|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
02-09-2023, 03:02 PM
|
| |
A K-1 image should have better measurable color depth and sharpness, but whether you can perceive these qualities with the naked eye is another matter altogether. Depending on size and resolution of the monitor, you may notice more detail with FF, but also, depending on the lens used, what detail you see may be rendering in a more pleasing, natural, life-like manner. Of course all this is quite subtle. But with FF there's a sense that it is somehow better in a way that can't be measured.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
12-28-2018, 03:32 PM
|
| |
This strikes me as something that's written to try to win an argument rather than to gain understanding. Of course newer lens coatings constitute an improvement that can provide better flare control, color, and contrast. But how much improvement you get depends on how much glass is in the lens, how the lens is designed, and what kind of light you throw at the lens. While HD coatings constitute an improvement over SMC, you're not necessarily going to see that improvement in all circumstances. There are old legacy lenses that have superb color and contrast, and surprisingly good flare control. My M 20/4, for example, sometimes exhibits better flare control than my HD 21 Limited. In a sense, all that improved coating technology accomplishes is to increase the odds that you'll get better contrast and color and protection against flare in many but not all circumstances, because lens performance and light are a very complicated phenomenon, and one should not be too quick to draw dogmatic conclusions. One way to look at this issue is to recognize that many lenses have a sweet spot where they perform quite well. The advantage of modern lenses is not so much that they're better in all situations, but that they have a wider sweet spot. They can handle more challenges. But if you compare many vintage lenses at their very best with modern lenses at their very best, there's often very little difference —*certainly not enough to quibble over.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
12-28-2018, 08:43 AM
|
| |
While I'm sure everyone would welcome faster lens development, it's not something any of us (or even Pentax, which is not an independent company and is entirely reliant on Ricoh) can control. Complaining about it won't change anything.
Is it really true that most people aren't getting the very best from the K-1? Perhaps. But it could be argued that "getting the very best" is a false ideal. What lenses, other than the DFA* 50/1.4, allow one to get the very best from the K-1? I would propose a different standard. Instead of seeking to get "the very best" from the K-1, a more realistic standard would be: am I getting better than what the very best glass on APS-C would yield? By that standard, the answer is, at least sometimes, that legacy glass does give you more on FF than the best modern glass on APS-C. The bigger FF sensor is not as demanding on lenses, so the fact that legacy glass isn't, generally speaking (there are exceptions), as sharp as modern glass often proves a moot point, as what you lose in the lens you more than gain back with the larger sensor.
I'll give some examples. My main kit with the K-1 is the DFA 28-105, the FA 20-35, the F 17-28, and the FA-J 75-300. I'm not sure I'm getting "the very best" out of the K-1 with any of the lenses on that list, although the DFA 28-105 comes very close to that standard. However, I don't really care about that. I'm only concerned with whether I'm improving over my APS-C options. Is the DFA 28-105 on the K-1 better than the DA 16-85 on the KP? The answer is clearly yes. Same contrast and color, but better resolution with the FF combo. What about the FA 20-35 on FF versus the DA 12-24 on APS-C? Again the FF combination is better. Comparable contrast and color, but better resolution with with the 20-35. Same can be said when comparing the F 17-28 on FF with the DA 10-17 on APS-C. Only when we get to the FA-J 75-300 do things get more complicated. That lens has some serious deficiencies. Only in its rather narrow sweet spot (85mm to 150mm at f16) does it began to approach standards of excellence. I can often get better results with the DA 55-300 PLM on the KP. And for that reason, when I'm doing serious telephoto work, I'll usually bring the KP along with that 55-300 lens.
So in conclusion: vintage glass must be judged, not on the basis of getting the very best out of the K-1, but on whether it's better than the best APS-C alternatives.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
10-30-2018, 07:24 AM
|
| |
I'm someone who has augmented my APS-C kit with a K-1 rather than switched. I put off this "augmentation" for several years, not so much because of the size, weight, and price of FF DSLR, but due to the size and weight of quality FF zoom lenses. I don't like camera bags or camera backpacks, so I prefer to carry extra lenses either in pockets or small lens cases. What eventually persuaded me to get a K-1 was the DFA 28-105. It's often regarded as just a "kit" lens, but I see it rather as a high quality compact zoom. I also own the old FA 20-35 and the original fisheye zoom, the F 17-28. These two wide-angle zooms aren't much bigger than a normal prime and weigh only about half a pound each. I'm actually surprised at how lite the K-1 feels with one of those two lenses attached.
I still plan on using my KP for my limiteds and the 55-300 PLM. It makes for a really nice back-up camera and for when I want to go small.
|
