'Reflections' is very different and original - love the little line-up, nicely done!

Thanks, some great advice and summary there Dougf8. If I'm sticking with the K7 (looks like thats the case) I clearly don't want any quality loss - so sounds like reversing rings are out, but tubes seem an option

If I'd read it right from earlier, Zooms are the avoided with tubes? So would the Tamron 135mm I've got be OK with tubes (you've seen the results without above). Or do people think I'd be better to get another 135 with closer focussing built-in ... a Vivitar was mentioned. Any new examples I should consider? I really like the 135 focal length. The old Tamron has great resolution and clarity but bokeh is not very good - specular highlights in the OOF zones can be bright and you can sometimes see distracting aperture shapes. Is there a good new example of a 135 to consider?

I used to have a Sigma 100mm f2.8 DG EX macro (on my old Canon film system), and it was great - but rather heavy. Even for me (I love a big camera) I think it would be too heavy with the K7 & grip.

I'm going to research on tubes and lenses, and try some out when I can. Thanks to everyone for saving me £900!

Yes, that is typical, and they are significant crops as well. Maybe I don't need to chase all those pixels after all! Its clear where the weight of argument has gone here, so I've got lots to do sorting through all the great suggestions. Looks like a dedicated macro lens in the 50 or 100mm range would be a way to go, as would extension tubes.

Am I right in thinking that you don't lose any light through the tubes (as there's not elements I think?) ... so shutter speeds would stay the same? And with the old manual lenses can you still have stop down metering with the green button?

A great capture Alan. A big crop? You must have been about 2 miles away then Glad you're getting used to that new beast - I can only imagine how difficult it must be to actually get anything in the frame, moving or not! I remember talk when it came out about the maximum aperture - how do you find that translates generally into acceptable ISO/Shutter Speeds?

Bjorn, thankyou very much for your detailed response on scanning in general & the Epson in particular. I will be taking my time to digest it, but will be looking to improve my scanning and your experience will inform , so thanks.

I use the v500 - it goes up to 4800spi at 48bit, so quality should be good I'd expect. I think I have been falling down with the scan software as contrast has been low and colors weak. You've inspired me to try again, only on 35mm, but I'll give it another go. Thanks again.

Interesting to see the old 80's shots from that pristine environment Smeggy - nice to see some places have not changed that much. Look forward to see more when you get that new scanner !

It is a technical & creative improvement for sure - very deep shadows in the background (makes up the high contrast) were distracting - the softer contrast now complements the silhouette better.

Thats exactly the point I want to explore in so far as it compares relatively in terms of extra IQ potential.

Will the extra resolution for the crops on a K3 equate to similar IQ from a better lens used on the K7? Apart from the focus distance issue, the lenses I'm using perform rather well I find....

Just to be more specific, here's a few of my shots with the current gear - K7 & Tamron Adaptall 135mm f2.8 :




















Because the Tamron doesn't focus very close, these are all significant crops on the K7 - at least a factor of 1.5, maybe even 2.0 for some. I think both the camera and lens have done rather well, but the question is this ...

Would these shots look much better with the same lens taken on a K3 and cropped the same?

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.

I'm not thinking about 1:1 macro - no giant bugs! Just improved lens IQ and closer focussing for frame-filling flowers and other detail shots. The crop factor I'm using with the K7 is commonly around 1.5, even 2.0. So I'm thinking with a K3 there will be a lot more pixels left standing after that.