I read alot about the resolution of the K-1. Statements like " It remains to be seen how well many of the preexisting lenses can resolve to the sensor, since it's Pentax's highest resolution ever."

As I figure the resolution of the sensor is comparable to the K-5 when it comes to pixel density therefor the K-3 should have a harder time with the lenses than the K-1 or am I thinking this wrong?


Also another statement is that the frames per second is sub standard. It has 4.4 frames per second compared to the D810 that has "almost 5" frames per second. To me this sounds like same same but different... What does Nikon mean when they say "almost 5"?

Well, those are my thoughts on this dark sunday evening.

[enoeske]

The k-5 is a crop sensor body so you don't see how the corners of the lenses will perform on a ff sensor.

The k-5 is a crop sensor body so you don't see how the corners of the lenses will perform on a ff sensor.

Yes, that i true, but if the part that is covered is sharp on the K-3 it should be as sharp or sharper on the K-1?

[enoeske]

Yes, that i true, but if the part that is covered is sharp on the K-3 it should be as sharp or sharper on the K-1?

Yes the middle section won't change. But the corners might be unusable.

[jatrax]

It remains to be seen how well many of the preexisting lenses can resolve to the sensor, since it's Pentax's highest resolution ever."

I am not sure that people who make statements like that actually have any idea what they are talking about. It is one of those logical things that seem to make sense, right? It is more megapixels so the lenses should not work as well, right? The only part of that I believe is "remains to be seen".

If we are talking about film era lenses then the lens will still perform as well as it ever did. If the sensor can 'resolve' more, then a better lens might make more use of the sensor, but in no case is the lens going to perform worse.

If we are talking crop lenses, well yes that remains to be seen, but many of those have been tested on other FF cameras.

If we are talking pixel density then the k-3 has a higher pixel density than the k-1.

[othar]

Yes the middle section won't change. But the corners might be unusable.

I am not sure if the sensor can be moved all the way to the corners of FF, but by using this function you can test your lenses for FF compatibility in terms of corner sharpness with your APS-C cameras

[awaldram]

I read alot about the resolution of the K-1. Statements like " It remains to be seen how well many of the preexisting lenses can resolve to the sensor, since it's Pentax's highest resolution ever."

As I figure the resolution of the sensor is comparable to the K-5 when it comes to pixel density therefor the K-3 should have a harder time with the lenses than the K-1 or am I thinking this wrong?


Also another statement is that the frames per second is sub standard. It has 4.4 frames per second compared to the D810 that has "almost 5" frames per second. To me this sounds like same same but different... What does Nikon mean when they say "almost 5"?

Well, those are my thoughts on this dark sunday evening.

A lens never deteriorates whatever material it casting the image on to.

All lens will be as good or better on a higher resolution sensor than a lower.

The only thing a 'better' lens might show is in in comparison to another where it matches a (worse) lens on a lower resolution sensor it may resolve more detail as the sensor resolution goes up whereas the poorer lens doesn't

The result is its irrelevant .... if you are using a cheap kit on your existing body its probably already limiting the sensor detail so will the same on a better sensor, If your using the 'ultimate' lens then again it makes no difference if it the 'ultimate' then you have no better option.

Nothing changes really if you want to put a two bit lens on a $2000 body then fill your boots but it will be no better than on a $200 body.

Glass is what counts and always has done, But fools will part with cash for no improvement so they can shoot FF rather than spend the money on quality glass and get a real gain.

All the baloney of out-resolve the lens is just that twaddle.

[alamo5000]

People who always badger on about technical things like a lens showing this or that at a 200X crop get annoying after a while. I guess it's fun for them and they get their jollies off of talking about that but to me it sounds like they need to be working with Dr Sheldon Cooper in a technician's lab or somewhere where they can debate nuances to their heart's content.

As for me, I would like to learn more about lighting and composition. That has a whole lot more to do with photography than all the nerd talk ever has or will.

[Alex645]

Comparing an $1800 K1 to a $2800 D810 is like comparing a D810 to a D5 ($6500) with 14 fps.

The D810 can at best (I assume using fast shutter speeds, with jpegs, fast memory card, etc.) shoot "up to 5 fps" which means 5 fps is a best case scenario. Up to 4.5 fps for the K1 is not "sub-standard" if Canon's $1800 FF 6D runs at up to 4.5 fps, and perhaps the Nikon D610 at $1300 can brag about 6 fps. But this is really splitting hairs and for the price, it IS the standard. The only thing substandard is the analysis and the statement.

And if anyone really wants a sense of how certain lenses perform on FF (corners and edges), to a degree, shooting tests with 35mm Ilford Pan F, Fujichrome Velvia 50, or Kodak Ektar 100 and pixel peeping will reveal a lot.

[MarkJerling]

I am not sure that people who make statements like that actually have any idea what they are talking about. It is one of those logical things that seem to make sense, right? It is more megapixels so the lenses should not work as well, right? The only part of that I believe is "remains to be seen".

If we are talking about film era lenses then the lens will still perform as well as it ever did. If the sensor can 'resolve' more, then a better lens might make more use of the sensor, but in no case is the lens going to perform worse.

You're absolutely correct.

[KDAFA]

Comparing an $1800 K1 to a $2800 D810 is like comparing a D810 to a D5 ($6500) with 14 fps.

The D810 can at best (I assume using fast shutter speeds, with jpegs, fast memory card, etc.) shoot "up to 5 fps" which means 5 fps is a best case scenario. Up to 4.5 fps for the K1 is not "sub-standard" if Canon's $1800 FF 6D runs at up to 4.5 fps, and perhaps the Nikon D610 at $1300 can brag about 6 fps. But this is really splitting hairs and for the price, it IS the standard.

In fact, when comparing fps, it seems to me that people often leave out megapixels from the equation, resulting in "apples and oranges" comparisons.

It is not AT ALL surprising if a 24MP camera (D610) has higher fps than K-1, a 36MP camera. Of course.

The data flow rate is around 33% lower for a 24MP camera, so it's only expected and natural that the fps will be higher.

We might as well say the D810 (5fps, 36MP like K-1) is sub-standard compared to D610 (6fps, 24MP) !!! If that sounds ridiculous, same goes for K-1, which is also 36MP.

In fact, if anything it is the 6D (4.5fps) which could be seen as "sub-standard", when compared to D610 (6fps), because both are 20 to 24MP machines, same ballpark.

And again, in comparing the K-1 against D810 we're talking 4.4fps versus 5fps, and that works out to 9 frames in every 2 seconds versus 10 frames every 2 seconds. The difference is just one frame. Doesn't seem like a significant difference in real world usage. Indeed if high fps is what is really required, eg for sports, then arguably 36MP is not optimum, may be better to go for lower resolution but higher fps, eg K-3 (24MP, 8.3fps).

[clackers]

I read alot about the resolution of the K-1. Statements like " It remains to be seen how well many of the preexisting lenses can resolve to the sensor, since it's Pentax's highest resolution ever."

As I figure the resolution of the sensor is comparable to the K-5 when it comes to pixel density therefor the K-3 should have a harder time with the lenses than the K-1 or am I thinking this wrong?.

Correct, Tjompen, the great thing is you now know the person who made that statement is one you should ignore in future.

Also another statement is that the frames per second is sub standard. It has 4.4 frames per second compared to the D810 that has "almost 5" frames per second. To me this sounds like same same but different...

Weird isn't, it, the negative statement in forums and reviews, when they're essentially the same.


Glad you can see through the BS that people write.

[Dr_who]

Well if the K1 does out resolve said lens at least you can say the K1 is making the most of that lens

[robjmitchell]

If a lens can take good photos with film then its probably going to be good on the K1. Lens coating make a huge difference to image quality and older consumer zooms were pretty poor.
Fortunately Pentax lenses have had wonderful SMC coatings for many decades! Modern wide angle lenses are likely to be better as lens designers seem to be obsessed with across the frame sharpness lately, possibly at the expense of size and OOF rendering that is more critical if you are trying to isolate subjects, usually at longer focal lengths.

[i5_david]

People who always badger on about technical things like a lens showing this or that at a 200X crop get annoying after a while. I guess it's fun for them and they get their jollies off of talking about that but to me it sounds like they need to be working with Dr Sheldon Cooper in a technician's lab or somewhere where they can debate nuances to their heart's content.

As for me, I would like to learn more about lighting and composition. That has a whole lot more to do with photography than all the nerd talk ever has or will.

Well said, love your post. I want to raise you a monument :-)