Originally posted by clackers ???
Do you realize the resolving power of the K-1 sensor is less than the K-3's?
Enough with this YouTube or blogger rubbish about FF as a format.
A FF sensor is cut from the same wafer as an APS-C sensor, it's just twice as large. The pixel pitch and hence resolution is the same.
In fact, you can think of the K-1 as being an oversized K-5.
Yes, I think I do understand that - I was just speaking rather too loosely when using a technical term I really probably shouldn't have. Mea culpe. Like I said, I'm a newbie.
So perhaps you can correct me on this: Suppose you have two lenses of equal optical quality, both projecting the same image but each onto different sensors. The sensors have the same pixel pitch, but one sensor is physically smaller than the other (thus, the projected image is more concentrated on the smaller sensor). As I imagine it - and please remember I'm a newbie - you'll be able to capture less detail on the smaller sensor. Am I mistaken on that?
When asking about whether FA/FA* lenses can match the capacity of the K-1 sensor, what I'm wondering concerns whether those lenses, having been designed for film which (as I understand it) is capable of recording less detail than modern sensors, including (especially) the K-1's sensor, are in general *optically* sufficient to match or exceed the K-1's sensor's capacity for recording detail. In the film era, I suspect that there would have been little point for Pentax to design lenses to higher optical standard than the recording medium (film) was capable of recording. The D FA (and DA) lenses, by contrast, are designed for modern digital cameras, and so I'm wondering whether that implies, *in general at least* (I realise this will vary on an lens to lens basis) an optical improvement over FA/FA* lenses in order to transmit correspondingly greater sharpness, contrast, etc.to match the greater capacities of modern sensors over film.
I'm here to learn, so apologies if these are dumb questions.
Socrateeze