Lenses that the K-3 will outresolve

**Quartermaster James** · 10-04-2014, 02:45 PM

Okay, this is probably the worst possible thread in which to make my first post, but what the heck does this even mean?
Is it even possible for a digital sensor to "outresolve" an analog input?
To my mind: a lens has an analog output, and it is what it is.
This is not a question of quality: this is not a matter of great vs. crummy lenses, or even whether the lens was focused; the lens takes in, modifies, and then outputs electromagnetic radiation.
The digital sensor (and, for that matter film, glass plate, gelatin, daguerreotype, eye, or any other currently known recording medium) approximately records this input within its capabilities.
But there is always loss. There is always a finite number of grains, pixels, cones, rods, and also a limit of sensitivity.
Aside from any wavelengths the lens absorbs, everything is transmitted. What more is there for the sensor to "resolve"?

**dadipentak** · 10-04-2014, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by QuartermasterJames

what the heck does this even mean?

As I understand it, In the earlier days of digital, cameras were a limiting factor in terms of resolution, unable to make full use of the resolution of which high quality lenses could deliver. The current generation of cameras (ie, the K-3) has resolution capabilities which exceed those of many lenses.

There is, of course another factor in the resolution equation: the person who takes and processes the photograph.

10-04-2014, 02:45 PM	#31
Quartermaster James Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 653	What does this even mean? Okay, this is probably the worst possible thread in which to make my first post, but what the heck does this even mean? Is it even possible for a digital sensor to "outresolve" an analog input? To my mind: a lens has an analog output, and it is what it is. This is not a question of quality: this is not a matter of great vs. crummy lenses, or even whether the lens was focused; the lens takes in, modifies, and then outputs electromagnetic radiation. The digital sensor (and, for that matter film, glass plate, gelatin, daguerreotype, eye, or any other currently known recording medium) approximately records this input within its capabilities. But there is always loss. There is always a finite number of grains, pixels, cones, rods, and also a limit of sensitivity. Aside from any wavelengths the lens absorbs, everything is transmitted. What more is there for the sensor to "resolve"?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-3 - Not that good with third-party lenses?!	vishalv	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	34	08-18-2014 11:38 AM
Has It Been Confirmed That The K-3 Will Accept UHS-I...?	tabl10s	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	11	10-20-2013 12:21 PM
Will the K-3 automagically kill purple fringing and the like?	Sagitta	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	4	10-08-2013 03:53 PM
Will the VF-3 View Finder work on the K-01?	Jerome Welch	Pentax K-01	34	08-08-2013 02:56 AM
New lenses that will fit my k1000	Xerocs	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	08-05-2013 05:11 PM

10-04-2014, 05:15 PM	#32
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by QuartermasterJames what the heck does this even mean? As I understand it, In the earlier days of digital, cameras were a limiting factor in terms of resolution, unable to make full use of the resolution of which high quality lenses could deliver. The current generation of cameras (ie, the K-3) has resolution capabilities which exceed those of many lenses. There is, of course another factor in the resolution equation: the person who takes and processes the photograph.