Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2014, 10:59 AM   #31
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,155
Time for the car analog...

Crummy tires on your collector car.

Excellent tires on your collector car.

Your car is analogous to the vintage lens. The tires are analogous to the body mounted to your vintage lens. After all, optics drive the equation.

Will the driver experience better performance with excellent tires than with crummy tires? Maybe. Will the excellent tires ever "outperform" the car they are mounted to? No, never. Are excellent tires on a collector car overkill or a waste of money? Maybe.

Summary:
  • Enjoy using your vintage lenses on a modern camera
  • In many cases you may find that they perform as well or better than modern lenses of the same focal length
  • In every case you can expect that they will perform as well or better than they did on film or with a less excellent digital body*


Steve

* The possible exception would be purple fringing. This annoying artifact of digital photography was not an issue with film, but is all too prevalent with both vintage and modern glass on digital cameras.

---------- Post added 02-10-14 at 10:08 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
You're being a bit generous there - 35mm ISO100 films were beaten by digital at the 6Mp mark IMO.
Interesting opinion. My experience has been somewhat different with real-world subjects.


Steve


Last edited by stevebrot; 02-10-2014 at 11:05 AM.
02-10-2014, 04:58 PM   #32
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,523
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
nteresting opinion. My experience has been somewhat different with real-world subjects.
It depends on the maker of the film: Agfa films and kodak films generally had higher accutance - at the cost of increased grain, this gave the illusion of there being more detail than there actually was. Fuji films were a bit softer - their film developers were also geared to keep the grain down. But colour ISO 100 films were beaten at the 6Mp mark, B&W films could deliver about 10Mp depending on the emulsion, developing technique and the lenses used.
02-12-2014, 08:41 PM   #33
Marketplace Reseller
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,108
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
645 film was beaten by full frame 35mm sensors at the 16Mp mark.
.
If you think this is true, I find it hard to believe you have ever actually shot 645. My 645n with Portra 120 handily outresolved any 16Mp sensor I've ever encountered, including full frame ones. Dynamic range tends to be significantly better, too.

Of course, there is the expensive proposition of getting a decent scan of the film, which is why I ended up selling the aforementioned 645n.

---------- Post added 02-12-14 at 08:47 PM ----------

In my experience, it's more than you think, and includes many of the Pentax Primes. Most of the sharpness problems I've experienced with the Q stem from either diffraction or difficulties in holding the camera steady combined with its limited antishake capabilities. Even relatively cheap CCTV lenses can give very good results on the Q's small sensor.

Either way, with 35mm lenses, you are ususally hititng the sweet spot of sharpness in the middle of the lens, so it's probably not safe to draw any conclusions on how a lens will perform on APS-C or 35mm based on how it does on the Q.

QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisJ Quote
Doesn't the Pentax Q sensor already out resolve some lenses? 12Mp on a 6.17mm x 4.55 mm sensor. Pixel size is just 0.0015425mm X 0.0015166666666667mm.

I would think that the lack of an AA filter could make this worse by making resolution better if you get my drift.

Am I right in thinking that the Q sensor needs lenses that can resolve 100 lp/mm (line pairs per mm) or more, if so not many lenses can.

Chris
02-13-2014, 01:51 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,523
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
f you think this is true, I find it hard to believe you have ever actually shot 645.
well I admit, I have more experience with 4X5 and 8X10 format.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, 645n, car, collector, dslr, experience, film, frame, k-3, k3, lens, lenses, mm, pentax, pentax k-3, sensor, steve, tires
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who will pre-order their K3 Bob from Aus Pentax K-3 80 10-31-2013 01:29 PM
What will make you buy the K3? Rupert Pentax K-3 106 10-19-2013 01:16 PM
Old glass junkie bokehaddict Welcomes and Introductions 3 05-28-2013 01:03 PM
Does my old glass justify purchasing the K-01? AntonV Pentax K-01 40 03-22-2012 04:26 PM
Autumn colors - old glass is a good glass andrei46 Post Your Photos! 5 10-26-2007 09:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:55 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top