I think both statements miss the point somehow. >From sensor format and resolution I calculate that the *ist D has 128 pixels per mm, which means an ideal and theoretial ability to resolve 64 line pairs per mm (correct me if I am wrong). So everything that a lens can possible deliver over 64 lp/mm is wasted on the sensor by definition. The REAL resolving power of the sensor will be (way) below that due to the geometry of the sensor pixels, maybe somewhere around 40. This corresponds to my own little tests, out of which I drew the conclusion that stopped down to f=8 it doesn't really matter which of my lenses I put on the *ist D, they all do fine and I do not see significant differences (also see the examples on Dario Bonazza's site).
On the other hand, I am very pleasantly surprised about the subjective quality of the prints that I get from the *ist D. Reality is, that I have not produced/received 'better' prints from my 35mm cameras/lenses in decades, than in the short time that I now have the *ist D. I have older prints that match the quality, but the ones that are better are from medium format (and those are only slightly better!). It seems to me, that there are so many factors that impair output quality with film (like film flatness issues and lab inconsistencies) that the theoretical advantage it might still have, is almost never visible on a real life print. Sven Zitat von Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Bill D. Casselberry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Joseph Tainter > > > >> > I use mine a lot and am always impressed by the image quality. On the > >> > *ist D it makes a wonderful "normal" lens. > > > > does it stike anyone else as strange that a >$1000 lens is > > necessary w/ an ~$1500 camera to replicate what can be > > shot w/ a quality 50mm lens and most any used pre-digital > > Pentax body and good film?? > > Nope, not at all. You need higher resolution lenses because the smaller > sensor size requires greater magnification than full-frame to achieve > the same print size. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > >
