[psoo]

I think the k-50's a great camera. I recently gave mine to one of my "kids" (all of whom are now taller than I am), when I "upgraded" to a KP. The KP is a great improvement, but I'd be reluctant to ditch a working k-50.

Hi Dlh, I love my K50 (and Kx) also. They are great no nonsense cameras capable of great shots in skilled hands. I'm a camera collector so I won't willingly sell my K50 when I upgrade to a KP.

[Cerebum]

I would have kept my K30 if I could, and my Olympus stylus 1s but the KP deal was too good. Selling was the right thing to do, the KP has supplanted everything, but I do miss them

[-JW-]

Like others said, if you want a serious upgrade, skip the K5 and look for K3/Kp/K70.
What lenses are you using? A higher resolution sensor won't help you if the lenses can't match it.

[dbs]

Your camera is fine, your lenses are fine..but..hand holding well ....a tripod...and a good one..yes your current upgrade budget for one.
I didn't and any wind I may aswell use a fence post or something.. Theres plenty of good advice here for that

Dave

[psoo]

Yes, but the caveat is you need to use good technique to ensure you are getting maximum sharpness. For example, with my K-5 II, I could usually be not careful about my technique and get sharp photos @ 400mm with a shutter speed of 1/500s. But when I upgraded to my K-3 II, I found I needed either increase my shutter to 1/750s, or be more mindful and deliberate when shooting at a slower speed.

For me, I found going from the K-5 II's 16MP w/AA filter to the K-3 II's filterless 24MP a bit of a revelation in resolving power.

Hi Luftfluss, I just re-read your comment to my post. Can you explain the difference between lens "resolving power" and "sharpness". Aren't they the same thing. For example, if I took a photo of, say, a hair with my usual camera and lens and it looked "sharp" I might be happy with the result. However, if I changed the lens to a super-dooper expensivel lens and took another shot I could find that the image showed two hairs almost stuck together. The lens had greater resolving power and gave a "sharper" image. Aren't sharpness and resolving power the same, or am I just splitting hairs?

[swanlefitte]

Aren't sharpness and resolving power the same, or am I just splitting hairs?

I see what you did there. 😂
But here is from a recent write up at lensrentals.
"However, even among these really good lenses, you can’t assume how a lens will perform at ultra-high resolutions based on its results at normal resolutions."
Lens Rentals | Blog

[luftfluss]

Hi Luftfluss, I just re-read your comment to my post. Can you explain the difference between lens "resolving power" and "sharpness". Aren't they the same thing. For example, if I took a photo of, say, a hair with my usual camera and lens and it looked "sharp" I might be happy with the result. However, if I changed the lens to a super-dooper expensivel lens and took another shot I could find that the image showed two hairs almost stuck together. The lens had greater resolving power and gave a "sharper" image. Aren't sharpness and resolving power the same, or am I just splitting hairs?

Sometimes I feel like being very careful with how I phrase things...

I shoot with a mix of both modern "digital" lenses and legacy glass, and while the newer lenses often at first glance appear "sharper" - that is, having more crisply defined and apparent detail - when I more closely scrutinize similar photos made with a modern lens and an old lens, sometimes I find they resolve about the same amount of detail, but the older lens is less "in your face" about it.

Edit: I think I found my post that you are referring to, where I compared the K-3 II and K-5 II in terms of resolving power. "Resolving power" - the amount of detail that is resolved in an image - is a function of both the lens and the camera's sensor, while "sharpness" is an attribute I ascribe primarily to a lens. If you photograph a scene that contains much detail - like a leafy landscape - and you attach a great lens to a 16MP camera and the same lens to a 24MP camera, the resultant photos would appear to be similarly "sharp", but the photo made with the 24MP camera would contain more detail simply because there are more pixels available to create the image.

I think the link posted by @swanlefitte is a good one.

---

Last edited by luftfluss; 01-10-2020 at 10:22 AM.

[SSGGeezer]

As @Mikesbike pointed out, the lack of an Anti-aliasing filter adds sharpness to fine details while increasing the chances of Moire. I love the KP over my original Pentax (K-50) because of the improved dust removal, the lack of AA filter and the battery grip,being my major reasons. The added megapickles do help a bit though.

[psoo]

Sometimes I feel like being very careful with how I phrase things...

I shoot with a mix of both modern "digital" lenses and legacy glass, and while the newer lenses often at first glance appear "sharper" - that is, having more crisply defined and apparent detail - when I more closely scrutinize similar photos made with a modern lens and an old lens, sometimes I find they resolve about the same amount of detail, but the older lens is less "in your face" about it.

Edit: I think I found my post that you are referring to, where I compared the K-3 II and K-5 II in terms of resolving power. "Resolving power" - the amount of detail that is resolved in an image - is a function of both the lens and the camera's sensor, while "sharpness" is an attribute I ascribe primarily to a lens. If you photograph a scene that contains much detail - like a leafy landscape - and you attach a great lens to a 16MP camera and the same lens to a 24MP camera, the resultant photos would appear to be similarly "sharp", but the photo made with the 24MP camera would contain more detail simply because there are more pixels available to create the image.

I think the link posted by @swanlefitte is a good one.

Thanks for the clarification, Luftfluss. Makes sense now.

[jeallen01]

I certainly found that images from the K-3 to be "sharper", or should I say "more detailed", than those from the K-30 when I did a fairly stringent back-to-back test with my "generation one" Sigma 17-70 (a pretty good lens IMHO) in the garden a couple of years ago.

PS: that test was done with both bodies on the same tripod, focused on the same 1m rule about 10m from the tripod and using Liveview to focus "accurately".

[psoo]

Sometimes I feel like being very careful with how I phrase things...

I shoot with a mix of both modern "digital" lenses and legacy glass, and while the newer lenses often at first glance appear "sharper" - that is, having more crisply defined and apparent detail - when I more closely scrutinize similar photos made with a modern lens and an old lens, sometimes I find they resolve about the same amount of detail, but the older lens is less "in your face" about it.

Edit: I think I found my post that you are referring to, where I compared the K-3 II and K-5 II in terms of resolving power. "Resolving power" - the amount of detail that is resolved in an image - is a function of both the lens and the camera's sensor, while "sharpness" is an attribute I ascribe primarily to a lens. If you photograph a scene that contains much detail - like a leafy landscape - and you attach a great lens to a 16MP camera and the same lens to a 24MP camera, the resultant photos would appear to be similarly "sharp", but the photo made with the 24MP camera would contain more detail simply because there are more pixels available to create the image.

I think the link posted by @swanlefitte is a good one.

Thanks Luftfluss for the extra info. Your comment makes me think back to the old days when some of us used 35mm film. We were told that you should use Tri-X which is a fast film but it will give a relatively grainy image because the silver particles in the film are large. To get a more detailed shot use Pan F because of the smaller silver particles. I guess the particle size is analogous to pixel density.

[psoo]

Sometimes I feel like being very careful with how I phrase things...

I shoot with a mix of both modern "digital" lenses and legacy glass, and while the newer lenses often at first glance appear "sharper" - that is, having more crisply defined and apparent detail - when I more closely scrutinize similar photos made with a modern lens and an old lens, sometimes I find they resolve about the same amount of detail, but the older lens is less "in your face" about it.

Edit: I think I found my post that you are referring to, where I compared the K-3 II and K-5 II in terms of resolving power. "Resolving power" - the amount of detail that is resolved in an image - is a function of both the lens and the camera's sensor, while "sharpness" is an attribute I ascribe primarily to a lens. If you photograph a scene that contains much detail - like a leafy landscape - and you attach a great lens to a 16MP camera and the same lens to a 24MP camera, the resultant photos would appear to be similarly "sharp", but the photo made with the 24MP camera would contain more detail simply because there are more pixels available to create the image.

I think the link posted by @swanlefitte is a good one.

Thanks for your comment Luftflusst, I now understand. Let me summarize what you are saying:

1. Great lens + Great sensor/camera + Great technique = Great pictures (Expensive)
2. Great lens + Good sensor/camera + Great technique = Very good pictures (Affordable)
3. Good lens + Great sensor/camera + Great technique = Very good pictures (Affordable)
4. Good lens + Good sensor/camera + Great technique = Good pictures (Very affordable)
5. Poor lens + Poor sensor/camera + Poor technique = Just forget it! (Worthless)

[psoo]

I'd like to thank everybody for your invaluable advice. I'm still mulling some of your comments.I think that the current K50 and lenses that I have are generally very adequate for my personal needs.. If can improve my skills that will also help in my goal for improved image quality. I have decided that a good plan for me is to not rush into purchasing a new camera but to wait a while to see if the cost of a KP will drop. At that time I will buy one. Thanks again.

HI folks, based on the advice of several of you, I was looking to buy a KP to replace my K50. I was also interested in the K70 since it would be cheaper and still give me most of what the KP would offer. When a K70 was offered on eBay for $$450, including tax and free shipping, I jumped at the chance to buy it. It was mint and only had about 4500 shutter actuations. It had the same basic layout as the K50 so I was very comfortable with it. However, I don't like the movable screen since I need to flip it open to see the settings before and after my shots. A quick test showed it was giving sharper images with my usual lenses and it was quicker to focus in dim light with was a bit of a problem with my K50. The camera came without a strap, or instruction book.

I decided to hook the K70 to an old Pentax M* 300mm f/4 manual lens to take some distant bird shots to see if the images would be sharp when I severely cropped the pics. I found that I couldn't get the shutter to operate. On the screen I saw the F (focal length) light was blinking, asking me to input the focal length. I believe this is to synchronize the lens to the shake reduction function, so it should not stop the shutter from working. I was using aperture priority, the camera set to manual focus, and nothing happened. I tried other settings on the dial but again no luck. I have no instruction book so can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong, or is this old lens incompatible with the K70? My other lenses work fine.

[luftfluss]

HI folks, based on the advice of several of you, I was looking to buy a KP to replace my K50. I was also interested in the K70 since it would be cheaper and still give me most of what the KP would offer. When a K70 was offered on eBay for $$450, including tax and free shipping, I jumped at the chance to buy it. It was mint and only had about 4500 shutter actuations. It had the same basic layout as the K50 so I was very comfortable with it. However, I don't like the movable screen since I need to flip it open to see the settings before and after my shots. A quick test showed it was giving sharper images with my usual lenses and it was quicker to focus in dim light with was a bit of a problem with my K50. The camera came without a strap, or instruction book.

I decided to hook the K70 to an old Pentax M* 300mm f/4 manual lens to take some distant bird shots to see if the images would be sharp when I severely cropped the pics. I found that I couldn't get the shutter to operate. On the screen I saw the F (focal length) light was blinking, asking me to input the focal length. I believe this is to synchronize the lens to the shake reduction function, so it should not stop the shutter from working. I was using aperture priority, the camera set to manual focus, and nothing happened. I tried other settings on the dial but again no luck. I have no instruction book so can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong, or is this old lens incompatible with the K70? My other lenses work fine.

Did you set "Use Aperture Ring" to "enable"?

[aslyfox]

perhaps a review of these articles might be of help ?

Manual Focus Lens Choices for Pentax
That old glass is amazing!
By K David in Articles and Tips on Jul 19, 2015

Manual Focus Lens Choices for Pentax
Pentax users have at their disposal a large variety of Pentax legacy glass, much of it manual focus. We also have brand-new manual focus lenses from makers like Samyang, Zhongyi Optical, and Venus Optics. This article looks at contemporary options, legacy K-mount lenses, M42 mount lenses, and even the uncommon M37 mount lenses. Each type of lens has uses, drawbacks, and advantages that make them good options for different scenarios.

This two-part series discusses manual focuses lenses on Pentax DSLR bodies. This article provides a description of the different manual focus mounts made by Pentax and third-party makers who produce K-mount lenses. The second article in this series will discuss specific manual focus lens uses and techniques.



Manual Focus Lenses
You may never have realized that manual focus lenses have a lot of uses, some are even more useful for certain types of photography than autofocus lenses. In reverse-chronological order, we'll talk about different types of manual focus lens mounts and how they can be used on your Pentax DSLR body. More information about the Pentax K Mount's evolution can be found in this article.

Using a manual focus lens on your Pentax DSLR requires that you make sure you have some settings in your camera adjusted properly. Chiefly, you need to make sure that you camera will allow the use of the lens's aperture ring. If you're unfamiliar with the required procedure, we recommend that you see our brief video detailing Pentax DSLR settings for manual lens use. If you're still unclear on what to do, see our in-depth guide on how to set your Pentax DSLR to accept legacy lenses. In this article, we won't be getting quit as technical as the aformentioned guide, instead focusing on artistic and practical considerations.

You might wonder if manual focus lenses can provide suitable quality. And that's a fair question. We're talking about lenses that will typically be about 30 to 50 years old. This article provides sample photos taken with various manual focus lens types. But to answer the immediate question, can manual-focus lenses take photos of suitable quality? You can judge that right now. . . .

Read more at: Manual Focus Lens Choices for Pentax - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

How to Use Manual Lenses on Pentax DSLRs
Virtually all K-mount and M42 lenses are compatible!
By PF Staff in Tutorial Videos on Apr 29, 2013

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/tutorial-videos/how-to-use-manual-lene...#ixzz6FZp6YMG4

these articles are from 2013 and 2015, there is a chance that in the ensuing years there may have been some changes