Optical overkill?
1,720 posts
Link
Posted 06/07/2013 - 21:29
It has been a warm day, pour a cold beer and relax 
Helpful
Helpful 
45 posts
Link
Posted 06/07/2013 - 21:38
wvbarnes wrote:
It has been a warm day, pour a cold beer and relax
It has been a warm day, pour a cold beer and relax
Acting upon it now......
A very happily using a K30. My wife says I have too many lenses.
Link
Posted 06/07/2013 - 22:18
I don't think you need to have any concerns if you're using a K30. Like Bill says, have a beer (or a few glasses of nice red wine like I am) and don't worry about it.
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Regards
David
Flickr
Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu
Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs
Link
Posted 06/07/2013 - 23:16
Read and comprehend this for example and you'll need more than one beer... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
Link
Posted 07/07/2013 - 00:04
wvbarnes wrote:
Read and comprehend this for example and you'll need more than one beer... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
Read and comprehend this for example and you'll need more than one beer... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
Well, sadly after "Do sensors' it lost me.
The answer to this question really is beer, sleep, and stop thinking.
A very happily using a K30. My wife says I have too many lenses.
Link
Posted 07/07/2013 - 16:00
Dogsbody wrote:
Would an expensive piece of glass be a waste of money if attached to a lesser quality camera?
Would an expensive piece of glass be a waste of money if attached to a lesser quality camera?
Its certainly too hot today for me to wade through that article
I think the simple answer to the question has got to be 'yes' - if its only that resolution & MTF stuff that's being considered. If a sensor can't actually 'resolve' the fine detail sent to it, then yes, its wasted. But if you need the expensive lens for its particular focal length, weight advantage or very wide aperture say, then you'll still get the benefit even on a lessor camera.
Surely the reality today though, with the amazing rapid advance (and reducing cost) of high resolution sensors, is actually getting our glass to match up ? The very best lenses are still serious money, more than our camera bodies, and for most of us it is these items that we aspire to that offer the real potential to boost IQ significantly.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Link
Posted 07/07/2013 - 19:31
link
Good thinking re sensor being unable to resolve fine detail! Does make you think though doesn't it? I suppose it stems from me seeing things like this this. and having irresponsible thoughts
McGregNi wrote:
Its certainly too hot today for me to wade through that article
I think the simple answer to the question has got to be 'yes' - if its only that resolution & MTF stuff that's being considered. If a sensor can't actually 'resolve' the fine detail sent to it, then yes, its wasted. But if you need the expensive lens for its particular focal length, weight advantage or very wide aperture say, then you'll still get the benefit even on a lessor camera.
Surely the reality today though, with the amazing rapid advance (and reducing cost) of high resolution sensors, is actually getting our glass to match up ? The very best lenses are still serious money, more than our camera bodies, and for most of us it is these items that we aspire to that offer the real potential to boost IQ significantly.
Dogsbody wrote:
Would an expensive piece of glass be a waste of money if attached to a lesser quality camera?
Would an expensive piece of glass be a waste of money if attached to a lesser quality camera?
Its certainly too hot today for me to wade through that article
I think the simple answer to the question has got to be 'yes' - if its only that resolution & MTF stuff that's being considered. If a sensor can't actually 'resolve' the fine detail sent to it, then yes, its wasted. But if you need the expensive lens for its particular focal length, weight advantage or very wide aperture say, then you'll still get the benefit even on a lessor camera.
Surely the reality today though, with the amazing rapid advance (and reducing cost) of high resolution sensors, is actually getting our glass to match up ? The very best lenses are still serious money, more than our camera bodies, and for most of us it is these items that we aspire to that offer the real potential to boost IQ significantly.
Good thinking re sensor being unable to resolve fine detail! Does make you think though doesn't it? I suppose it stems from me seeing things like this this. and having irresponsible thoughts
Last Edited by Dogsbody on 07/07/2013 - 19:35
Link
Posted 07/07/2013 - 20:24
I reckon you should be more worried about your lenses being up to the resolving power of your K30's sensor, than the other way around. The K30 has excellent IQ, probably a dead heat with the K5ii. And better than the original K5. Pentaxforums called it the 'best Pentax DSLR ever' when they reviewed it. And remember, good lenses don't lose value like bodies do, and they'll serve you for years to come, after you get the next body, and the next one...
Only time I've seen lenses clearly not up to the resolving power of a sensor, is when people mount their K-mount lenses to their Pentax Q.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Only time I've seen lenses clearly not up to the resolving power of a sensor, is when people mount their K-mount lenses to their Pentax Q.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Last Edited by Pentaxophile on 07/07/2013 - 20:30
Link
Posted 08/07/2013 - 01:52
Pentaxophile wrote:
I reckon you should be more worried about your lenses being up to the resolving power of your K30's sensor, than the other way around. The K30 has excellent IQ, probably a dead heat with the K5ii. And better than the original K5.
I reckon you should be more worried about your lenses being up to the resolving power of your K30's sensor, than the other way around. The K30 has excellent IQ, probably a dead heat with the K5ii. And better than the original K5.
Logically you might be reaching the wrong conclusion there i.e. if you believe those different cameras have different IQ, then logically the lens is not the limiting factor - those sensors are.
Personally I think it is a bit of both that affects image quality, and of course the third very big player - diffraction.
Last Edited by gwing on 08/07/2013 - 01:59
Link
Posted 08/07/2013 - 10:01
Of course the sensor plays a role. But compared to the glass, it's pretty negligible - certainly if you're using one of the newer bodies from the Kx onwards.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Link
Posted 08/07/2013 - 11:26
Pentaxophile wrote:
Of course the sensor plays a role. But compared to the glass, it's pretty negligible - certainly if you're using one of the newer bodies from the Kx onwards.
Of course the sensor plays a role. But compared to the glass, it's pretty negligible - certainly if you're using one of the newer bodies from the Kx onwards.
Yes but then you are just looking at the same sensors aren't you? So of course there is no real difference between them.
The argument was about whether there was more difference in the image from lenses of different quality or sensors of different resolution - so you do actually have to compare sensors with significantly different resolution in the first place
Last Edited by gwing on 08/07/2013 - 11:27
Link
Posted 08/07/2013 - 11:37
12MP > 16MP. I could be wrong, but I got the impression the OP was wondering about his own camera (the K30) which is a cheaper body, but certainly worthy of some serious glass. Incidentally I wouldn't balk at using a kick-ass lens on the old 10MP sensors either. You're still going to get a big boost in quality compared to mediocre kit lenses, as well as faster apertures, better sharpness, SDM etc.
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]
Link
Posted 08/07/2013 - 13:13
Hi all, some really interesting points have been raised, my original post came about after pondering camera bodies and lenses, why manufacturers supply 'mediocre/average/good' lenses with their cameras when they could supply better.
Train of thought moved onto what the K30 could 'cope with;' it seems comfortably with anything that is regularly advertised on this forum and by retailers.
thanks all!
A very happily using a K30. My wife says I have too many lenses.
Train of thought moved onto what the K30 could 'cope with;' it seems comfortably with anything that is regularly advertised on this forum and by retailers.
thanks all!
A very happily using a K30. My wife says I have too many lenses.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
Dogsbody
Member
Would an expensive piece of glass be a waste of money if attached to a lesser quality camera?
Or is my wife right in saying that I should think of other things?
A very happily using a K30. My wife says I have too many lenses.