[Gimbal]

How is there any sense to that statement? Please just look at what they are saying. "old lenses are not going to be sharp on the k-1". Does the lens magically change because you put it on a newer camera? Of course not. The lens will be just as 'sharp' on the k-1 as it ever was. On film, on the k-x, on the k-5, on the k-3. How this nonsense keeps getting perpetuated is beyond me.

I'm more surprised that some people don't seem to understand what they actually mean. Of course the lens isn't going to change. No one thinks that.

[normhead]

Thoughts...?

The Problem with Modern Optics ? YANNICK KHONG

Cheers... M

We went through the same discussion without diagrams in explaining why Jun Hrarkawa's 77 ltd. is a better lens than the DA 70. The DA a Hoya "modern design" is the type of lens Hirakawa left the company rather than design. The 77 is totally old school. The 70 has it's proponents as it's sharper corner to corner. But it's images look clinical to me compared to 77 images. The number of images I take that need to be sharp corner to corner is minuscule. So I totally get what the guy is saying.

There are many who seem to favour clinical lenses that top the lens charts, over lenses that look real. That is truly disturbing. We aren't machines, we are people. Although apparently some people have a desire to learn to see things as a machine would, as if there would be some benefit in that.

[traderdrew]

Did you align your camera with your lens? With one camera I didn't need an alignment but when use the other camera with the same lens, I had to align it.

[Kunzite]

The DA a Hoya "modern design" is the type of lens Hirakawa left the company rather than design.

That's a very strong statement, and 100% false: the DA 70mm Limited was launched in September 2006, before Hoya took over and years before Mr. Jun Hirakawa left the company. Besides, I think the consensus was that Mr. Hirakawa was forced to "retire", and wasn't happy at all about that.

[ChristianRock]

Here's a thought.... You don't really have to pixel peep to the extreme corners....

[normhead]

That's a very strong statement, and 100% false: the DA 70mm Limited was launched in September 2006, before Hoya took over and years before Mr. Jun Hirakawa left the company.

Changed it, to "Hoya type"... and the statement still has truth, but of course, you could never acknowledge that. You know, I really like folks like you who just understand the point without sweating the small stuff.. You leave out one little word, and you dismiss the whole point of the post, that's just irritating.

[biz-engineer]

It's the old "sensors out resolve lenses" argument rehashed for the 18 bazillianth time. Under that theory, new increase in sensor technology won't produce any more resolution because the old sensor already had maxed out the lens. The only problem with this theory, is, it's never happened

Lol , heck no, theory is that film resolution is 250Mpixels vs 36Mpixels of current DSLR. New sensors to outresolve old lenses = confusion.
- mixing of flare resistance with MTF
- mixing film era lenses versus lens quality: top noch film era lens optic still is top notch lens on digital , and cheap film era lens is still cheap on dslr

Thinking that sharp lens on film would not perform well on 36Mp sensor is not understanding theory.

But, new glass may not be as sharp edge to edge on 36Mpixels FF sensor as it is on 15Mpixels APSC due to the fact that the APSC uses the center of the lens where MTF is maximum.

If sensors would have a graduated pixel density from edge to center, it could be an advantage.

[Kunzite]

@norm: Sure, it's easier to blame me for pointing out to facts, than admit that you made it up. Facts? They're unimportant, how dare I mention them...
Please note that I'm not attacking your preference for the 77mm itself.

[normhead]

Facts, you didn't point out.

In Jun Hirakawa's patent notes for the 77 ltd, he clearly states, "designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts". That is a fact. There are no such notes for the DA 70, that is also a fact.You've offered nothing. Your opinion. And your opinion is as biased as they come. Your opinion seems to be, no one but you knows anything and anything you don't know, no-one else knows either, now why don't you crawl back in your hole? You're adding nothing here. All you've done here is mislead people. It's sickening.

So now where is your "100% false" statement. You know this stuff. For some reason you choose to deliberately misrepresent the truth....

Or are my facts still 100% false? Be careful, many of us know where that quote is.

[stevebrot]

I would think that the K1 will be brutal for focusing errors. thoughts?

Nope, though DOF will be more in play.

The pixel density is higher on the K-3 since the APSc 'crop' on the K-1 is just under 16Mpix.
Edges of course will be the story with the K-1 since all of the glass is back in play!

What he said.


Steve

[Tan68]

Did you align your camera with your lens? With one camera I didn't need an alignment but when use the other camera with the same lens, I had to align it.

For every new piece of equipment I buy, I host a meet & greet.

All existing equipment is expected to attend. I think it is important for everyone to learn a little about the new gear and for the new gear to feel comfortable its contribution will be appreciated. I find this helps us all work together as a better team. In the end, though, they align with me or get kicked to the curb. It is a tough world :^|

[stevebrot]

I am hoping that my old fa 35 f2 will do well on the k1 (as it does a great job on the k5) but at this resolution I am very pessimistic. For who is serious about modern day photography in the digital world and who obsesses over sharpness I think you'll find all your old k mounts will be sold off.

I don't believe your FA 35/2 will be intimidated any more for being mounted on the K-1 than on your K-5. Mine is quite happy on my K-3. As for the D FA being superior. I guess time will tell in that regard as people actually get out and start using those lenses.

As noted in the above comments and multiple other places, the K-1 pixel pitch is fairly moderate. If your lenses are adequate to your standards at about 15 Megapickles on APS-C they should be similarly adequate of the K-1.


Steve

[Tan68]

Facts, you didn't point out.

In Jun Hirasawa's patent notes for the 77 ltd, he clearly states, "designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts". That is a fact. There are no such notes for the DA 70, that is also a fact.You've offered nothing. Your opinion. And your opinion is as biased as they come. Your opinion seems to be, no one but you knows anything and anything you don't know, no-one else knows either, now why don't you crawl back in your hole. You're adding nothing here. All you've done here is mislead people. It's sickening.

So now where is your "100% false" statement. You know this stuff. For some reason you choose to deliberately misrepresent the truth....

Or are my facts still 100% false? Be careful, many of us know where that quote is.

Does your quote above support your earlier comment: The DA a Hoya "modern design" is the type of lens Hirakawa left the company rather than design.

[stevebrot]

and whether they spoke from experience, or theory

Ignorance perhaps? Theory says we don't know the absolute resolution of the lenses having not had the high resolution media to test them against. Experience is had be actual use and objective testing and from what I have seen, many of the reviewers on the Web are mostly good at talking without experience.


Steve

[Kunzite]

Facts, you didn't point out.

In Jun Hirasawa's patent notes for the 77 ltd, he clearly states, "designed for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts". That is a fact. There are no such notes for the DA 70, that is also a fact.You've offered nothing. Your opinion. And your opinion is as biased as they come. Your opinion seems to be, no one but you knows anything and anything you don't know, no-one else knows either, now why don't you crawl back in your hole. You're adding nothing here. All you've done here is mislead people. It's sickening.

So now where is your "100% false" statement. You know this stuff. For some reason you choose to deliberately misrepresent the truth....

Or are my facts still 100% false? Be careful, many of us know where that quote is.

I did point out to the simple fact that Jun Hirakawa left Pentax (then, a Hoya division) years after the 70mm Limited was available into the market. I successfully proved that your statement - which I quoted - is incorrect. You made that up. You lied, which makes your personal attacks and claims that I am misleading even more ridiculous.

I never attempted to prove anything beyond that, and once again I'm not arguing against your preference for "non-clinical" lenses. Don't change the goalposts, and don't get too aggressive when caught in the act.