[lawsonstone]

I was interested in the review of the DA 55-300 WR and the discussion that the K-3 sensor out-resolved it, leading to some loss of sharpness. I shoot a lot right out at the long-end of the lens, and I've noticed this.

What zoom lenses would not be out-resolved by the K-3 sensor? I currently possess several zooms:

DA 55-300 WR
DA 18-250
FA 80-320 (Film era!)

I"m assuming all these would be out-resolved by the K-3 sensor, but might there be one that would be better?

[jatrax]

DA*60-250?
DA*300
Sigma 500mm f/4.5?

'Out-resolved' does not mean the lens is bad only that now the sensor is better than the lens. The lens is certainly not going to look worse than it did on older cameras, might even be better.

[JinDesu]

Most of the 70-200 F2.8 will be fine.

[normhead]

I've yet to see evidence that a sensor out-resolves a lens. Every lens I've seen tested , tests better on a K-3 than on a K-5, including my Sigma 70-300 which is generally reputed to be as bad as it gets. My Sigma however is still preferable to my DA*60-250 in some situations, because it enlarges the image much more. IN fact one set of test over on Imagaing resource, suggest that less than average lenses had the greatest boost in image IQ when going from a D7000 to a D7100, some of them increasing their resolution by 60% when the average was slightly less than 30%. So, I'd be interested in checking out this idea that the sensor out resolves the lens.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-30-2014 at 10:27 AM.

[rawr]

I've yet to see evidence that a sensor out-resolves a lens.

Ditto, unless the lens was fungus filled, or de-centred or something.
I seem to remember Falconeye (or someone else pretty brainy about optics) did a refutation/discussion of this issue a while ago. Must look it up.

[KDAFA]

Ditto, unless the lens was fungus filled, or de-centred or something.
I seem to remember Falconeye (or someone else pretty brainy about optics) did a refutation/discussion of this issue a while ago. Must look it up.

Yes, please do, thank you. I think we all stand to learn and benefit here.

[Miguel]

I"m assuming all these would be out-resolved by the K-3 sensor,

I think none of them would be out-resolved by the K-3, and let's include your 55-300mm lens.
This not to say that your lens may not be defective; perhaps your technique has some issues.
I trust Ctein's judgement around the issue of sensors out resolving lenses. Myth #4 is pertinent here.

M

[ric83]

in real life, the 55/300 HD + k3 is very correct. Price, weight. Pentax has significantly improved the 55/300 more than the theoretical test. I know I has both. Some pictures:
flamands - a set on Flickr

[RobA_Oz]

In the early days of digital cameras, I recall reading that Kodachrome 35mm film (regarded by many as the standard) had a resolution equivalent to about 20MP. In APS-C terms, that would be about 13.5MP. If film-era lenses were only required to match that resolution, then it implies the 16MP Sony sensor in the K-5 could be out-resolving those lenses. Even the Samsung 14.5MP sensor in the K20D and K-7 could do so. Then again, some of the high-resolution B&W films could beat Kodachrome, so I imagine that better lenses of that era would be required to achieve the higher standard of performance, but, for all I know, they could have been out-resolving the best films by a factor of 10% or even 100%. Given that the DA55-300 was first released in 2008 when it only had to match the 10MP K10D resolution, and the K20D in 2009 (which appears to have had no issues with that lens), its resolution could conceivably be stretched to match that of the 24MP K-3, but the same could be said of much of the current lineup of DA lenses, let alone the FA and DFA ones. So, I guess it's possible, but some hard evidence would be needed to say one way or the other.

[normhead]

We need klaus over at photo zone to run some Pentax K-3 tests, but, I don't think he gets a lot of support from Pentax users, the guy has to eat...

I do not know if what I am about to write is due to out resolving or not since I dont have my K-5 anymore but;

I have a Sigma 150-500 and a DA*300.

150-500 @ 500 Gives picture A
DA*300 Gives picture B

If I upsample picture B to have the same size of the object in picture A, picture B is much more sharp and has more detail. Also B is sharp all over...

[jackassp]

There is a very well written technical article / discussion here ---> Do Sensors “Outresolve� Lenses?


It seems our APS-C cameras needn't have bothered going much beyond 15MP....

[geomez]

There is a very well written technical article / discussion here ---> Do Sensors “Outresolve� Lenses?


It seems our APS-C cameras needn't have bothered going much beyond 15MP....

Man that was a long article (filed with lingo that is beyond me).
It seems to make sense to me that 15mp would be the limit before the sensor begins to out resolve lenses, but I can't see this article being right and the DxO results being right.

[Rondec]

I think the big question is how much more detail you see with the DA 55-300 on a K3 as compared to a K5. The answer is a little bit, but maybe not as much more as you'd expect. I haven't really shot my 55-300 much on the K3 -- it just has been too cold here, but my impression would be that if you stop it down to f8, you will see nice resolving power in the center, although borders may still be a bit weak (at 300mm). A lens like the DA *60-250 or 300 will not require stopping down nearly as much to get good sharpness throughout. The question, I suppose, is what you are shooting and how much you want to spend on a new piece of glass.

[Lowell Goudge]

You know all these questions of the K3 out resolving lenses can be out to bed with a simple wander over to the Q forum and legacy lenses on the Q.

Considering the crop factor of 5.6, and the 10mp resolution, the q has a tone more pixels and resolution than the K3. People are taking amazing shots with 60 year old lenses on the Q and I don't hear talo of outresolving lenses yet