elongations at 16, but I've noticed the same thing at 18 on the 18-135 -- and I only noticed them because of reading reviews. Had I not read the review i would have been thinking entirely in terms of whether the photo worked or not.

Having said that, and as my lens collection grows, I've been thinking of making some crib notes for each lens -- reminding me for example that wide open on the 16-85 and 18-135 will provide some edge elongation at 16 an 18, reminding me in other words to move to 17 and 19 respectively. If a lens has been on the shelf a long time I'm not necessarily going to remember its peculiarities the next time I take it out. And if the reviews note that a lens is especially good or bad at some particular aperture, I may note that as well.

Lawrence

The photo and the description show "WR." http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0030GGS3O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1446589637&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+100mm+macro

Lawrence

I began with an Olympus RC35 back in 1979, a wedding present from my wife -- years later in 1998 we retired to San Jacinto in Southern California. I wanted to retire elsewhere but my wife didn't want to move too far from her parents (who lived in Indio, Southern California). I argued that if she could find a house near a good spot where I could hike and let the dogs run off-leash we could move there -- she did and we bought a house in San Jacinto. Not too long afterwards I moved into the digital world. My first serious cameras and lenses were Olympus, but when Olympus abandoned the DSLR world I moved over to Pentax which in my view had a lot in common with the rugged Olympus cameras and lenses. I started with a K20D, then got a K7 (both now belong to my son) then got a K5, K5iis and finally a K3.

I have used the 18-135 lens most often for hikes but just recently purchased (but have not yet received) the 16-85. My photos as much as anything have been about my dogs on hikes. Last week for example we had an interesting confrontation with a coyote. I was concerned about the coyote's aggressiveness toward my dogs and so got only one (sort of) good shot of him. Each time I would raise my camera he would scurry away. One can see him in the Oct 2015 gallery within the "River Photography" Folder in www.lawrencehelm.smugmug.com [if it turns out to be okay to cite web sites on this forum -- I didn't notice anything to the contrary. ]

Lawrence

What sort of link? To Amazon? I didn't realize until after the fact that this was a UK forum. The Amazon I am quoting from is American. Maybe that clears up the link matter.

Lawrence