[yusuf]

IMO, Pentax will need new wide-angle lenses. Although, old manual lenses performs acceptably on FF, they are still not up to the mark with high resolution sensors (including K28/3.5).

[vrrattko]

are you kidding? those old lenses were designed to cope with high resolution films, do you really think they will not handle digital sensor?

[6BQ5]

are you kidding? those old lenses were designed to cope with high resolution films, do you really think they will not handle digital sensor?

The lenses are very sharp, I'm sure. I think the challenge to overcome is how the lens projects an image onto the recording surface. Film works very well with oblique light rays. It is very easy to record a spot of light on film with the light coming at any angle. Digital sensors work best when the light hits the surface as perpendicular as possible. Otherwise, the light can skip through the micro-lens surface and strike a neighboring photo site. This can cause the appearance of aberrations. Also, the digital sensor is rather reflective compared to film. The reflected light coming off of the digital sensor will strike the rear element and some of that will come back to the sensor and some of it will pass through to other inner elements. This creates an extended path for some portion of the light that eventually all comes back to the sensor. The result is a loss of contrast and sharpness.

So, to answer your question, I think some lenses cannot handle digital sensors very well while others can. The FA 77mm Limited is a perfect example of an "old" lens working very well on digital sensors.

[yusuf]

are you kidding? those old lenses were designed to cope with high resolution films, do you really think they will not handle digital sensor?

No I am not. I have used K28/3.5 and A24 on FF (A7r), while the center is still comparable, the corner performance is poor in comparison to modern lenses, say FE35/2.8. Even on NEX6, cheap Sigma 30/2.8 is visibly better than K28/3.5, both in sharpness and the flare handling.

Off course, this is an unfair comparison. Those are great lenses, and you can take create great pictures with them, they certainly fall behind modern lenses.

[Stavri]

No I am not. I have used K28/3.5 and A24 on FF (A7r), while the center is still comparable, the corner performance is poor in comparison to modern lenses, say FE35/2.8. Even on NEX6, cheap Sigma 30/2.8 is visibly better than K28/3.5, both in sharpness and the flare handling.

Off course, this is an unfair comparison. Those are great lenses, and you can take create great pictures with them, they certainly fall behind modern lenses.

You have the wrong 24mm lens, you need the K 24/f3.5 tis the sharpest of them all...

[osv]

are you kidding? those old lenses were designed to cope with high resolution films, do you really think they will not handle digital sensor?

film is nowhere near the resolution of these new sensors.

or more accurately, there isn't any reasonable scanning process that allows the full resolution of film to be seen on the computer.

and printing film scans from a computer gives higher resolution than any film darkroom printing process.

also... ""Image noise" is the digital equivalent of film grain for analogue cameras." Digital Camera Image Noise: Concept and Types

so the other huge deal killer for film is that it is extremely noisy, when compared to modern digital sensors.

as for whether or not old glass works as well as new glass, well, there is evidence that it doesn't on the sides and corners, and all of the a7r legacy 24mm/28mm prime lens testing that i've done shows that as well, dramatically.

since 36mp seems like the most logical choice for the new pentax ff, it's probably going to be the same situation that i outlined above... wide glass will be problematic.

the centers of course are an entirely different matter, as you can see in this lensrental testing... a7r vs. d800e, with different lenses, among other things:
LensRentals.com - Sony A7R: A Rising Tide Lifts All the Boats?

one of the big unknowns is what filter stack thickness pentax will use... a couple of people have put custom filter stacks on the a7, and with old wide rangefinder glass, there have been a couple of really sharp photos posted.

[aurele]

and printing film scans from a computer gives higher resolution than any film darkroom printing process.

I say "No"

It depends on the film you use : if you use co"xnsumer film - Kodak Gold, Portra, Superia- you will have an average film that will produce a good 18"x24" (45x60cm prints).

If you use some slow film with very thin grain, you can enlarge it without limite. i've seen some prints 40"x 60" (1m x 1,5m) made from the Adox CHS 25 iso film, the print was almost grainless, and was directly from a darkroom.

(was pretty funny to see how the made it - the enlarger was just quite big, the pool to process the chemical, well, they were custom made).

It just depend on what you rely to make your print from. It's somewhat stupid to compare the result of an 5$ film with a 1k camera IMHO.

[Dlanor Sekao]

There are a few here that know some secrets.....and WE aint talkin....lol.
Remember....hes talking old glass on FF....not APS-C !
Ive made 40" prints off a $5 Sears lens on APSC......so Im sure it wont work at all on FF.......We are all Doomed !

[osv]

I say "No"

It depends on the film you use : if you use co"xnsumer film - Kodak Gold, Portra, Superia- you will have an average film that will produce a good 18"x24" (45x60cm prints).

If you use some slow film with very thin grain, you can enlarge it without limite.

that doesn't address the resolution issue that i mentioned.

there is no comparison that you can provide that proves that film has higher resolution, or less noise, than a modern digital sensor does.

i would suggest that any of you that are confused about what film is actually capable of, read this exhaustive test: Digital cameras vs. film, part 1

film lost out in those comparisons 10 years ago, and digital sensors have gotten much better since then.

[stevebrot]

Just a small reminder that on 35mm format:

• 35mm is a moderate wide angle
• 28mm (31mm too) is a definite wide angle
• 24mm is very wide
• 20mm and shorter are ultra wide with most fisheyes coming in at 15-17mm

It is always sort of fun when new film camera users on the film SLR section of this site have their first exposure to a 28mm lens on a 35mm SLR. The general reaction is "Da**ned that is wide. I can't believe the field of view!" There is a reason why 24mm and 20mm vintage lenses are relative rare. They were available for sale since way back, but they were pretty much a niche (novelty) market and very few were sold.


Steve

[stevebrot]

I say "No"

I would tend to agree with you. The blanket statements regarding what film can and can not do often are based on incomplete knowledge. A careful reading of Koren's article (linked above) will show that most dSLRs will outperform most C41 35mm films and almost all color reversal films. This is nothing new. OTOH, there are many color and most B&W emulsions that are capable of 100 lp/mm and several that can support 300+ lp/mm. Those materials are not so easily dismissed.

It depends on the film you use : if you use co"xnsumer film - Kodak Gold, Portra, Superia- you will have an average film that will produce a good 18"x24" (45x60cm prints).

Ummmm...I have done a fair amount of optical enlargements and would place the acceptable quality level for Kodak Gold 200 and similar (Portra is actually a professional emulsion and does not belong in that grouping) at about 8"x10". A professional C-41 emulsion such as Ektar 100* or Portra should be good to 16"x20".

If you use some slow film with very thin grain, you can enlarge it without limite. i've seen some prints 40"x 60" (1m x 1,5m) made from the Adox CHS 25 iso film

40"x60" might be possible with incredibly good optics and excellent technique, but I would suggest that there is a limit and the limit is at that point. The more usual large print from that material would be about 1/4 that size (20"x30"). It would also be good to note that grain size is not directly related to the film resolution. Some fine grain materials actually produce fairly soft results.

Most current films have established MTF graphs and there are limits and for the most part those limits are not that high.


Steve

* Available resolution is about 100 lp/mm for Ektar

[stevebrot]

and printing film scans from a computer gives higher resolution than any film darkroom printing process.

No, definitely not. I have done a fair amount of both. I have technical pan negatives where extreme detail is visible on the magnified image but where that detail essentially disappears from a scan of the same.


Steve

[6BQ5]

that doesn't address the resolution issue that i mentioned.



there is no comparison that you can provide that proves that film has higher resolution, or less noise, than a modern digital sensor does.



i would suggest that any of you that are confused about what film is actually capable of, read this exhaustive test: Digital cameras vs. film, part 1



film lost out in those comparisons 10 years ago, and digital sensors have gotten much better since then.

Ahh, a film vs. digital debate? In that case, I like to bring up the vacuum tube vs. transistor analogy. Film is like tube technology in how the medium can be pushed. Yes, like tubes, film is noisier and has a nonlinear response but it can be pushed harder with less detrimental results. Tubes can taper off where transistors hit a rail. When a 14-bit digital sensor rails its data value at 0x3FFFh there is no way you're going to recover any color data from that value but grey.

[osv]

true, once the whites are crushed on digital, it's all over.

with the a7r, tho, you no longer have to be on the edge with ettr, because the files have such good latitude.

5dmk3 vs. a7r:
Sony A7R teams up with Canon glass

i expect that the new pentax ff will perform on the a7r level? possibly even the same sensor?