Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mark D Segal on March 16, 2010, 06:24:17 pm
-
Bernard,
Many thanks for writing-up this fascinating story - in particular the interview. It's very informative. One aspect I found particularly compelling is his explanation of the marketing strategy and the leveraging of their traditional technical resources to enter at a much lower price point than we've seen on MF heretofore. I would be inclinded to think this development poses a challenge to the other players, despite differences in the products and the fact that the 645D is just making its debut. From what you say this image quality seems impressive. Too bad it's only going to be available in Japan for a while, but the reason they give makes very good sense. I'd be really keen to hear more about image quality as they get into production, sales and people start using them.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Bernard,
Many thanks for writing-up this fascinating story - in particular the interview. It's very informative. One aspect I found particularly compelling is his explanation of the marketing strategy and the leveraging of their traditional technical resources to enter at a much lower price point than we've seen on MF heretofore. I would be inclinded to think this development poses a challenge to the other players, despite differences in the products and the fact that the 645D is just making its debut. From what you say this image quality seems impressive. Too bad it's only going to be available in Japan for a while, but the reason they give makes very good sense. I'd be really keen to hear more about image quality as they get into production, sales and people start using them.
Cheers,
Mark
Agreed - Thanks Bernard for the insight into the camera and the manufacturers thinking. Interesting reading.
-
I look forward to hearing more.... do you have upcoming plans/arrangments to evaluate a sample in ther field?
-
Interesting. I'm saving my pennies!
JMR
-
I look forward to hearing more.... do you have upcoming plans/arrangments to evaluate a sample in ther field?
Pentax isn't about to send a sample for review, at least not till it's available outside of Japan. I'm hoping someone will buy one out of Japan and submit a review.
Nick?
Michael
-
Excellent interview. As a long-time Pentax user who moved to Canon when I needed to switch to digital (Pentax didn't yet have anything serious in the digital line), I was drooling all the way through. Almost every detail mentioned seemed aimed at the features I would like. It's the first MF digital camera that I can imagine myself maybe actually buying some day -- if the delay before the U.S. entry gives my retirement funds time to recover from the recent economic crisis.
Thanks for this, Bernard!
Eric
-
Why is the lack of an AA filter an advantage? If eliminating it at the design stage permits better image quality, what has stopped smaller sensor cameras being designed without it?
-
I have seen numerous mentions of the Four Thirds format dSLR cameras being less than optimally proportioned for landscape photography. IIRC internet reviewers even say things like "Look elsewhere if: you are primarily a landscape photographer", etc.
The new pentax's sensor is proportioned 4:3 and the interviewee in the article repeats about ten times that it is targeted at landscape photographers.
I thought LL would be the right place to ask my question: what is the optimal sensor proportion for a landscape photographer? (And, if not 4:3, is pentax blundering?)
-
Why is the lack of an AA filter an advantage? If eliminating it at the design stage permits better image quality, what has stopped smaller sensor cameras being designed without it?
The new Leica M9 is a FF 35mm DSLR therefore smaller sensor than MF, and it too does not have an AA filter. This is an age-old issue. An AA filter does soften the image a bit and is mainly meant to deal with moire; however to the extent one can deal with moire in software, it really isn't needed. I think the manufacturers have put it there to avoid complaints from users when moire strikes. I certainly prefer the added sharpness without the AA filter and dealing with the occasional bit of moire independently when it happens - which is infrequently.
-
I have seen numerous mentions of the Four Thirds format dSLR cameras being less than optimally proportioned for landscape photography. IIRC internet reviewers even say things like "Look elsewhere if: you are primarily a landscape photographer", etc.
The new pentax's sensor is proportioned 4:3 and the interviewee in the article repeats about ten times that it is targeted at landscape photographers.
I thought LL would be the right place to ask my question: what is the optimal sensor proportion for a landscape photographer? (And, if not 4:3, is pentax blundering?)
The newest Phase-1 backs are also 4/3. I haven't heard complaints from landscape photographers I know who use it.
-
As someone who shoots landscapes primarily, I'd say that with editing software and panorama software for stitching, the 4/3 format or any particular format isn't really an issue anymore. My old 120 film camera shoots 6x6, and from the resulting images I choose the format that fit the image.
Mike.
-
As someone who shoots landscapes primarily, I'd say that with editing software and panorama software for stitching, the 4/3 format or any particular format isn't really an issue anymore. My old 120 film camera shoots 6x6, and from the resulting images I choose the format that fit the image.
Mike.
Ditto... As a nature photographer on Canon at 3:2, medium format at 4:3 and now back again, I have to say I actually prefer the 4:3 after a couple of years on it. That being said, I wouldn't hesitate to pick up a 3:2, 4:3 or square camera--it's not that hard to either make the format work or crop within it.
-
Hi,
We had long discussions about this on LuLa forums. In theory the AA-filter is needed for correct sampling. It seems that most photographers prefer AA-filter less design, because:
- AA-filter less designs seem to have better edge sharpness
- The artifacts caused by lack of AA-filtering are seldom visible
- The artifacts are mainly color moiré effect. Aliasing can also show up as jagged lines, no continuous hair strains and so on
Less than perfect technique may mask the lack of AA-filter. The AA-filter is only needed if the lens outresolves the sensor, in the sense that it has significant MTF at Nykquist limit.
This is also one area where theory and practice may be slightly apart. There is little doubt that AA filter less designs have artifacts, which cannot be handled in postprocessing. It is also pretty clear that the AA-artifacst are not very visible in real life, although some observers see them clearly. The color moirés can be reduced in software. Stopping down the lens beyond optimum acts as an AA-filter, and this would also apply to defocusing.
Best regards
Erik
Why is the lack of an AA filter an advantage? If eliminating it at the design stage permits better image quality, what has stopped smaller sensor cameras being designed without it?
-
We had long discussions about this on LuLa forums. In theory the AA-filter is needed for correct sampling.
There is little doubt that AA filter less designs have artifacts, which cannot be handled in postprocessing.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, could you please point us to the technical literature explaining these statements, because they aren't self-evident, and several manufacturers of the most sophisticated digital imaging equipment on the market do not use these filters.
-
I get moire on brides veils very often - shooting a 5D with an AA filter (albeit light). Sometimes on the mens suits as well. I would be scared to have to deal with it from a non AA filter camera. Sharpening can be done as a batch action. Moire removal cannot and therefore will necessitate more time than I'm willing to dedicate for the percieved advantage. That's me personally however.
-
Bernard:
I would like to add my thanks for this interview to those already expressed. As a landscape photographer with a large collection of Pentax MF lenses, I have watched the development of the 645D with more interest than most over many years . Perfect choice of questions, particularly the rationale for an integrated back; Mr. Maekawa’s reply convinced me that an interchangeable back would not be worth the liabilities. Also interesting is the point that Pentax kept costs lower by learning and borrowing from its lower cost APS-C cameras; a path not available to the other MFDB makers.
I should also mention that I found Mr. Maekawa’s replies to sound very forthright and honest, no hyperbole; very refreshing.
Although it is unfortunate for many that the camera will initially be available only in Japan, Pentax has minimized the financial risks by confining the camera to the home market where the support structure already exists. Pentax Corporation has been subject to a lot of criticism during the conversion to digital both for its products and business strategy (remember the name *ist?), but I think they got it right this time.
Tom
-
... Pentax Corporation has been subject to a lot of criticism during the conversion to digital both for its products and business strategy (remember the name *ist?), but I think they got it right this time.
Tom
Yes Tom,
I think that they started to go in a good direction since the K20, and got it right since the K7.
The main issue with Pentax will be their lenses. They have a limited top choice in dslr compared to Nikon and Canon and many Pentax users, as in my case, still use a lot of vintage manual lenses.
The lenses line point will be very important I think.
Fred.
-
Bernard:
Mr. Maekawa’s reply convinced me that an interchangeable back would not be worth the liabilities.
Tom
On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement? DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed? Do they sell these extremely expensive systems to demanding professionals and advanced amateurs only to open themselves up to liabilities?
Look, it's fine if Pentax and Leitz decided for their own reasons to sell an integrated product, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily anything at all wrong or risky about the other system, if made right.
-
On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement? DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed? Do they sell these extremely expensive systems to demanding professionals and advanced amateurs only to open themselves up to liabilities?
Look, it's fine if Pentax and Leitz decided for their own reasons to sell an integrated product, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily anything at all wrong or risky about the other system, if made right.
Exactly.
These are two different phylosophies for different needs and approachs. Interchangeable backs are extremely usefull because they provide a grade of modularity that is not possible otherwise.
The Pentax is a fantastic camera and indeed a refreshing and welcome news. I know today that I won't buy it because I plan to work with view cameras as well as mf and also film so an independant back is obligatory. For others, it will just be what they were looking for.
Fred.
-
.... The lenses line point will be very important I think.
Fred.
Fred:
You are, of course, correct when you mention lens availability. I believe you referring to the Pentax 35mm lens lineup; frankly, I thought the DA lens line was a one of the bad decisions. Not really any size, cost or weight savings compared to FF 35mm lenses, while limiting the sensor size to APS-C.
A quote from Bernard’s interview of Mr.Maekawa:
“We believe that many photographers who used to own our film bodies are looking for a reasonably affordable digital solution that would enable them to keep using their lenses while delivering all the values of digital bodies.”
There is a large number of Pentax lenses out there waiting for a digital body. Apparently Pentax’s intention is to initially produce bodies for photographers who have an exisiting supply of Pentax MF lenses. As a customer, I might prefer many new lenses, but as a business decision it makes sense- they are introducing the camera without a huge initial cost in lens design and production.
According to the interview, existing film lenses (other than wide angle) work quite well. In my own informal tests of 67 and 645 lenses on a K20D, the MF lenses are the equal of the 35mm.
I’m ready for a visit to Japan.
Tom
-
Fred:
You are, of course, correct when you mention lens availability. I believe you referring to the Pentax 35mm lens lineup; frankly, I thought the DA lens line was a one of the bad decisions. Not really any size, cost or weight savings compared to FF 35mm lenses, while limiting the sensor size to APS-C.
A quote from Bernard’s interview of Mr.Maekawa:
“We believe that many photographers who used to own our film bodies are looking for a reasonably affordable digital solution that would enable them to keep using their lenses while delivering all the values of digital bodies.”
There is a large number of Pentax lenses out there waiting for a digital body. Apparently Pentax’s intention is to initially produce bodies for photographers who have an exisiting supply of Pentax MF lenses. As a customer, I might prefer many new lenses, but as a business decision it makes sense- they are introducing the camera without a huge initial cost in lens design and production.
According to the interview, existing film lenses (other than wide angle) work quite well. In my own informal tests of 67 and 645 lenses on a K20D, the MF lenses are the equal of the 35mm.
I’m ready for a visit to Japan.
Tom
Yes, but let's see now the e-bay market !!!
Tom, do you use the genuine adapter? to fit the 67 lenses on the K20D. I'm interested in that. Does the green button work?
Indeed for longer focals the crop factor is interesting but for the ones who need wide angle it is more an issue.
I do not like very much seeing my prime 28mm 2.8 M transformed into a standard lens...
Fred.
-
On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement? DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed? Do they sell these extremely expensive systems to demanding professionals and advanced amateurs only to open themselves up to liabilities?
Look, it's fine if Pentax and Leitz decided for their own reasons to sell an integrated product, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily anything at all wrong or risky about the other system, if made right.
Mark:
You said: “DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed”
I didn’t say that, explicitly or implicitly. If my agreement with Mr Maesawa’s statements gave you the impression I was denigrating any other product, it was not my intent.
You also said: “On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement”. Perhaps I should have expanded my original post to mention that most of my photography is outdoors, often in inclement weather and much is done with a tent as my base. I don’t think I need to explain further.
Tom
-
Tom, do you use the genuine adapter? to fit the 67 lenses on the K20D. I'm interested in that. Does the green button work?
Fred.
Fred:
Yes I have the Pentax 67 to K adapter and yes, the green button works. No auto diaphragm however, so you must stop down for meter readings and exposure. Honestly, there is little value in any 67 lens shorter than the 75mm on the K20D unless you have a Zoerk adapter for stitching . The wide angles are just too large and not really wide angles anymore. The 105mm f2.4 makes a very nice portrait lens and the 300mm/400mm EDs are superb, even wide open.
Tom
-
Fred:
Yes I have the Pentax 67 to K adapter and yes, the green button works. No auto diaphragm however, so you must stop down for meter readings and exposure. Honestly, there is little value in any 67 lens shorter than the 75mm on the K20D unless you have a Zoerk adapter for stitching . The wide angles are just too large and not really wide angles anymore. The 105mm f2.4 makes a very nice portrait lens and the 300mm/400mm EDs are superb, even wide open.
Tom
Thank you Tom.
-
Mark:
Perhaps I should have expanded my original post to mention that most of my photography is outdoors, often in inclement weather and much is done with a tent as my base. I don’t think I need to explain further.
Tom
OK, that's a different story - it's nothing to do with the design or quality of the equipment per se; rather it's how you use it which makes an integrated design more practical for you. That makes sense.
-
Nice article Bernard!
I was disappointed to see they did not address tethered shooting from day 1. For fashion in the studio, that really is a "must have", even with a 35mm like the Canons. Big gap for a MF. Pull the card and download leads to mistakes! And "get it close" has been replaced by "get it perfect."
Is the LCD top quality? I see 921k pixels at DPReview?
I hope there won't be too many Version 1.0 glitches! I had the Kodak 14n on preorder at 2-3 shops until the first samples started to show up.
Wish us luck! I may finally start working again this year.
Michael
-
Hi,
You should check these two articles:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
It's quite obvious that alignment and precision can be problematic. It's surprising we see so little discussion about it. The articles by Joseph Holmes indicate that the problems are common.
Best regards
Erik
Mark:
You said: “DO you really believe that Phase-1 for example isn't capable of manufacturing interchangeable MF systems which fit together perfectly when used as designed”
I didn’t say that, explicitly or implicitly. If my agreement with Mr Maesawa’s statements gave you the impression I was denigrating any other product, it was not my intent.
You also said: “On the basis of what knowledge and authority should you be convinced by this statement”. Perhaps I should have expanded my original post to mention that most of my photography is outdoors, often in inclement weather and much is done with a tent as my base. I don’t think I need to explain further.
Tom
-
's quite obvious that alignment and precision can be problematic.
**********
Probably why Hasselblad has gone to factory aligned body/back combination.
Steve
-
Hi,
You should check these two articles:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html)
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html (http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html)
It's quite obvious that alignment and precision can be problematic. It's surprising we see so little discussion about it. The articles by Joseph Holmes indicate that the problems are common.
Best regards
Erik
Very extensive and interesting articles Erik, thanks for posting. I wonder whether he will be testing the new 645DF and Phase 40+/65+ backs with Phase lenses. We used these at the Death Valley workshop (about 30 sets altogether including instructors) and no-one complained about any systemic sharpness issues based on four days of shooting and many images.
-
I have seen numerous mentions of the Four Thirds format dSLR cameras being less than optimally proportioned for landscape photography.
Firstly, Pentax is probably limited to using existing MF sensors in the catalogs of Kodak and Dalsa, all of which are 4:3 except the one larger, more expensive 55MP Dalsa. Leica has paid extra for a special 45x30mm sensor, but for wider panoramic landscape shapes that only gives 1mm more width than the Pentax 44x33mm, so it hardly seems worth the higher cost of a custom sensor! Cropping 44x33mm to 44x29.3mm gives 3:2 when you want it.
Secondly, the idea that a 3:2 format camera is better than 4:3 for those interested in landscapes is a bit of a myth, and hard to reconcile with all the great landscape photographers who have chosen large format and medium format gear with formats like 10"x8", 5"x4" 56x56mm (6x6), 56x42mm (645), 70x56mm (7x6), 75x56mm (8x6) and so on. None of these is wider the 4:3 and most are squarer. The only 3:2 or wider formats I know of in MF or LF film were always uncommon, like 9x6 and 17x6.
The idea that 4:3 is a bad gear choice for landscape photographers seems to turn on two fallacies:
1. People who are interested in landscapes have little or no interest in any other subject matter.
Instead, I am sure than many MF users including Pentax 645 users also photograph many urban scenes, portraits, interior scenes, and nature scenes at closer range than stereotypical landscapes: trees, flowers and such.
2. All landscapes are sweeping panoramas with wide, low horizons.
Instead, landscapes often feature strong vertical elements from mountains, trees and so on. Some famous Ansel Adams landscapes are verticals, and many fill the height of a 10x8 frame and would suffer badly from cropping to a wider, lower shape. Since we are talking about the Japanese market only for now, perhaps we should study images of Mount Fuji for shape preferences!
Once you look at the overall balance of composition that users are likely to be interested in, the case for inferiority of 4:3 (and more so the classic 5:4 shape of most large format and also of "7x6" MF) become very unclear.
-
Hi,
I noted that Joseph Holmes mostly had issues with rental backs. It seems that new backs where quite OK. Regarding the lenses I got the impression that there were some new lenses which were in bad shape.
I have noticed that there is little discussion on tolerances, focusing precision and so on regarding MF-equipment and I don't know why this is the case.
I guess that the equipment at PODAS is well maintained.
It's well possible that Phase has assured better lens quality than the competition. Some of the bad lenses came from Hasselblad, some from Rodenstock/Schneider and some were made by Mamya.
Whatever equipment we have, I'd suggest it's worth to do some check out to see that we have a decent sample.
Best regards
Erik
Very extensive and interesting articles Erik, thanks for posting. I wonder whether he will be testing the new 645DF and Phase 40+/65+ backs with Phase lenses. We used these at the Death Valley workshop (about 30 sets altogether including instructors) and no-one complained about any systemic sharpness issues based on four days of shooting and many images.
-
Hi,
I have noticed that there is little discussion on tolerances, focusing precision and so on regarding MF-equipment and I don't know why this is the case.
I guess that the equipment at PODAS is well maintained.
Whatever equipment we have, I'd suggest it's worth to do some check out to see that we have a decent sample.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
I expect there would be more discussion of MF problems if there were more people experiencing them; also possible these people simply don't talk much or they haven't pushed their systems to the nth degree as Holmes has.
The equipment we used at PODAS was new - very new.
And yes, automatically, whatever we buy we should test it thoroughly, especially making real-world photographs with it. As I've mentioned several times on this Forum, however, this kind of testing is not easy to do properly. It requires forethought about subject matter and test conditions, and much attention to detail about quite a few variables which can influence the results and give us either misplaced complacency or misplaced concern.
-
Mark and all,
Thanks, glad you found it interesting.
Sorry I couldn't spend more time here these past few days, things have been a bit busy lately.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A 40MP 44x33 MF kit for less than $10K - from a maker with a great reputation and lots of great lenses out there. Hmmm...suddenly the 40MP 44x33 P40+ and Aptus II-8 backs begin to look a bit (!) over priced. That said, you can move them between e.g. a tech camera and an SLR...but then again, I bet the LCD screen on the Pentax is a beauty.
-
A 40MP 44x33 MF kit for less than $10K - from a maker with a great reputation and lots of great lenses out there. Hmmm...suddenly the 40MP 44x33 P40+ and Aptus II-8 backs begin to look a bit (!) over priced. That said, you can move them between e.g. a tech camera and an SLR...but then again, I bet the LCD screen on the Pentax is a beauty.
The 645D could be a real game changer - if the camera lives up to expectations.
Bob Rapp
-
The 645D could be a real game changer - if the camera lives up to expectations.
Agreed! This may be the "Canon D30" of the digital medium format world.
Even if it is half the quality of the other MFDB systems it will still be competitive for the price.
Pentax has a reputation for building "bullet-proof" cameras and has a simply outstanding lineup of lenses. Feature-wise the medium-format cameras always seemed a half-step behind the competition, but not so far behind as to be ignored. Pentax made what is arguably two of the best hand-holdable (behind the Contax 645AF) medium-format cameras ever. Where other cameras may have been better for studio work or high-volume work (interchangeable backs), the Pentax 67 series and the Pentax 645 series cameras gave the average working pro doing wedding and portrait work a highly mobile camera that didn't get in your way--except for the maximum flash sync-speed.
As to "landscape photography", I doubt that anybody who actually used a Pentax 645 system for landscape work would admit to any foibles of the system. It was really that good.
Exciting times, Indeed!
-
The 645D could be a real game changer - if the camera lives up to expectations.
Bob Rapp
Coming from Pentax I'm hoping for the best. Some competition at last in the MFDB world! In whatever way Phase/Leaf are planning to respond, they shouldn't hang around. I know two pros who are putting off upgrading their backs until they see the Pentax. With the difference in price between it and the Phase/Leaf equivalent backs, you could fly to Japan and pick one up in person and still have money in the bank. I'm sure you won't have to though - the grey market will take care of that. What next? A P40+ for under $10K - who knows? Hang on a sec., I can get a 40MP camera with lens for $10k...so, a P40+ for $7.5k anyone?
-
Before we get too carried away, let's count the chickens and compare the eggs after they hatch.