[Yassarian]

Of course not at ISO 12800, I'm just talking about overall quality... This is at ISO 12800 but it's very grainy and unless this is heavily cropped it really doesn't do anything to sell them 36mps... I dunno I guess my biggest gripe is what kind of lens can do this sensor justice? It's pretty much the same discussion with the D800 when it first came out - does Nikon has good enough lens to do the sensor justice? For the most part Nikon does, and they are expensive. I get that you can stick a $50 all-beat up 1965 manual everything K lens on the k-1 and it will "work", but the question is, why would you want to and does it defeat the purpose of a top-tier high res sensor?

Not at ISO 12800 you didn't!

[cfraz]

I'd like to apologize in advance if this come off as a bit harsh... but I'm really trying to justify my k-1 love here... This example - it really doesn't do anything for me... I guess I'm just having trouble visualizing the actual lighting conditions here, but I have taken photos of 4 yr olds running rampant in indoor soccer practices (maybe similar if not worse lighting) on my Samsung Galaxy s7 or my wife's iPhone 6+ with similar if not superior post processing?

Sorry if this came across as harsh but in all honesty this probably isn't a great use case for the k-1 I guess?

A bit audacious to proclaim the superiority of your cell phone pics with such bravado without sharing them, no? Please do share.

[clackers]

Of course not at ISO 12800, I'm just talking about overall quality

Feel free to browse the hundreds of shots people have put up for overall quality.


Let's *see* your phone's ISO 12800 shots of indoor soccer you claim are like this one.


Not ISO 800, ISO 12800.

[rawr]

good enough lens to do the sensor justice

Behind this quote, I believe, lies the mistaken notion that, somehow, a 36MP sensor 'outresolves' or stresses anything except the newest lenses, and a 36MP sensor might somehow amplify other deficiencies in older glass.

People used to heatedly argue the same thing about 8MP digital outresolving film (and film era lenses), then about 24MP sensors causing problems for lenses designed for 10/12/16MP sensors, then when the A7R and D800 arrived they argued about 36MP digital, then they argued about 50MP digital, now people are starting to argue it over future 100MP+ digital cameras outresolving current camera lenses.

Yet somehow the optics always comes out ahead of the doomsayers. Lenses DxOMark tests get sharper and reveal more resolution every time they mount them on higher resolution cameras. Sharp lenses seem to remain sharp lenses.

IMHO, image sharpness problems with high-res sensors (eg 24MP/ 36MP/ 42MP/ 50MP etc) are usually a result of trade craft, not optical, deficiencies.

[monochrome]

I haven't mounted any of my 40/2.8's yet (M, DA or XS), but you should see what my 1975 K200/2.5 does on the K-1. I'll upload a jpeg to this thread when I get home later.

[robthebloke]

I haven't mounted any of my 40/2.8's yet (M, DA or XS), but you should see what my 1975 K200/2.5 does on the K-1. I'll upload a jpeg to this thread when I get home later.

I have (XS and ltd, not tried the M yet). They do a very respectable job, however they have been somewhat over shadowed by the FA43!

[ruggiex]

I have (XS and ltd, not tried the M yet). They do a very respectable job, however they have been somewhat over shadowed by the FA43!

Do they work without the hood only or can you use the hood?

[robthebloke]

Do they work without the hood only or can you use the hood?

I get about the same amount of vignetting wide open with or without the hood.

[KDAFA]

Behind this quote, I believe, lies the mistaken notion that, somehow, a 36MP sensor 'outresolves' or stresses anything except the newest lenses, and a 36MP sensor might somehow amplify other deficiencies in older glass.

People used to heatedly argue... about 8MP digital outresolving film (and film era lenses)....then when the A7R and D800 arrived they argued about 36MP digital, .... now people are starting to argue it over future 100MP+ ....

Yet somehow the optics always comes out ahead of the doomsayers.....

IMHO, image sharpness problems with high-res sensors .... are usually a result of trade craft, not optical, deficiencies.

Well said. I too have suspected the same thing.

And on a different but related point, people tend to forget that there's more to a lens than mere sharpness.

The rendering character of a lens is so important. It's a wonderful experience looking at images posted in Pentax Forums shot with the K-1 and some really old glass, and not-quite-so-old glass - lovely rendering. And yet, not lacking in sharpness!

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 04:05 PM ----------

... a 36MP sensor might somehow amplify ... deficiencies in older glass.

Sometimes, those so-called "deficiencies" are actually contributing to the lens' rendering character. And in certain cases, they may even have been deliberately incorporated into the lens' design, "shocking" as that may seem. But one needs to understand the lens designer's aim.

Measurements and technical perfection aren't always everything. Rendering character is every bit as important.

[rawr]

image sharpness problems with high-res sensors (eg 24MP/ 36MP/ 42MP/ 50MP etc) are usually a result of trade craft, not optical, deficiencies.

Just to supplement this point - when you read the technical guide to the D800/E that Nikon produced shortly after releasing the D800/E, with the aim of helping users more accustomed to 12MP or so to get the most out of this new-fangled 36MP high res camera, nowhere do they say 'please use the latest Nikon lenses to get the most of your new 36MP camera'. Instead they say:

"'While its groundbreaking 36 megapixels give the D800/D800E resolution unrivalled by previous digital SLR cameras, a side effect of such high resolution is that blur, whether the result of imprecise focus or camera shake, becomes that much more noticeable.

Realizing the full potential of a camera with over 30-million pixels involves a thorough understanding of the causes and characteristics of blur, careful selection of settings and tools (lenses, tripods, etc.), and working with the best possible subjects."

So the technical guide is all about good shooting craft - use a tripod, use live view, avoid diffraction, choose proper focus settings, choose proper aperture settings, learn how to use autofocus properly, avoid using heavy noise reduction etc.

[KDAFA]

...what kind of lens can do this sensor justice? It's pretty much the same discussion with the D800 when it first came out - does Nikon has good enough lens to do the sensor justice? For the most part Nikon does, and they are expensive....

The short answer is: yes, Pentax does.

Some are old, some are new; and not necessarily expensive in every case.

And as I elaborated above, sharpness alone isn't the be-all and end-all of a lens. Many other factors come into play.

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 04:36 PM ----------

Just to supplement this point - when you read the technical guide to the D800/E that Nikon produced shortly after releasing the D800/E, with the aim of helping users more accustomed to 12MP or so to get the most out of this new-fangled 36MP high res camera, nowhere do they say 'please use the latest Nikon lenses to get the most of your new 36MP camera'...

Thanks for spotting that.

[clackers]

Resolution? The pixel density on the K-1 sensor is no different to that of the K-5, and less than the K-3!

Let's hear no more of that.

What's relevant in going from APS-C to FF is the coverage of the image circle, hence everyone's experiments with various DA lenses.

[jcsnyc]

I'd like to apologize in advance if this come off as a bit harsh... but I'm really trying to justify my k-1 love here... This example - it really doesn't do anything for me... I guess I'm just having trouble visualizing the actual lighting conditions here, but I have taken photos of 4 yr olds running rampant in indoor soccer practices (maybe similar if not worse lighting) on my Samsung Galaxy s7 or my wife's iPhone 6+ with similar if not superior post processing?

Sorry if this came across as harsh but in all honesty this probably isn't a great use case for the k-1 I guess?

I have taken thousands of photos with a K5, K3 II, and about 100 with the K1 of indoor kids activities - many in somewhat dim warehouses like this one. The high shutter speeds and depth of field required to get a reasonable photograph are very elusive.

I happen to really love this shot - certainly there is grain, but both rapidly moving subjects who are about 40 feet apart are in focus and there is limited motion blur. For me it tells a story and this is shot at 12,800 iso / 1/400s.

I would love to see some of your indoor soccer practice shots on the s7 or iPhone as a comparison.

---------- Post added 05-09-16 at 08:31 AM ----------

Does the K1 have that classic Pentax easy handling?

Yes! The only issue I am having is that the preview button is on the right side instead of the left. Just a brain change for me....

Otherwise feels great. It's bulky but ergonomically very comfortable. The new third dial is also great for handling quick changes to pretty much any of the critical controls. Otherwise very much like my K3 ii.