[cyberjunkie]

I am an old Pentax user, sold a Nikkormat for a Pentax MX LOONG time ago and never looked back.
I still have the MX, together with the K2, the LX, a 6x7 outfit, and a few others.
Then i have my old treasure chest of 35mm lenses, some of them are A* (85mm; 200mm; 300mm), some others are not, but still super-good with film bodies: 28mm f/2 K (floating, Zeiss Distagon in disguise); 50mm f/1.4 M; 50mm Macro f/2.8 F; 15mm f/3.5 K; 20mm f/2.8 A, etc etc.
The wide-angles are practically useless until a FF body comes out (IF it will... i hope so).
The longer focals are still perfectly usable, but my question is: can the resolution of the best of them match the IQ of a 24Mp sensor?
Waiting forever for Godot (read: the FF body), i am still left with a K-10. I am tired of its limitations, mainly low light performance, so i decided to go for one of the new bodies, with stunning high-ISO quality.
I decided to wait for the first second-hand K-3 i can find... then i realized that i have no intention to spend more money on costly APSC primes, and that even my best 35mm lenses could not match the resolution of the new sensor!
How is it? Am i right or not?
Should i go for a much cheaper K-5, which can be found for a reasonable price on Ebay (and be content with it until the fabled FF camera materializes)?

At home i still like analog, for "patient photography" (from 6x7 to 8x10"). The new camera will be mainly used for "travel photography" in South East Asia, where i have to go soon.
I have already a couple of so-and-so AF zooms, which will be used with the backup body.
If i go for the original K-5, and pay a nice a price, with the saved money i will probably buy a Tamron 10-24mm used, if i find one before leaving.
If i'm told that my best lenses are still doing fine with the new 24Mpixel sensor, even at high enlargment, then i will probably wait until the first silly guy with more money than common sense sells his newly purchased K-3
I am asking for an informed advice from the more experienced users, who had the chance to test the limits of old 35mm lenses with the latest sensors.
Thanks in advance

ciao

[SyncGuy]

Woah! That treasure chest of yours is making me jealous!!! Anyway, bring your lenses to a shop and test it on the K3..
From what i see for myself, due to the lack of AA filter, my own collection of legacy lenses perform even better than on my K30 (slightly better sensor than K5 due to thinner AA filter)..

I believe you won't regret waiting for a K3. It's in a league of its own, seriously!

If you don't mind me, with the current going prices and silly money they can fetch, sell the m40/2.8, m100/4, a70-210, and you can use the funds for either a used da15 or da21 and you're pretty much set for a light weight traveling kit with a K3 (separate funds)!

[bdery]

I think if you're only looking at the sensor, then the K-5 would be a more exonomical choice. It,s an excellent sensor by itself.

Of course the K-3 has amazing resolution, but its main innovations are not there, I think. They are

better AF, with more options
better PTTL exposure
better general exposure and metering
better auto white balance (with multizone)
two memory cards
better video
better live view (faster refresh rate, AF, focus peaking)
better and larger screen
more silent mirror, longer life
monitor port for movies audio
Dynamic AA filter
faster burst rate

Those are just what comes to mind.

Do you want all these improvements? Your call. But there's more to it than the resolution.

[NaClH2O]

I don't have the K-3 but I do have the K-5 and have found that my best legacy lenses (K 135 F/2.5; K 50 F/1.2; A 50 F/1.7; A 35-105 F/3.5 etc) don't have any problems with the resolution of the K-5 sensor. One thing I will mention; metering: My K lenses metered very badly on the K20D, this is a known issue. They fared much much better on the K-5. I have heard (anecdotal evidence only) that the metering on the K-3 is even better than the K-5. It might be something to consider.

NaCl(I have a lot of legacy glass also and am planning on getting the K-3 with my income tax return check)H2O

---

Last edited by NaClH2O; 02-07-2014 at 06:50 AM. Reason: clarity

[Louicio]

You have a very nice and eviable collection of legacy glass =) For MF you would probably be better off with the K-3 Vs the K-5 due to focus peaking, but if you are thinking economical and avoiding cost to save for another body have you considered the K-01?

[Pentaxoe]

Cyberjunkie, my Pentax history (and gear) is pretty similar to yours. I'm pretty new to digital photography. I started with the Pentax Q a year ago and got a K-3 last December. Good old glass seems to work very well with K-3. At least for me (digital newbie) the resolution of the K-3 sensor is just amazing.

[sterretje]

The K5 suffers from front focusing under tungsten light. Therefore I suggest to skip it and consider the K5/II(s) or even the K30/50.

Legacy glass works great on my K5 though

[danny09]

The K5 series of cameras doesnt have focus peaking. That alone implies they are not very useful for legacy lenses. Of course u can install Katzeye focusing screen on the K5/II/S but it doesnt hold a candle to the K3 focus peaking.
I say save up n buy the k3 or even look at k30(439 us dollars).
I share ure pain on the k10d low light limitations.

[boriscleto]

Focus peeking is absolutely unnecessary for manual focus. Many of us have been using the standard focusing screen, and in many cases catch-in-focus, for years.

[Pentaxoe]

Agree, manual focus with the standard focusing screen works pretty well. There was no need to use focus peaking on my K-3 so far. Results - depending on the lens you use - may vary though.The manual lenses I have used so far were the: A 2.8/50, A 2.8/100 and the A* 4.0/200 macro lenses.

[cyberjunkie]

Of course the K-3 has amazing resolution, but its main innovations are not there, I think. They are

better AF, with more options
better PTTL exposure
better general exposure and metering
better auto white balance (with multizone)
two memory cards
better video
better live view (faster refresh rate, AF, focus peaking)
better and larger screen
more silent mirror, longer life
monitor port for movies audio
Dynamic AA filter
faster burst rate

You're right, of course.
The "package" of the K-3 is amazing, and there are many improvements over the original K-5.
The most appealing for me, in perspective, are better AF and much better video features.
Though my question was centered on something else: are the best "old" lenses outresolved by the new sensor (in a visible way, at high enlargments, not just on instrumental measures)?
Any first hand experience is welcome... as any link to a relevant thread (on this forum or elsewhere)

ciao

P

[Pentaxoe]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/240228-will-k3-outperform-old-glass.html

[cyberjunkie]

Focus peeking is absolutely unnecessary for manual focus. Many of us have been using the standard focusing screen, and in many cases catch-in-focus, for years.

I didn't realize that the K-5 has no focus peaking.
I understand that you can do without it, and that in some cases going MF is way faster, and more accurate, than using focus confirmation, or even using an AF lens.
Though focus peaking isn't a secondary feature. In some particular conditions (for example some sports) it could give a much higher rate of keepers.
From what i get from the infos i found online, the latest bodies have a much better AF system than my K-10 or K-200 (which show a bit too much hunting, back and forth, when used in low light).
The increased sensitivity of the AF should make focus peaking an even more desiderable feature.
I am finding more and more reasons to go for the new K-3, but the price difference is huge. A new body is very expensive, and even a used one (which will start to be available in some months) will be priced at much more than the 50% of the street price.
It's such a pity that the K-5 II(s) is still a rare bird on the second-hand market.

I must say that i expected different answers. All those who replied reported no IQ problems with their best MF lenses, but before asking here i found that even a recent AF lens with reduced coverage, like the old kit zoom (at its "sweet spot"), is outresolved by the sensor of the K-3. That's why i asked the queston in the first place.
I'm also aware, since quite a long time, that many 35mm lenses, especially wides, don't perform very well with digital sensors, cause their optical project is better suited for analog film.

cheers

P

[Lowell Goudge]

I'm tired of reading all the questions about legacy lenses on the K3 and whether the lenses have the resolution.

What a load of($&@@

Just go th the Q forum and see what legacy lenses can do on a sensor that would represent a full frame camera at 300+MP and aa crop sensor at between 150 and 200 MP

[Canada_Rockies]

Agree, manual focus with the standard focusing screen works pretty well. There was no need to use focus peaking on my K-3 so far. Results - depending on the lens you use - may vary though.The manual lenses I have used so far were the: A 2.8/50, A 2.8/100 and the A* 4.0/200 macro lenses.

I installed an LL-60 screen in my K10D. It's a matte screen with 1/3 grid that helps me keep the trees straight, and the coarser grid makes focusing the M 400 a lot easier, without getting in the way of the spot meter when I want to use it. I find the 400 works best at sunny 16 exposures.