[Wheatfield]

I have a number of bases covered in my small camera collection. A Sony A6000 when I went the fastest AF and the ability to use adapted lenses (all MF). A Fuji X100T when I fancy myself as a bit of a HCB when I want to capture that moment on the back streets of Paris on my occasional visit. I also have a nicely re-furbed ME Super to fulfill my nostalgia hit and a reminder of my youth. I may have a few other camera bodies knocking around too .....

I *also* have a growing collection of film era Pentax lenses (primes and zooms) currently mostly SMC-M which are under severe risk of being joined by some M42 Takumars in the future.

I will at some point get a FF body . This is not the place to argue why - let's just say I'm inclined to OK :-) My head says get one of the Sony A7x series but my heart is leaning towards a K1 - almost certainly a Mk1. This will tie in with a belief I need a specific camera for landscape which is my primary interest.

OK I will get to the point. Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ? What has been the experience of others using film era glass and have they had to upgrade to match the abilities of the K1 ?

I am not a DPR style gear head or pixel peeper and expect to keep this FF camera for quite some time.

The K1 certainly allows one to see edge problems with lenses better. I can see very easily the difference between a soso lens and a good one without getting very far away from the center. It doesn't bother me all that much, I just take pictures.

[CNunez]

I have several old lenses I use every now and then. They perform really well. They have a personal "glow" to them, or the bokeh is something completely unique. Sharp images are easy to make. I find that the worst thing about old lenses is the coating that's more often subpar to the better lenses of today. Sharp images are possible.

[Mikesul]

Much of the magic of the K-1 is in the handling so new lenses work best but old lenses are fine if you are happy with them on older cameras.

[GUB]

OK I will get to the point. Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ? What has been the experience of others using film era glass and have they had to upgrade to match the abilities of the K1 ?

I too have a growing collection of old glass and I chose the K1 for the simple reason it was the camera to best support them. I have a F50 1.7 sitting on the shelf, little used because I outright prefer my A 50 1.7.
Having such a capable camera does make me focus on the technical qualities rather than the image qualities of a shot. And as such I am concentrating on my lenses like the A28 2.8 , Rikenon 105 macro. Hopefully this is a temporary flaw in my photographic progress. The thing is FF does such a beautiful job of presenting old glass and all of your oldies will be up to the task.

[angerdan]

I will at some point get a FF body.

My head says get one of the Sony A7x series but my heart is leaning towards a K1 - almost certainly a Mk1. This will tie in with a belief I need a specific camera for landscape which is my primary interest.
Given that I will use it with legacy glass and pixel-shift mode most of the time, I am wondering if the very much more modern K1 will leave me wanting for better/newer glass ? What has been the experience of others using film era glass and have they had to upgrade to match the abilities of the K1 ?

You don't need any modern glass on the K-1. It performs very well even with 31 year old F* lenses and FA Limited glass.
Template:Pentax K-mount AF lenses timeline - Wikipedia

[Mikesul]

You don't need any modern glass on the K-1. It performs very well even with 31 year old F* lenses and FA Limited glass.
Template:Pentax K-mount AF lenses timeline - Wikipedia

For sure. One of the joys of the K-1 is working with legacy lenses. I have modern lenses and probably use them more often but it is fun to use the older glass to see what can be done. Many pleasant surprises.

[Kerrowdown]

Is the K1 a foolish choice if you don't have any modern glass ?

Oh dear, I do hope not....

[Andrea K]

I bought the k-1, two years ago, after I made a shot of the seller with my A* 85....

[alvaro_garcia]

Well, in my opinion it makes sense buying a FF high resolution camera only if you match it with a lens that outresolves the sensor. (In fact any camera in general).

[BigMackCam]

Well, in my opinion it makes sense buying a FF high resolution camera only if you match it with a lens that outresolves the sensor. (In fact any camera in general).

With respect, why is that? Do you view all images on-screen close up at 100% reproduction, or print them out at large sizes to view a few inches away? By the time an image has been down-sampled, the resolution advantage of lenses can be lost. Far more important, IMHO, is the overall rendering quality, micro-contrast, resistance to flare, etc... A full-frame camera offers the same field of view on vintage manual lenses as the old 35mm film cameras. That in itself is a big reason to use one. As for high-resolution sensors... bear in mind, the pixel density on a K-1 is very similar to a K-5 (hence why files in APS-C crop mode have similar pixel dimensions to those from the K-5)...

[Andrea K]

Well, in my opinion it makes sense buying a FF high resolution camera only if you match it with a lens that outresolves the sensor. (In fact any camera in general).

You have to take pictures or test the camera sensor?

[MarkJerling]

Well, in my opinion it makes sense buying a FF high resolution camera only if you match it with a lens that outresolves the sensor. (In fact any camera in general).

I'd go so far as to venture that most every lens, if it's a good copy of that lens, outresolves the sensor.

[rawr]

most every lens, if it's a good copy of that lens, outresolves the sensor.

And looking at it from the human side of the image pipeline, any OK lens will probably also 'out-resolve' normal human image viewing online (eg when looking at a 1920x1020 pixel computer monitor displaying compressed JPEGs), and in print too (ie when viewing 7x5 prints done at a department store photolab).

[northcoastgreg]

BTW - this is my current list of Pentax lenses - hence my original question :-)

Pentax K1000
Pentax ME Super

Pentax SMC 17mm F4
Pentax SMC M 28mm f2.8
Pentax SMC M 50mm f1.4
Pentax SMC M 50mm f1.7
Pentax SMC M 135mm f3.5
Pentax SMC M 200mm f4

Pentax SMC A 35-70 f4
Pentax SMC A 35-105 f3.5
Pentax SMC A 70-210 f4
Pentax SMC M 75-150 f4

These are all pretty nice old lenses, although I'm not sure I'd regard any of them as classics. I own the M 50/1.7, the M 135/3.5, and the M 75-150/4 and at one time owned the M 28/2.8 and the A 35-105/3.5. I've not shot any of these lenses on FF, but do have experience with them on APS-C digital.

I've found the M 50/1.7 to be a sharp and contrasty lens, although it does run on the cool side in terms of color rendering. The M 135/3.5, while not exactly the sharpest lens of its type, nonetheless features excellent contrast and beautiful color rendering. If you know what you're doing and can work around its limitations, you can get spectacular images from it. The A 35-105 renders beautifully for a zoom, but it can be prone to flare if you're not careful. The M 75-150 also renders beautifully for a zoom --- better even than some of M series primes --- but suffers from poor sharpness wide open. The M 28/2.8 was my favorite lens on film, but I never warmed to it on digital.

The lens on the list that intrigues me the most is that K series 17mm FE. The K series lenses, generally speaking, have more character and richness than the M or A series lenses, and it would be interesting to see how that old fisheye lens responds to an FF sensor. I'd also be curious to see how the A 70-210 performs. That lens has a reputation of being under-rated. Perhaps it needs an FF camera to really bring it to life.

[Jonathan Mac]

These are all pretty nice old lenses, although I'm hot sure I'd regard any of them as classics. I own the M 50/1.7, the M 135/3.5, and the M 75-150/4 and at one time owned the M 28/2.8 and the A 35-105/3.5. I've not shot any of these lenses on FF, but do have experience with them on APS-C digital.

I've found the M 50/1.7 to be a sharp and contrasty lens, although it does run on the cool side in terms of color rendering. The M 135/3.5, while not exactly the sharpest lens of its type, nonetheless features excellent contrast and beautiful color rendering. If you know what you're doing and can work around its limitations, you can get spectacular images from it. The A 35-105 renders beautifully for a zoom, but it can be prone to flare if you're not careful. The M 75-150 also renders beautifully for a zoom --- better even than some of M series primes --- but suffers from poor sharpness wide open. The M 28/2.8 was my favorite lens on film, but I never warmed to it on digital.

The lens on the list that intrigues me the most is that K series 17mm FE. The K series lenses, generally speaking, have more character and richenss than the M or A series lenses, and it would be interesting to see how that old fisheye lens responds to an FF sensor. I'd also be curious to see how the A 70-210 performs. That lens has a reputation of being under-rated. Perhaps it needs an FF camera to really bring it to life.

I'd say the two M 50mms are definite classics, and the 75-150mm and 135mm (while not the sharpest) probably are too.