Optical overkill?

Please accept my apologies if this sounds ridiculous or has been asked elsewhere but is it possible for the performance of a high quality lens to be scuppered by the camera attached?

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?

Acting upon it now......

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

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.

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.

linkGood 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:

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.

Yes.

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.

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

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.

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!