Originally posted by Imageman The facts as I understand them and have stated them are.
A few of your assumptions are incorrect or not fully accurate. I won't dispute line-by-line (waste of good keystrokes), but that is my opinion. That being said, I will address the OP's concerns from the perspective of my personal experience, both as a long-time and current film user and as the owner of both a K10D and a K-3. My conclusions are essentially the same as yours.
There is the concept of the medium (regardless of type) out-resolving the lens. The statement is frequently made on this site and is almost always the cause of significant discussion. Though there is some truth to the claim, it is not as simple as often stated. A given lens will often attain higher resolutions with a higher resolution medium regardless of its performance with a lower resolution medium. The tests at photozone.de provide plenty of evidence of this.
From my personal experience, a good example may be the Pentax-DA 18-55/3.5-5.6 v1 on the K-3. I have used that lens for years on my K10D with good (some would say, miraculous) results, but to be completely honest, it is not as good on that body as most of the other lenses in my bag. When mounted with the K-3 it performs better than on the K10D.
I will repeat...the DA 18-55 performs better on the K-3 than the same lens on the K10D. Whether doing so is a waste of good megapixels relative to shooting with the same lens on say, the K-5 is a matter of user preference and taste, however.
What is more, I have been somewhat amazed at the performance of many of my vintage and cheap lenses when paired with the K-3. I thought I might have to retire my Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye. Nope, it works great; I have not been disappointed. Ditto for my early-80s vintage Tamron 70-150 zoom. Every lens I have mounted works better on the K-3 than on the K10D and (catch this) as least as good as the same lens on 35mm film.* Are any of them as good on the K-3 as say, my FA 77/1.8 Limited? I haven't done the head-to-head comparison yet, but I do know that my Helios 44M came close on the K10D and it would not surprise me if the results were similarly close with the K-3.
It may still be asserted that shooting with such pedestrian glass is laughable on a high-end camera, regardless of results. I guess a good laugh is a good thing. I like laughter.
Steve
* I am referring to scanned images from Ektar 100 film at 4000 dpi using my Nikon scanner. That resolution (normalized to same final image size) is about the same as that of the K-3 sensor. It is my opinion that Ektar 100 may easily support a higher resolution scan, say 5000-6000 dpi, but that is conjecture and I don't have the means to test.