At the moment, I'm using my old K-5 to digitise negatives. In terms of pixel dimensions it's ample for my needs, and I'm happy enough with the quality of my negative captures and the resulting conversions to positives. In fact, they look rather good, and I'm reasonably confident the character of the film camera's lens and the film itself - including grain - is fairly well represented. I do, however, use a
little sharpening to offset the blurring effect of the camera sensor's anti-aliasing filter, and I suspect I'd get slightly better results - without the need for (as much?) sharpening - using my K-3 or K-3II (neither of which have AA filters), not to mention the benefit of an extra 8MP sensor resolution. Then, with the K-3II, there's the opportunity to shoot pixel-shift images, negating the effects of the CFA and Bayer demosaicing whilst improving noise performance into the bargain.
So, my questions to this esteemed group:
1) Is the step up from a camera with AA filter to one without worthwhile in this application?
2) Does the use of pixel-shift capture and processing result in an appreciable benefit in the quality of those captures that carries forward into the finished positives?
It's convenient for me to use my K-5 for digitising, since I don't use it for anything else... but if I'm losing out significantly by not using my K-3 or K-3II, I may well switch.
Thanks in advance for any feedback!
Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-16-2022 at 03:14 PM.