Originally posted by stevebrot You can test the same thing with a shorter focal length in still air inside.
Originally posted by Halchemy What I find interesting is that the resolution of the K-3 is just about as good as the resolution of the very best lenses available. In other words the next generation of sensor (36Mp?) may have better resolution than any lens available.
Originally posted by DeadJohn I was about to comment that no AA filter rather than more pixels might be why the K-3 is sharper than the K-5.
As also suggested by Halchemy, I belive that we are approaching sensor (spatial) resolution where optical resolutions matters. So, 'any lens' will not do for this kind of comparison tests. But here then, are some still air tests taken with my DA*200 lens at about closests focusing distance (1400mm). As my "amateur test chart", I use a stamp because, as much as with a real test-chart, the incredible fine details in the gravure usually makes it easier for me to see differences in resolution.
And first let's take a look at the differences between "Full" (Level 2), "Medium" (Level 1) and no (off) AA-filter simulation:
The difference between level 2 and level 1/off is quite obvious: The AA-filter simulator does have the expected effect on resolution. The difference between level 1 and off appears much more subtle to my eye.
Next, let's have a look at the differences between the K-5 and the A-3 sensor (with no AA-simulation) under these controlled conditions. I took series of 5 images at f/5.6 and f/8 and picked two images from each series - one for the left column and one for the right column crops - at random. And here is the result (K-5 images on top and K-3 images at the bottom):
K-5 and K-3 with DA*200mm lens at f/5.6: K-5 and K-3 with DA*200 at f/8:
I think it is fair and obvious to conclude that a high-resolution lens like the DA*200 does benefit from the finer resolution of the K-3 sensor. However, when one compares with the AA-filter simulation image above, the difference appears to me to be as much due to the lack of AA-filter as to the smaller pixel pitch of the K-3 sensor.
To take this one step further, I made yet another test with my dedicated macro lens, Tamron Adaptall-2 35-80mm f/2.8-3.8 (Model 01A). This lens is renowned for it fine resolution characteristics but should, on paper at least, have a smaller resolving power than the DA*200. On the other hand, it allows for a larger viewing angle at a closest focusing distance of only 270mm. Again, the K-5 images are on top and K-3 images at the bottom:
So, what does one conclude here? I am somewhat in doubt. The larger scale of the K-3 images makes it easier to see the tiniest details and i
THINK that I can still see a K-3 resolution advantge over the K-5 here. But I belive that halchemy may well be right: We are approaching a situation where only the lenses with the highest optical resolution will benefit from more pixels.........