Pixels or Glass?

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

Gravelrash

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:13
Only just noticed there was a poll. Yay for the lens team haha

davidstorm

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:15
I didn't notice the poll either! I've voted now, but I would have liked a 'get new glass and get second hand K-5IIs option' too!

Cheers
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

dcweather

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:18
I would say glass before pixels. I doubt I can get an obviously better flower pic with my K3 than with the K30. Also I'm not sure flower photography needs ultra resolution to get the best results compared to say insects. I certainly wouldn't pay 900 for glass specifically to get better flower shots. A lot of lenses with tubes or any macro even an adaptall SP90 or SP 35-80 with 2.5x mag would work.

PeterKR

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:25
You should know by now Nigel that the answer to your question is another question...."How long is a piece of string ?"

The crux of the matter is "What do you want to do ?"

We all have different ideas and aspirations so there is never a simple "One size fits all" solution.

Getting as near as I can I can only suggest that my inclination is to keep the K7 and spend the money on glass. My first digital camera was a 2MP Canon A40 and I still have some A4 prints that are pin sharp - pixels are not the answer to everything but you can never beat a good lens.

Again it all depends on how and what but IMHO I would not chose the 55-300 for Macro work since the minimum focus distance is virtually 'in the next room' ! As John said, this is great for shooting flowers at the back of the bed but generally if you want to shoot bugs as well as flowers you need to be very close.

Amongst all this confusion you might want to do a SWOT analysis and jot down all the factors that are important to YOU and then compare a range of lenses.

Best of luck !

Peter

dougf8

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:28
Dodge69 wrote:
100% agree get some tubes and the 50mm 1.7, and or the 100mm DA macro

Its glass glass glass - the marketing machine makes it hard to resist but try your hardest its all about glass, not MP.

An example, went into the O2 shop yesterday to inspect the new model of my Sony phone, they had boosted it to 20mp and have added a feature called 'Blur Background' or something... basically you select the focus object and it takes 2 shots, one on the subject the other on something else and combines them to give you a 'photo-shopped' DOF BOKEH field. Result = garbage. Better of with a cheap fast fifty off ebay and a real camera. Nothing beats good glass, yet anyway

My fav flower lens is actually a M42 135mm Carl Zeiss Jena I got in a charity shop - tricky to use but tremendous rendering with real character - kinda hard to explain

I remember this entry to a comp, I was struck at the time.

https://www.pentaxuser.com/photo/comp-250/generations-46673
Lurking is shirking.!

ChrisA

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:45
McGregNi wrote:
Looking for opinions and a vote on it ... what would give more 'bang per buck' - a new lens (or 2), or a K3 camera?

The most bang for buck you'll get is to get some tubes for 40 quid and keep the K-7 until you really know what you want to do.

Or are you really looking for an excuse to spend some money?

Edit.. Sorry, didn't notice Northgrain's similar answer. But yes, tubes and your humble 18-55 will be a revelation. Make sure you get the ones that let the exposure information through.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 30/05/2014 - 23:50

dougf8

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:57
ChrisA wrote:
Edit.. Sorry, didn't notice Northgrain's similar answer. But yes, tubes and your humble 18-55 will be a revelation. Make sure you get the ones that let the exposure information through.

Not without an aperture ring it won't!

The 135 f2.8 probably will be better.
Lurking is shirking.!

ChrisA

Link Posted 30/05/2014 - 23:59
dougf8 wrote:
ChrisA wrote:
Edit.. Sorry, didn't notice Northgrain's similar answer. But yes, tubes and your humble 18-55 will be a revelation. Make sure you get the ones that let the exposure information through.

Not without an aperture ring it won't!


That's why you need one that lets the exposure information through.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

dougf8

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 00:01
ChrisA wrote:
dougf8 wrote:
Quote:
Edit.. Sorry, didn't notice Northgrain's similar answer. But yes, tubes and your humble 18-55 will be a revelation. Make sure you get the ones that let the exposure information through.

Not without an aperture ring it won't!


That's why you need one that lets the exposure information through.

OK I'm off to bed it's already tomorrow
Lurking is shirking.!
Last Edited by dougf8 on 31/05/2014 - 00:05

ChrisA

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 00:31
K-3, 18-135, tubes. Focusing distance, about an inch from the front element to the monitor.





.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

Gamka

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 01:05
ChrisA wrote:
K-3, 18-135, tubes. Focusing distance, about an inch from the front element to the monitor.





It's a bit pixellated ...

Smeggypants

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 01:39
McGregNi wrote:
Looking for opinions and a vote on it ... what would give more 'bang per buck' - a new lens (or 2), or a K3 camera?

Here's the issue ... taking close-ups of flowers back in spring, I was pleased with the results, but I don't have a macro lens, not even a 1:2 (which would be enough). My telephotos will not focus very closely, leaving my subject occupying only 20-40% of the frame in many cases. Cropping in is very effective, and the K7 performed admirably. But there's a limit ...

Hypothetically this is - say I could spend the money, around 900. I don't know what lenses, but I'm thinking this could buy a couple of much better choices for close-up work (not necessarily true macro, just better close focussing and IQ generally). So any suggestions gladly received.

But the money could buy a K3. Thats an increase from 14.5mp to 24mp, plus other IQ improvements also. Now, limiting it just to image quality for close-up shots (I know the K3 will bring plenty of other benefits as well, but lets discount that for now), where do you think the money would be best spent?

Will I get better images with new, close focussing glass, giving me bigger subjects on the K7 .... or will I be better with the K3, the same lenses keeping the subjects smaller and just crop in with all those 24mp?

Be grateful for your thoughts Don't forget your vote!

Thanks, Nigel

Get a K-5 AND some lenses/lens

Seriously. there's very little between the IQ of the K-5 and K-3 ( without going for more arguments about high ISO )


You can get a 2nd hand K-5 for 300 now
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

andrewk

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 06:11
Nigel, if you want to try out macro photography, why not just buy some cheap extension tubes off ebay and use them with your M75-150mm f/4? It gives quite a bit of flexibility and the IQ is great. Alternatively, you could pick up a Cosina or Vivitar manual focus 100mm f3.5 macro lens - also decent quality for very little money. The best bang for your macro buck has to be the extension tubes.

Andrew
Flickr photostream

McGregNi

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 07:29
Great responses and a lot of good advice - thanks to everyone, there's a lot consider.

I posed this as a simple 2 point question (the poll) as I was wanting to consider it from a theoretical viewpoint as well - to discover where real IQ comes from mostly (pixels or glass) ?

It seems that most are firmly placing themselves in the 'Glass' camp. Do you not think that the extra pixels from the K3, allowing tighter cropping with less quality loss (theoretically) will do the job? Remember I'm not thinking about true macro.

Thanks for all the great replies and helpful information.
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

dougf8

Link Posted 31/05/2014 - 07:50
K-3 will just highlight poor glass.

I wouldn't use a zoom on tubes.

Aperture tubes will cost as much as an AF Cosina 100mm.

In good light with a good lens the K-7 will deliver the goods. So go with the glass but you only need spend a modest amount if you need close focusing rather than 1:1.

35-70mm F.
Vivitar 135mm close focus MF
Tamron 70-300
And a whole bunch more glass can deliver.
Lurking is shirking.!
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.