[Merv-O]

Given the smaller pixel pitch of the K-3, K-3ii and KP compared to the K-1ii it seems that the problem is likely not the lens as a smaller pixel pitch has higher lens sharpness requirements to make use of those densely packed pixels. If the K-1ii had the same pixel pitch as the K-3 you would be dealing with a 54MP sensor not the 36MP sensor it has. The K-3ii, KP and all of the current APS-C sensors become diffraction limited at around f/3.5 to f/4 so if you are stopping down more than that physics is getting in your way. Now you may get sharper images by going higher until you hit the sweet spot of the lens but even there you will be unable to utilize that density of pixels fully. Now software can solve some of the softness from diffraction so you should be good up to some where between f/8 and f/11. There are other tricks one can do to increase the resolution like doing super resolution manually or making use of pixel shift but they aren't miracle workers and physics still puts hard limits in place no matter how clever you are.


This may be the cause of the apparent lack of sharpness. Try shooting with a fixed target at the same distance with your KP and K-1ii at the same f-stop and ISO both focused in magnified live view using the same lens on both cameras.


This is probably the real cause of the issue. While I have mostly really old lenses (old screw mount ones), I know how how to use them and where they are at their best having stopped primarily using film only about 16 months ago. Even ones that are less than stellar for sharpness like the S-M-C 17mm fisheye takumar can produce very good results if used in their sweet spot like this image I shot in December or this one I shot with it last summer. I have a couple of cheap lower end film era k-mount zooms that kind of suck and are lacking in the resolving power but I got them as beater lenses for times when I want to take pictures but not risk a nice lens and not have to change lenses. I call these lenses my cub scout lenses since I mostly use them at scouting events and if it gets broken or damaged it isn't the end of the world.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I simply think that my K-1ii is an early copy and isn't calibrated; the sensor is off even with the most expensive quality lenses attached..,,I'm going to send it in for a check-up....it happens. in the meantime, I'll use my other bodies.

[swanlefitte]

Up to a point, not? At 100 megapixel, lenses will become diffraction limited at f5.6. I imagine most older primes are going to be OK at that aperture, but there will certainly be plenty of zooms that have pretty weak borders at that point.

The article is about video so 8k at best or about 33mp which is diffraction limited at f10 not f5.6 at 100% crop. I don't think I will watch that close.

[VSTAR]

It used to be ….you would describe to the salesperson what your requirements were and they would recommend what was appropriate.
So..if you got your beginners licence for riding a motorcycle you started with a small engine until you were comfortable..and then maybe trade up if your needs changed. Now you go into a dealership and beginners are coming out with huge, powerful engines that are way too powerful for their experience. And unfortunately this can lead to disaster. I went to a Chrysler dealership a few years ago. They had a Hellcat on display and the rep was more than happy to talk about it. The VG with about 350 hp, not a long discussion about it.

Forum members are discussing the need to take photos that are the size printed for i.e. displays in a store window - i.e. 2 X 4 metres. But the average photographer is never going to print this size. But camera sellers, internet sites, etc., discuss pixel peeping. Yet the owner is viewing their photos on their laptop or making 8X10-11X14 prints. Even a 10 megapixel camera from 15 years ago will take wonderful photos for those needs, but the industry has convinced almost everyone that more megapixels is better.

This YouTube was great, because it discussed the real world experience. It reminds me about the internet discussions in the last 6 months about the new Nikon P1000 camera. Review after review describes how poor the lens is at extreme telephoto, 3000 mm. Most do not describe the atmospheric effects at this range, or even bother to take another photo indoors with controlled conditions, or even bother to put the camera on a stabilized tripod.

K1 with a nice piece of glass and poster size enlargement, results in a huge smile on my face.

[MossyRocks]

It used to be ….you would describe to the salesperson what your requirements were and they would recommend what was appropriate.
So..if you got your beginners licence for riding a motorcycle you started with a small engine until you were comfortable..and then maybe trade up if your needs changed. Now you go into a dealership and beginners are coming out with huge, powerful engines that are way too powerful for their experience. And unfortunately this can lead to disaster. I went to a Chrysler dealership a few years ago. They had a Hellcat on display and the rep was more than happy to talk about it. The VG with about 350 hp, not a long discussion about it.

Forum members are discussing the need to take photos that are the size printed for i.e. displays in a store window - i.e. 2 X 4 metres. But the average photographer is never going to print this size. But camera sellers, internet sites, etc., discuss pixel peeping. Yet the owner is viewing their photos on their laptop or making 8X10-11X14 prints. Even a 10 megapixel camera from 15 years ago will take wonderful photos for those needs, but the industry has convinced almost everyone that more megapixels is better.

This YouTube was great, because it discussed the real world experience. It reminds me about the internet discussions in the last 6 months about the new Nikon P1000 camera. Review after review describes how poor the lens is at extreme telephoto, 3000 mm. Most do not describe the atmospheric effects at this range, or even bother to take another photo indoors with controlled conditions, or even bother to put the camera on a stabilized tripod.

K1 with a nice piece of glass and poster size enlargement, results in a huge smile on my face.

For most people very rarely is gear the limiting factor in the quality of their shots. Granted there are times when gear is the actual solution but more often than not it isn't even if they think it is. I have a few problems where the solution is throwing gear at it but those are very specific cases and some day I will eventually throw some gear at them. Until then I will keep dreaming about an A* 400mm f/2.8 to use for astro photography.

A large print of a properly taken picture (good exposure, good focus, non garbage glass) will cure a lot of people's fretting about things like pixel count and noise. One of my friends wanted some large prints of some of my flower pictures for their new house and by large I mean 20"x30". Two of the pictures were taken with my K-3 and one was taken with my Spormatic F with Kodak Ektar and the prints came out wonderful.

I even stumble into some really nice photos with some sub par gear at times. The most recent was of the cub master's daughter at fall camp who I snapped a picture of just before telling her to get off the fence at camp. I shot that later in the afternoon near sunset (sun below the treeline but still not set) at ISO 3200, f/8, at 300mm, and I forget what shutter speed. The lens was my cheap 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 tamron superzoom beater. Nailed the focus (as much as that lens can as I haven't found a tack sharp zoom spot), great framing, good subject isolation, good light. Gave them the picture and they like it more than the the pro shot they had done a few weeks later for family photos. Toss in some post processing to clean up a few things (a bit of clarity and unshap mask to make up for the softness of the lens, some noise reduction, tweak the white balance, blur the background a bit more to clean up the noise there some more) and it turned out great.

At 3000mm 35mm equivalent one really needs to know what they are doing and use a tripod as I wouldn't bother trying to handhold a shot at that length unless I had a shutter speed faster than 1/4000s. Even with my 300mm f/4 on the K-3 with image stabilization it takes some effort to hand hold it and not get a garbage picture as I still need to ensure that the shutter speed doesn't get too low, especially since I usually shoot that lens hand held at f/8 to paper over slight missed focuses from the narrow DoF at close distances. On a tripod that lens is a different monster.