k100d - pk 28-3.5 not what l expected

I just purchased a new K100D.

I have what has been a very contrasty and excellent

performing SMC-K manual focusing 28mm f3.5 lens.

I am finding the performance of this lens on the K100D

to be relatively diminished, in terms of

contrast , resolution and sharpness.

 

It is nice to have the 1.5 magnification factor, but it seems that

even in good outdoor light, even when using say f8 to f16, and having focused

carefully, the result when used to crop in at 75to100% is rather fuzzy and

indistinct. This is when l use that lens to shoot a distant scene and have

focused on infinity and used a high f stop.

 

Is there a reason, in any of your experiences with

manual k mount lenses, which would mirror this, and if

so, does anyone have any suggestions for a remedy?

 

It is very disappointing.

Thanks

I'll ask what I am sure others will want to know. Are you shooting JPEG or RAW? What settings and post processing? Also, what equipment and medium were you previously using with this lens?

I find it funny when people crop in too 100%, you'll always be disappointed (at least I am).

<p>

Why not try printing to the sizes you normally print to.

</p><p>

When I crop in 100% on Fuji Provia I'm not real impressed. I used to think it was technique or lenses, then I realized 100% crops just don't look as nice as a print.

</p><p>

Same thing with noise, it's not entirely how little noise a camera has, but how pleasant a texture it takes on, and also how well it cleans up. Playing with the ist D and D1H (both about as old as each other) I noticed the noise on both of those are quite pleasant and clean up nicely and print well. </p><p>

The point being make sure you are evaluating based on final output, I've seen quite a few good images with the D/DS/DS2/DL series sensors both in print and on monitor.

</p><p>

BTW, if you want to see how miserable pixel peeping can make you, spend a few days on........</p><p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com">Pixel Peepaholics</a></p><p>

</p>

Use RAW and apertures from f4 till f8.

28/3.5 is very good performer.

Anyway, to shoot landscapes with 6 Mp sensor is for amateurs.:)))

The common 35 mm film is not better. Need to use slide-film.

As for shooting distant scene on infinity...I think that there is no 100% remedy with such camera (and with any 6 Mp cameras).

Need more Mp or larger sensor size. If you would use K10D it could be better.

Well when doing significant crop, it is certainly true that the visible advantage goes for higher mp.

 

As far as slide film, tests reveal negative film of the same value actually turns in higher lines of resolution, but the trick is in the printing accuracy.

Funny, we shot an engagement sitting recently, and I needed to burn off the last bit of a

roll of 160 VC, so I shot a few frames of film along with the K10D shots. When we got the

CD back from the lab, all my wife could say was 'WOW!' With the film and digital pix side

by side in Aperture (and in the printed proof book), the VC KILLED the digital shots in the

contrast department. I thought they looked too contrasty, my wife thought the digital

looked too flat.

 

Point is that digital (especially RAW) looks flat before post production compared to most

popular films. In the past, we picked our film based on its color response and what we

needed/wanted (i.e. NC, VC, UC...). Now we get our images flat and we tweak them to the

response we want. That way we don't load a roll of Scotch film to get 'cartoony' colors,

then pop a few shots of the 5 year old and she comes out looking like a clown...

 

There was a recent post about sharpening requirements on digital too...

It seems Boris is our new "Debbie Downer"

 

I believe from my own side by side comparisons that Provia 100F (highest resolution 35mm slide film) my favorite film is actually quite similar when printed to a little 6MP/10MP sensor. Actually I'm willing to bet few people cold tell which is a slide printed 12x18 or a digital with 2003 DSLR to present.

 

To make things harder Alien Skin and I think Nik, both have actions that create the look (grain, color palate) of your favorite film, even SilkyPix Pro has this built in. Also, the Fuji S5 does this as well.

 

Comparing slide film to digital is pointless. Even the basic dpi necessary for good prints is vastly different.

 

With digital, as little as 100 pixels per inch printed can yield a very pleasing photograph, and 200 is generally adequate for almost any camera lens combo.

 

on the other hand, printing at less than 300 generally doesn't cut it with film.

 

When shooting RAW or even JPEG you need to adjust the palate to your liking as well as contrast and sat.

 

When shooting slide film you have a 1st generation final product on the light box. You can of course tweak all you want once it's digitized. However, film, IMO, seems to get equally good results from analog printing as it does from scanning and then digitally printing a TIFF/JPEG file.

 

for people like me, the appeal of digitizing for both archiving, and tweaking is something hard to pass up. Actually, it's why i wasn't behind the curve (other than RAW processing) when I started shooting a DSLR. I'd be hybrid shooting for most of my photography life by shooting negs or slides and scanning and then working on the 10-12MP 16bit digital files.

 

Apples and oranges. Both are relevant but they aren't the same.

One of the best advantage of Pentax gear is the use of old lenses. Indeed, you can take pictures. But I'm also disappointed by wide angles even excellent with 35mm camera. Tele lenses are better on digital Pentax than wide angles.

Well all of your comments and opinions are interesting and very helpful so far,thanks.

 

To be honest, l was used to just pointing and shooting with a, sorry to profane this Pentax forum, Canon A610 5mpx cam and out would come a bright clear shot under normal conditions.

 

This is not about comparisons though so l will just stick to the topic.

 

A few comments stuck out, just in general.

 

I have mostly been shooting in jpg high with normal to bright value.

 

Yes, when l have tried raw, there is more lattitude to extract a good image from the data, but it is very SLOWWWWWWWWWW USING THE PENTAX raw converting software! ( this may be more a result of my cpu ).

 

 

I appreciate the comment about the cropping to 100% ; that is true, but l do believe that as has been noted, a better lens may give better results .

 

I was just surprised that , as l have said, such a great 28mm k lens for film would have different results with digital.

 

To be fair, l have also been using a lousy Tokina 80-200 f 4.5 lens that was smudgy even when l used it with film. By that l mean the resolution was just acceptable but not great even when stopped down and NOT fully extended.

 

I will have to give the camera some more time and maybe a better lens would give better results.

 

Is it true that say a Pentax 200 f4 , which has been much raved about despite being from another era, would give just as stunn9ing results with this pentax K100D?

 

I am basing the "raved about" on the comments made about it on Stans Pentax site .

 

What l need to know is this;

Should l hold onto this Camera with the assurance that a better lens, whether a new auto focus Pentax or a second party lens such as a reasonably affordable consumer level Sigma, would give noticeably better results straight out of the camera, and even better results after i have adjusted levels, noise, etc., to my own preference?

 

To me 400 or 500 dollars is a lot of money!

That is not pocket change to be wasted on anything.

I am saying this in regard to Boris's comments about using a professional camera verses the one l have.

 

Thanks .

There is no such word as " stunn9ing ", l know.

typo

Mike, I'm not one of the experts here but I think what you're experiencing is how the dslr/RAW experience differs from slr/film (and p&s/JPEG)in that some degree of post-processing (color correction, contrast & sharpening) will be required to get the results you're looking for. The beauty is that you get to control all this. In short, don't base your judgements on "straight out of the camera" results.

 

And, yes, managing RAW files does place a premium on cpu power (and storage!)

The post processing was always required for negative film and

digital. It was just done by the minilab or darkroom staff in the

film days.

 

Your camera should have something like a "JPEG Digital Vibrance"

setting in the manual. This defaults to off on the assumption that

you'll want the latitude to post-process most shots. I keep mine

(K10D) set on Vibrance mode for slide-like results, then hit the RAW

button for Landscapes and Portraits I'm likely to want to manually

post-process.

 

If your model does not have a vibrance mode you can get the same

effect by increasing the contrast, saturation, and sharpness.

 

Remember to shoot images you plan to adjust later (beyond cropping)

in RAW as vibrance mode loses different information than non-vibrance

JPEG, but all JPEG modes lose information.

Boris said: "Anyway, to shoot landscapes with 6 Mp sensor is for amateurs.:))) The

common 35 mm film is not better. Need to use slide-film."

 

Sorry Boris, I have to disagree. In terms of sharpness, color, and overall picture quality I

must say (sadly) that my k100d produces consistently better results than my Canon F-1

using Provia and other slide films. Now this may depend on size, but at smaller sizes such

as letter or up to almost 11x17 I find it to be true.

 

What Boris could have said is "to shoot landscapes with cheap consumer zooms is for

amateurs." I think that would have been more accurate. My recent test of a 50 1.7 vs. my

50-200 has me convinced: It's the LENS.

Mike, take a look at my NYS Forest preserve set on flickr, or my paddling sets.

 

 

I used the ist D all summer over my newer K10D (for various reasons, none had to do with better image quality).

 

Most of the photos on there are tagged with the appropriate camera or listed in the caption.

 

Since all the ist/K100 series cameras used the same sensor, and generally looked equal in RAW you should be able to achieve some nice results.

 

Quite a few were printed. If you can't achieve professional results with the camera, it's the photographer not the camera.

 

Any DSLR produced since 2003 (or even before in some cases) will yield a professionally printable image.

 

Scott,

 

I couldn't agree more. Quite a few people have made a living off shooting landscapes on 35mm film, and since in many ways 35mm compares quite well to digital 1.5x or even FF, I'd have to say I don't understand Boris's statement.