Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: donaldt on March 18, 2011, 11:19:20 am
-
so I have a Hass H3Dii-50 with 80mm and 150mm lenses
a friend of mine has a full set Pentax 645D, with 11 or 12 lenses (basically full set except for the 150-300mm zoom and 35mm)
and we were talking about a possible trade
just want to ask some of you your opinion
some background info
he is a professional who does mostly studio
I am an amateur who do more outdoor
I dont want to spend much more to buy lenses
I want a camera with focal plane shutter and very rarely need leaf shutter for the high speed sync
so this deal does look right for both of us
however does anyone know the difference between the 14bit 645D and 16bit H3Dii-50? how obvious is it?
I know I can probably borrow it and test it but I kinda feel bad if I test it a bunch then throw it back to him you know
how would you value 645D with 11 or 12 lenses against the H3Dii-50 with 2 lenses, does a straight trade sound fair? given both are in excellent condition
the 645D is rarely found used and most of the lenses are quite hard to find these days, so I really dont know what is a fair value
how are the pentax optics? (I am no fan of the Fujinon optics)
how difficult is it to sell the Pentax set? in case I really dont like it, I might sell it and go back to what I think is best setup, a Contax 645 with a 1.1x crop back(33mp or 22mp), is it gonna be easier to sell the 645D then selling the H3Dii-50? I know it is hard to sell the H3Dii-50 as I have been selling it for about 2 weeks now still no real deal
thanks in advance for any opinions
-
Hi,
The 16-bit stuff is more of a marketing thing than an issue. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=51510.0
From the posting I have seen the Pentax lenses vary a lot, but Hasselblad may also do that.
You may check out Lloyd Chambers's DAP site for good info on Pentax lenses. It's a pay site but worth many times the price if you are in MF equipment.
Keep in mind that sensor size differs between MF cameras. So field of view may differ between lenses having the same focal length.
Best regards
Erik
so I have a Hass H3Dii-50 with 80mm and 150mm lenses
a friend of mine has a full set Pentax 645D, with 11 or 12 lenses (basically full set except for the 150-300mm zoom and 35mm)
and we were talking about a possible trade
just want to ask some of you your opinion
some background info
he is a professional who does mostly studio
I am an amateur who do more outdoor
I dont want to spend much more to buy lenses
I want a camera with focal plane shutter and very rarely need leaf shutter for the high speed sync
so this deal does look right for both of us
however does anyone know the difference between the 14bit 645D and 16bit H3Dii-50? how obvious is it?
I know I can probably borrow it and test it but I kinda feel bad if I test it a bunch then throw it back to him you know
how would you value 645D with 11 or 12 lenses against the H3Dii-50 with 2 lenses, does a straight trade sound fair? given both are in excellent condition
the 645D is rarely found used and most of the lenses are quite hard to find these days, so I really dont know what is a fair value
how are the pentax optics? (I am no fan of the Fujinon optics)
how difficult is it to sell the Pentax set? in case I really dont like it, I might sell it and go back to what I think is best setup, a Contax 645 with a 1.1x crop back(33mp or 22mp), is it gonna be easier to sell the 645D then selling the H3Dii-50? I know it is hard to sell the H3Dii-50 as I have been selling it for about 2 weeks now still no real deal
thanks in advance for any opinions
-
I Have not used the hassy you mentioned but I do own a 645d. I personally love the optics and one big pro for the pentax is weather sealing. I have shot with this camera in rain and hard snow and have had zero issues.
-
thanks, will look into that paid website
one thing I like about the 645D is indeed the weather seal, but does it still work with the older lenses?
does anyone have any idea about the value of the 2 package I mentioned?
does a straight trade deal sound fair?
-
finally finished catching up on the post about 12 14 16 bit
I think there was a question that wasnt answered
what is the true difference in terms on EVs between 14 and 16 bit? (lets just discard 12 bit)
I know that my H3Dii-50 does have a better DR than my D3 and my already Sold Mamiya ZD (at least to my eyes)
could it be that the EVs are in fact the same, but the H3Dii-50 is able to resolve better between each steps of EVs? (more linear?)
does anyone know what is the relevant DR in film? I mean if 14 bit is already better than film then 16 bit might really be useless because our lens might not be able to resolve that at all(I know Film is Analogue so there might not be an answer to this)
-
Hi,
The conclusion was that there is no advantage what so ever with 16 bits over 14 bits. The reason is that 14 bits are mostly ample enough to cover the entire dynamic range of the sensor. Anything beyond the dynamic range of the sensor is noise.
1 bit corresponds to one eV (exactly) both mean a factor of two.
The enclosed figure from DxO mark shows that both Hasselblad and Pentax 645D fail to fully utilize even 12 bits. The second figure also shows the present DR-champ the Pentax K5 (an APS-C camera using Sony's latest CMOS sensor). The Pentax K5 almost fully utilizes 14 bits.
Regarding dynamic range it is not easy to compare film with sensors because films are not linear devices. Film has a shoulder where additional exposure has a reduced effect. The shoulder makes film able to separate better in the extreme highlight. Slide film has very low dynamic range 4-5 eV. Negativ film has a much wider dynamic range but is very noisy.
There is and advantage in having more pixels. When downsampling dynamic range will improve, but for your question this is not really relevant.
Keep in mind that the Hasselblad has more pixels on a larger sensor, so a Pentax 35 mm lens corresponds to 39 mm on the Pentax.
Regarding sensor characteristics the cameras seem to be quite close. They have different feature sets. Regarding the sensor both cameras seem to perform similarly, but the Pentax 645D has microlenses giving it a one stop advantage. On he Hasselblad you can emote the back and use with a view camera which may be a significant advantage.
Best regards
Erik
finally finished catching up on the post about 12 14 16 bit
I think there was a question that wasnt answered
what is the true difference in terms on EVs between 14 and 16 bit? (lets just discard 12 bit)
I know that my H3Dii-50 does have a better DR than my D3 and my already Sold Mamiya ZD (at least to my eyes)
could it be that the EVs are in fact the same, but the H3Dii-50 is able to resolve better between each steps of EVs? (more linear?)
does anyone know what is the relevant DR in film? I mean if 14 bit is already better than film then 16 bit might really be useless because our lens might not be able to resolve that at all(I know Film is Analogue so there might not be an answer to this)
-
Hi,
Guillermo Glujik made a comparison of "bites" on a Pentax K5 which almost can utilize 14 bits.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49200.msg409770#msg409770
The figures are quite illustrative.
For a real comparison between P45+ and the Pentax K5 check this discussion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50895.msg421886#msg421886
Please note that no one says that the humble Pentax K5 "is better" than the P45+ or any other MFDB, but it is one of the very few cameras actually making use of 14 bits.
My suggestion would be that the you ignore the 16 vs. 14 bit difference, but that you try to test both systems under realistic conditions and decide what suits you best.
Best regards
Erik
finally finished catching up on the post about 12 14 16 bit
I think there was a question that wasnt answered
what is the true difference in terms on EVs between 14 and 16 bit? (lets just discard 12 bit)
I know that my H3Dii-50 does have a better DR than my D3 and my already Sold Mamiya ZD (at least to my eyes)
could it be that the EVs are in fact the same, but the H3Dii-50 is able to resolve better between each steps of EVs? (more linear?)
does anyone know what is the relevant DR in film? I mean if 14 bit is already better than film then 16 bit might really be useless because our lens might not be able to resolve that at all(I know Film is Analogue so there might not be an answer to this)
-
Just a side note:
I doubt you will take 12 lenses with you when shooting outside ...
-
thanks a lot, its very informative
so is it fair to say that 16 bit CCD does in fact has 2 more steps of EV than 14 bit CCD
however current image engines are not capable of resolving that extra data
or is it the fact that the CCD was never capable of retrieving 16 bit of data to begin with?
if that is the case, the only difference between the 2 camera is now down to the physical size of the CCD and the 20% more of pixels?
in fact I think the most EVs I have ever got on the H3DII50 was 9 EVs or so but usually less
however as I said to my eyes the Hass definitely has a wider DR than my Nikon D3
so my next question is, could it be that 14 bit and 16 bit in fact are the same in terms EV steps (say about 11 steps in real world shooting)
but the higher bits help resolve more data in each and every steps of EVs
I dont know, is that possible?
sorry, clearly I dont understand this as much as most of you do, hopfully I will in the future
-
Just a side note:
I doubt you will take 12 lenses with you when shooting outside ...
LOL
thats so true
so what would you choose
1) keep the Hass, invest very slowly in the not so great but super expensive Fujinon lenses (I hate how the lenses are in weird f stops too, 100mm f2.2, 150mm f3.2, come on man, is f2 and f2.8 so difficult to make? especially at what you are charging)
2) trade with the full set Pentax
3) Keep the Hass H, invest in the less expensive but much better Hass V lenses(Carl Zeiss), forget about all the auto focus and aperture functions (I have the 100mm CF and 180mm CF,the 100mm CF is the one I always use, CFE is just too expensive), but no true wide angle at 40mm being widest
still nobody can answer my question about the dollar value of the 2 systems?
-
Hi!
There is nothing like a 16 bit CCD. A CCD is an analog device. A CCD has a dynamic range of about 1:4000 which is about 12 bits. Anything above 12 bits is simply marketing speak, in North America frequently called BS.
The slightly larger size of the sensor may matter to you or it may not. The difference in resolution is pretty small, may not be visible in prints.
A lot of other stuff counts:
- Are you comfortable with the camera?
- How accurate is AF?
- How accurate is exposure measurement?
- How good is histogram? A good histogram helps making best use of the 12 bits that are there for real!
- What can you afford?
- Does the system have what you need?
The impression I got from reading is that the Pentax 645D is essentially an upscaled DSLR with MF sensor (CCD, no OLP-filter) with microlenses added in.
Best regards
Erik
thanks a lot, its very informative
so is it fair to say that 16 bit CCD does in fact has 2 more steps of EV than 14 bit CCD
however current image engines are not capable of resolving that extra data
or is it the fact that the CCD was never capable of retrieving 16 bit of data to begin with?
if that is the case, the only difference between the 2 camera is now down to the physical size of the CCD and the 20% more of pixels?
in fact I think the most EVs I have ever got on the H3DII50 was 9 EVs or so but usually less
however as I said to my eyes the Hass definitely has a wider DR than my Nikon D3
so my next question is, could it be that 14 bit and 16 bit in fact are the same in terms EV steps (say about 11 steps in real world shooting)
but the higher bits help resolve more data in each and every steps of EVs
I dont know, is that possible?
sorry, clearly I dont understand this as much as most of you do, hopfully I will in the future
-
Your question is near impossible to answer, because it is founded on a lot of very personal choices.
For outside shooting portability is a great issue. If you go out for a tour of 6-9 hours you will feel
every gram of gear, especially in the mountains.
Maybe a DSLR like the D3X and a good carbon fiber tripod and a pano head will do.
A stitch of 9 images from a D3X with 1/3 overlap would give you 72 good megapixels
(as if you'd ever need more than the 24 Mpix...), if I'm not mistaken ...
How large do you really want to print?
A DSLR system also has the great versatility advantage - e.g. if on the Nikon side you could
use all your lenses on a different body, like the D3S and instantly have a great low-light system.
But even then: Nothing beats MF IQ-wise.
I also am convinced, that postprocessing has a very huge impact on the final image and it may make more sense
to invest in good software, a good monitor, a good printer and not sink ten-thousands of money into the capturing device alone.
Investing in some good workshops might also be a better investment than wasting the money for gear.
That all said from the perspective of an enthusiastic amateur - for a pro who needs to make money things might look different.
Just my 0.02 ...
-
LOL
yes okay I am quite familiar with the North American language as I used to live there
but I dont quite get it now, so the 16 bit we are talking about is the image engine or what?
my old Mamiya ZD was 12 bit and I could tell there was indeed difference in DR with my current Hass, so what exactly was I seeing?
as for the print, honestly I have made huge prints with my D3 12MP, and it was great (which is the reason why I never went to the D3x)
I would say the only people who really need anything over 20MP would be pros, which I am not
and I have always believed that more MP doesnt give better IQ (okay my first DC was a Minolta with like 1MP, that was another story)
Hi!
There is nothing like a 16 bit CCD. A CCD is an analog device. A CCD has a dynamic range of about 1:4000 which is about 12 bits. Anything above 12 bits is simply marketing speak, in North America frequently called BS.
The slightly larger size of the sensor may matter to you or it may not. The difference in resolution is pretty small, may not be visible in prints.
A lot of other stuff counts:
- Are you comfortable with the camera?
- How accurate is AF?
- How accurate is exposure measurement?
- How good is histogram? A good histogram helps making best use of the 12 bits that are there for real!
- What can you afford?
- Does the system have what you need?
The impression I got from reading is that the Pentax 645D is essentially an upscaled DSLR with MF sensor (CCD, no OLP-filter) with microlenses added in.
Best regards
Erik
-
thats quite true
I think it does come down to more of a personal preference
usually what I do is I shoot with both a MF camera and the Nikon D3
as I do mostly portraits, the combination is usually a mid-tele on the MF, like 150mm, for most of the shots
then the D3 with a 200mm f2 for the tight shots, and have a wide like 14-24mm in case I need it
the D3 with the 200mm is sharp as hell, but the IQ of MF is beyong reach for any 135 system
one of the major thing that I love about MF is the DR, which is why I kept asking
to me, who knows nothing about the technical stuff(I know a bit more now thanks to this forum), always thought that the DR was because of the larger sensor (and larger pixel)
and the Pentax 645D is only marginally larger than the 135 system at 44x33mm
so I have always questioned if the 645D is truly a MF, and if it has the same DR which I concern most
kinda like the ASP system, which wasnt really an 135 system in the beginning, I remember it was a different film roll(thought I was kinda young back then so I could be wrong), somehow it is considered 135 now in the digital world
if the DR is indeed from the physical size of the sensor, then 1.1x crop is a lot larger than 1.3x crop
up to now I dont think anyone can firmly say the H3D/H4D-50 has better IQ than the Pentax 645D
(not just talking about sharpness, D3X with 200mm f2 could well be the sharpest image taking machine currently in production)
I dont know, anyone?
Your question is near impossible to answer, because it is founded on a lot of very personal choices.
For outside shooting portability is a great issue. If you go out for a tour of 6-9 hours you will feel
every gram of gear, especially in the mountains.
Maybe a DSLR like the D3X and a good carbon fiber tripod and a pano head will do.
A stitch of 9 images from a D3X with 1/3 overlap would give you 72 good megapixels
(as if you'd ever need more than the 24 Mpix...), if I'm not mistaken ...
How large do you really want to print?
A DSLR system also has the great versatility advantage - e.g. if on the Nikon side you could
use all your lenses on a different body, like the D3S and instantly have a great low-light system.
But even then: Nothing beats MF IQ-wise.
I also am convinced, that postprocessing has a very huge impact on the final image and it may make more sense
to invest in good software, a good monitor, a good printer and not sink ten-thousands of money into the capturing device alone.
Investing in some good workshops might also be a better investment than wasting the money for gear.
That all said from the perspective of an enthusiastic amateur - for a pro who needs to make money things might look different.
Just my 0.02 ...
-
Hi,
According to the DxO data image quality is very, very little better on the the Hasselblad, due to more pixels. The major difference is that the Pentax achieves the same image quality at double ISO. Pentax has same image quality at 200 ISO as Hasselblad has at 100 ISO. Probably due to microlenses.
I'd suggest that the difference between the two sensors would be not visible in prints.
Lenses and other factor may be a different story.
Best regards
Erik
thats quite true
I think it does come down to more of a personal preference
usually what I do is I shoot with both a MF camera and the Nikon D3
as I do mostly portraits, the combination is usually a mid-tele on the MF, like 150mm, for most of the shots
then the D3 with a 200mm f2 for the tight shots, and have a wide like 14-24mm in case I need it
the D3 with the 200mm is sharp as hell, but the IQ of MF is beyong reach for any 135 system
one of the major thing that I love about MF is the DR, which is why I kept asking
to me, who knows nothing about the technical stuff(I know a bit more now thanks to this forum), always thought that the DR was because of the larger sensor (and larger pixel)
and the Pentax 645D is only marginally larger than the 135 system at 44x33mm
so I have always questioned if the 645D is truly a MF, and if it has the same DR which I concern most
kinda like the ASP system, which wasnt really an 135 system in the beginning, I remember it was a different film roll(thought I was kinda young back then so I could be wrong), somehow it is considered 135 now in the digital world
if the DR is indeed from the physical size of the sensor, then 1.1x crop is a lot larger than 1.3x crop
up to now I dont think anyone can firmly say the H3D/H4D-50 has better IQ than the Pentax 645D
(not just talking about sharpness, D3X with 200mm f2 could well be the sharpest image taking machine currently in production)
I dont know, anyone?
-
it is becoming more likely that the trade will take place as I learn more from you Erik
so now, why would anyone choose the Hasselblad over
just because of its brand? (I didnt really purposely got my Hass, long story but yea I got it)
or pros really need it to charge "properly"?
the only thing now is the value of a full set Pentax
the Pentax 645 lenses are becoming less and less available now and its hard to value them
can someone help out? how much should a set of Pentax 645D with almost every single lens worth? (except for the inferior 35mm and next to useless 150-300mm)
and does anyone know if such Pentax 645D set would be easy to sell?
my ultimate combo is still Contax 645 with a digital back (they are doing a promotion here on the Leaf 22mp back for about 8k, but the 33mp is more ideal for 40% more the price, of course 80mp would be great if I win the lottery)
after playing and owning a few MF system I am quite sure the Contax 645 is the best overall, only downside being you need a few backup bodies as they are ready to break down anytime now
thanks a lot guys I really am learning a lot here
Hi,
According to the DxO data image quality is very, very little better on the the Hasselblad, due to more pixels. The major difference is that the Pentax achieves the same image quality at double ISO. Pentax has same image quality at 200 ISO as Hasselblad has at 100 ISO. Probably due to microlenses.
I'd suggest that the difference between the two sensors would be not visible in prints.
Lenses and other factor may be a different story.
Best regards
Erik
-
the not so great but super expensive Fujinon lenses
completely disagree with the not so great part, I don't understand why people keep bringing this up...
-
completely disagree with the not so great part, I don't understand why people keep bringing this up...
they are super sharp
but very harsh at the same time
ideal for products but not quite if you do portrait and beauty and want smooth bokeh
I should have said it was my personal taste, they feel kinda like those Nikon Large Format lenses to me, sharp, but thats about it
I also wish they were faster like the Contax 645(or even Pentax), and comes in complete f stops instead of random f3.2 and f2.2 etc.
I miss the Zeiss optics (well still using them with the adapter)
and if I do decide to keep the Hass
chances are I will buy the complete V lens line, probably in CF and maybe the 120mm Makro in CFE
-
Hi,
What I say is from reading. Try to get the opportunity to shoot with the gear before making the trade.
BR
Erik
it is becoming more likely that the trade will take place as I learn more from you Erik
-
makes sense enough
will see if I can get the chance to ask my friend to go shoot something together and we can swab camera at some point
Hi,
What I say is from reading. Try to get the opportunity to shoot with the gear before making the trade.
BR
Erik
-
I am an amateur who do more outdoor
I dont want to spend much more to buy lenses
I want a camera with focal plane shutter and very rarely need leaf shutter for the high speed sync
Given your statement above, a 645D with 11-12 lenses appears to be a clear choice.
the only thing now is the value of a full set Pentax
the Pentax 645 lenses are becoming less and less available now and its hard to value them
can someone help out? how much should a set of Pentax 645D with almost every single lens worth? (except for the inferior 35mm and next to useless 150-300mm)
The value of the lenses depends on which ones, i.e., A or FA, focal length. If you list them, I can give you an approximate value. 11-12 lenses is not quite a complete set, there are at least 17 lenses I can think of off the top-of-my-head and that doesn't include A/FA versions.
-
yes in terms of practical usage I would say his Pentax set is more ideal
but I was still concern about the IQ, I wish the Hass costs over 2x more for a reason
I was told there were 14 Autofocus (FA) lenses for the Pentax 645
my friend said he is only without the 35mm and the 150-300mm, maybe one more but I forgot, probably the FA 300/5.6 as he has the FA 300/4)
and he has the kit lens as well (which I didnt like)
thanks a lot for helping
the Pentax 645 lenses seem so unavailable even on ebay, the only ones for sales are marked up really high and mostly NOS
Given your statement above, a 645D with 11-12 lenses appears to be a clear choice.
The value of the lenses depends on which ones, i.e., A or FA, focal length. If you list them, I can give you an approximate value. 11-12 lenses is not quite a complete set, there are at least 17 lenses I can think of off the top-of-my-head and that doesn't include A/FA versions.
-
here is the list of lenses I THINK he has
Kit Lens (55/2.8?)
SMC FA 645 45/2.8
SMC FA 645 75/2.8
SMC FA 645 120/4 Macro (could be MF version)
SMC FA 645 150/2.8
SMC FA 645 200/4
SMC FA*645 300/4 ED
SMC FA 645 400/5.6 ED
SMC FA 645 33-55/4.5
SMC FA 645 45-85/4.5
SMC FA 645 55-110/5.6
SMC FA 645 80-160/4.5 (not sure about this one)
I think he has a close to full line Pentax 67 as well
is there any of those 67 lenses that are particularly good? (that I should rob him in case we trade)
-
If I'd invest a huge amount of money or make such a big trade, I'd care
1. to know what I get in terms of having worked with it.
2. to invest in a system I can trust on the long run.
I don't know what Pentax's plans are, but I must say I'd hesitate, same with the very tempting Sony A's.
I believe for 35 mm/FF I'd go CaNiKon and for MF either Hassy or Phase.
For Film there are more options since you could use vintage cameras, but digital is another beast ....
The more money I spend, the more conservative I become it appears ....
-
here is the list of lenses I THINK he has
Kit Lens (55/2.8?)
SMC FA 645 45/2.8
SMC FA 645 75/2.8
SMC FA 645 120/4 Macro (could be MF version)
SMC FA 645 150/2.8
SMC FA 645 200/4
SMC FA*645 300/4 ED
SMC FA 645 400/5.6 ED
SMC FA 645 33-55/4.5
SMC FA 645 45-85/4.5
SMC FA 645 55-110/5.6
SMC FA 645 80-160/4.5 (not sure about this one)
I think he has a close to full line Pentax 67 as well
is there any of those 67 lenses that are particularly good? (that I should rob him in case we trade)
A very rough estimate, based on what I would pay for good copies of those lenses is $10,00US, perhaps a bit more. Given your situation, why don’t examine files from both cameras and decide for yourself which, if either, is preferable?
You might also find Lloyd Chamber’s site worth the cost, as he has reviewed both the 645D and H4D 50. http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html
-
Hi,
I can tell you right off the bat from my own personal in-depth testing with the 645D (with most all the lenses you listed and multiple samples of each)...that there is tremendous variation in performance between samples of the same lens. So much so, I wouldn't have guessed I was dealing was the same lens in some cases. The FA 120 f4 macro was the exception, where multiple samples of this incredibly fine performer were very consistent. This is after testing at close, mid-distance and infinity, tripod mounted, controlled conditions etc. All lenses best performance using the 645D Af fine tune was first determined prior to testing. It seems that lenses that were acceptable QC standards for releases by Pentax back in the film days, may not be acceptable for performance on the 645D. That's what appears to be occurring based on my observations/testing.
The point I am trying to make is any deal or arrangement to purchase such a system containing these FA lenses, would for me be predicated on trying out each lens first, determine best AF fine tune setting and then note how the lens performs. Once complete, you'll have a much better handle on what you are giving up and what you are gaining in any proposed trade. I cannot speak 1st hand what I would suggest for the person obtaining the Hassy system/lenses in such a proposed trade..so my comments basically pertain the Pentax FA/645D side of things.
I would also agree with the above assesment...the total value of the FA lenses listed, assuming they are close to LN condition, would be around $9200.00-$10,0000 . Any other condition of the lenses could decrease or slightly increase this estimate, in my view.
Dave (DandA)
-
do you mean 1000USD per lens?
so with the 645D which I guess would cost at least 7k used
it does sound like a straight swap
already paid and read the website today
very useful and I am seeing the same problems I have with the Hass as well
but he does really say anything about the IQ between the 2, which is my last concern
A very rough estimate, based on what I would pay for good copies of those lenses is $10,00US, perhaps a bit more. Given your situation, why don’t examine files from both cameras and decide for yourself which, if either, is preferable?
You might also find Lloyd Chamber’s site worth the cost, as he has reviewed both the 645D and H4D 50. http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html
-
thanks, will look into that paid website
one thing I like about the 645D is indeed the weather seal, but does it still work with the older lenses?
does anyone have any idea about the value of the 2 package I mentioned?
does a straight trade deal sound fair?
The old lenses are not water proof. When I was out in rain I covered my lenses up with a plastic bag, but didn't worry about the body. The new 55 I didn't worry about at all. When I was in heavy snow I covered them up at first but then eventually just let them loose. I didn't have any problems.
-
recently as I am researching into the lenses of the Hass and the Pentax
I found that many people complain about bad copies (for both systems)
which I am surprised given how much they charge for a lens like Hass (I have many many many lenses in the past, seems to me older lenses suffer less from this than modern AF lenses)
good thing about the Hass though you can keep sending it back for calibration (if you dont mind the time and possible cost)
is it the same for Pentax? can I still send back these FA lenses for calibrations in needed? I know they dont really make these anymore, probably gonna do the same thing like they did to DSLR, forcing people to believe they need silent AF motor, some Image Stabilizing mechanism, fancy Micro-Nano with a * coating, an be charges 10x more
Hi,
I can tell you right off the bat from my own personal in-depth testing with the 645D (with most all the lenses you listed and multiple samples of each)...that there is tremendous variation in performance between samples of the same lens. So much so, I wouldn't have guessed I was dealing was the same lens in some cases. The FA 120 f4 macro was the exception, where multiple samples of this incredibly fine performer were very consistent. This is after testing at close, mid-distance and infinity, tripod mounted, controlled conditions etc. All lenses best performance using the 645D Af fine tune was first determined prior to testing. It seems that lenses that were acceptable QC standards for releases by Pentax back in the film days, may not be acceptable for performance on the 645D. That's what appears to be occurring based on my observations/testing.
The point I am trying to make is any deal or arrangement to purchase such a system containing these FA lenses, would for me be predicated on trying out each lens first, determine best AF fine tune setting and then note how the lens performs. Once complete, you'll have a much better handle on what you are giving up and what you are gaining in any proposed trade. I cannot speak 1st hand what I would suggest for the person obtaining the Hassy system/lenses in such a proposed trade..so my comments basically pertain the Pentax FA/645D side of things.
I would also agree with the above assesment...the total value of the FA lenses listed, assuming they are close to LN condition, would be around $9200.00-$10,0000 . Any other condition of the lenses could decrease or slightly increase this estimate, in my view.
Dave (DandA)
-
About the lenses:
Everyone has a different take on the pentax lenses. If you read the old reviews they got awesome reviews...but this was on film. All of the lenses I have used work great on the 645D. Some people complain about softness in the corners but for me I haven't had one complaint. Sure I see a slight softness in the corners of my 45-85mm but its very very slight and still works great for a very large print. If your coming from say a Canon system (like I did) you will be very very pleased with the performance.
I have used my lenses mainly from f11-f22. I hear people say they are best at f11-13. I have no issues shooting at f22, it may have slight diffraction at F22 but you will only see this if you pixel peep. I have shots hanging right now that were printed at 30x40 shot at f22. From 3 feet away I see no issues at all. Maybe I have been lucky and got good samples of lenses.
If your shooting mainly landscape then i wouldn't pass this trade up. You get a very wide range of lenses and a body that in my opinion is more geared for outdoor use.
-
recently as I am researching into the lenses of the Hass and the Pentax
I found that many people complain about bad copies (for both systems)
which I am surprised given how much they charge for a lens like Hass (I have many many many lenses in the past, seems to me older lenses suffer less from this than modern AF lenses)
good thing about the Hass though you can keep sending it back for calibration (if you dont mind the time and possible cost)
is it the same for Pentax? can I still send back these FA lenses for calibrations in needed? I know they dont really make these anymore, probably gonna do the same thing like they did to DSLR, forcing people to believe they need silent AF motor, some Image Stabilizing mechanism, fancy Micro-Nano with a * coating, an be charges 10x more
Some here in the States have been told (by Pentax USA) that they could try sending in some of their FA lenses to be looked at. Whether there is a charge and what they might be doing or adjusting with the lens, hasn't been specified...so I wouldn't rely on this at the moment with Pentax. It's not something was initially wrong with a mediocre copy of a given Pentax FA lens when initially released in the film days...as it probably met some minium standard for performance (on film). It's just that these slightly less precise adjusted lenses show their imprecision on the 645D whereas with film, this generally wouldn't be seen, especially with the tickness of the film base and/or those not examining to the extent we do with pixel peeping.
Dave (DandA)
-
I addressed in my posts above, the necessaity of adjusting the FA fine tune on the 645D prior to evaluating any FA lens. As for pixel peeping, my comments about all these FA lens performance in my testing was done by examining the 100% crops across the entire frame. Since my output is for large format prints,. I do need to examine the crops...so my evaluation of lens performance is based on this. Although I stop down to f11-f13 for landscape use, I also shoot at 1 to 2 stops from max aperture...so my performance comments also relate to how these lenses do 1-2 stops down from max. aperture.
If one is only shooting at f13 and smaller, then maybe yes, more samples of the lenses I evaluated would get a higher passing grade (from me).
Dave (DandA)
-
recently as I am researching into the lenses of the Hass and the Pentax
I found that many people complain about bad copies (for both systems)
which I am surprised given how much they charge for a lens like Hass (I have many many many lenses in the past, seems to me older lenses suffer less from this than modern AF lenses)
good thing about the Hass though you can keep sending it back for calibration (if you dont mind the time and possible cost)
is it the same for Pentax? can I still send back these FA lenses for calibrations in needed? I know they dont really make these anymore, probably gonna do the same thing like they did to DSLR, forcing people to believe they need silent AF motor, some Image Stabilizing mechanism, fancy Micro-Nano with a * coating, an be charges 10x more
I don't know the answer to this question because all my copies have been great. What you might want to do is contact Pentax and ask.
One feature this camera has is AF Adjustment. So if you have a prime and it is front focusing or back focusing you can dial that in to fix it. My 75 f2.8 had issues front focusing so I made the adjustments and it has been spot on ever since. I don't know if the Hassy can do this. Your worst case scenario IMO will be getting a lens that is seriously off skewed (not sure on the proper terminology) to one side. I have heard people say they have bought used lenses that are off on a certain side.
BTW the only lens I have heard bad things about is the SMC FA 645 33-55/4.5. This lens from what I understand had a bad rep before the 645D was released.
-
do you mean 1000USD per lens?
..................but he does really say anything about the IQ between the 2, which is my last concern
Average cost is about $1000, but considerable range. A good 200 can be found for $400, a good 300 f/4 about $1500
Lloyd does say he prefers the 645D sensor to the S2.
Since you have access to both cameras you really should compare the files yourself.
In terms of cost, I think the old Pentax lenses are a bargain and that's about to change considering the new 25mm is $5000
-
the 25mm is what makes my friend wanting to give up on the Pentax
$5000 is crazy and you cant use it on true 645 either
in fact he has been keeping the 645 lenses for 10 years waiting for the 645D (he has full set Pentax 67, 645, and 135 for like 20 years, the last 10 years or so with the Pentax 135 digital, then Sony A until the 645D came out)
so I am guessing this is a very bad move for Pentax to decide pricing the ultra wide $5000
Average cost is about $1000, but considerable range. A good 200 can be found for $400, a good 300 f/4 about $1500
Lloyd does say he prefers the 645D sensor to the S2.
Since you have access to both cameras you really should compare the files yourself.
In terms of cost, I think the old Pentax lenses are a bargain and that's about to change considering the new 25mm is $5000
-
this is funny
I thought the 33-55mm outperforms the 35mm
was I wrong?
I don't know the answer to this question because all my copies have been great. What you might want to do is contact Pentax and ask.
One feature this camera has is AF Adjustment. So if you have a prime and it is front focusing or back focusing you can dial that in to fix it. My 75 f2.8 had issues front focusing so I made the adjustments and it has been spot on ever since. I don't know if the Hassy can do this. Your worst case scenario IMO will be getting a lens that is seriously off skewed (not sure on the proper terminology) to one side. I have heard people say they have bought used lenses that are off on a certain side.
BTW the only lens I have heard bad things about is the SMC FA 645 33-55/4.5. This lens from what I understand had a bad rep before the 645D was released.
-
the 25mm is what makes my friend wanting to give up on the Pentax
$5000 is crazy and you cant use it on true 645 either
in fact he has been keeping the 645 lenses for 10 years waiting for the 645D (he has full set Pentax 67, 645, and 135 for like 20 years, the last 10 years or so with the Pentax 135 digital, then Sony A until the 645D came out)
so I am guessing this is a very bad move for Pentax to decide pricing the ultra wide $5000
Has your friend seen the price of the Hasselblad 28mm? My understanding is the 25mm is useable on full frame 645, hence the DFA designation. Nonetheless, I agree the lens is overpriced and is a marketing mistake.
-
I am quite sure the 25mm is only for the 645D (44x33mm CCD)
the Hass 28mm is basically similar in price
but the physically larger CCD of the Hass means you can get by with the 35mm (not on the 645D)
and although both being made in Japan, lens branded Hasselblad is naturally expensive, I guess all of us would accept the Hass 28mm being priced around 5k, but not the Pentax 25mm for anything close to that
Has your friend seen the price of the Hasselblad 28mm? My understanding is the 25mm is useable on full frame 645, hence the DFA designation. Nonetheless, I agree the lens is overpriced and is a marketing mistake.
-
About the lenses:
Everyone has a different take on the pentax lenses. If you read the old reviews they got awesome reviews...but this was on film. All of the lenses I have used work great on the 645D. Some people complain about softness in the corners but for me I haven't had one complaint. Sure I see a slight softness in the corners of my 45-85mm but its very very slight and still works great for a very large print. If your coming from say a Canon system (like I did) you will be very very pleased with the performance.
I have used my lenses mainly from f11-f22. I hear people say they are best at f11-13. I have no issues shooting at f22, it may have slight diffraction at F22 but you will only see this if you pixel peep. I have shots hanging right now that were printed at 30x40 shot at f22. From 3 feet away I see no issues at all. Maybe I have been lucky and got good samples of lenses.
If your shooting mainly landscape then i wouldn't pass this trade up. You get a very wide range of lenses and a body that in my opinion is more geared for outdoor use.
Sure, if one shoots their lenses at f13-f22, most all will look great...yet for those that "ALSO" use lenses closer to one or two stops down from max aperture, then not all samples of the various Pentax focal length FA lenses are good. I've finishing up a comprehesive study of most of them (mulitple samples) on the 645D. So it may not be entirely a matter of your being luckly in getting all excellent Fa lenses..but a consequence of shooting at f13-f22, where most any lens will be good. Just some observations based on testing of these lenses.
Dave
-
I am quite sure the 25mm is only for the 645D (44x33mm CCD)
the Hass 28mm is basically similar in price
but the physically larger CCD of the Hass means you can get by with the 35mm (not on the 645D)
and although both being made in Japan, lens branded Hasselblad is naturally expensive, I guess all of us would accept the Hass 28mm being priced around 5k, but not the Pentax 25mm for anything close to that
According to the Press release from Pentax a few weeks ago they said the following (quote) ---> "Offering a focal length of approximately 19.5mm in the 35mm format (or approximately 15.5mm when mounted on a PENTAX 645-format film SLR camera body), this new lens provides the widest perspective of all PENTAX 645 lenses."<<<
So according to this statement, the new 25mm can be used on their film 645 bodies. Whether that still holds true, guess we'll have to wait and see.
As for the 33-55 zoom vs. the FA 35mm f3.5 lens...no comparision, the Fa 35mm f3.5 wins hands down in my opinion.
Dave
-
I have shot some of my lenses wide open and a few at f32. The 45-85 at 45mm f32 looked good enough for a large print but there was diffraction that was visible when zoomed 1:1. Truthfully at f32 the images look about the same as my Canon 5d MkII zoomed in because of the AA Filter on the Canon.
The only lenses I have shot wide open are:
150 F2.8 - My copy of this lens is very sharp wide open...however its got some really bad CA
120mm F4 - Looks great wide open
55 f2.8 - Looks great wide open as well
My shots wide open have been portraits done mostly outside, so I have haven't bothered looking at corner sharpness when shooting wide open. In the center the 3 I have used look awesome with the exception of heavy CA on the 150.
-
I have shot some of my lenses wide open and a few at f32. The 45-85 at 45mm f32 looked good enough for a large print but there was diffraction that was visible when zoomed 1:1. Truthfully at f32 the images look about the same as my Canon 5d MkII zoomed in because of the AA Filter on the Canon.
The only lenses I have shot wide open are:
150 F2.8 - My copy of this lens is very sharp wide open...however its got some really bad CA
120mm F4 - Looks great wide open
55 f2.8 - Looks great wide open as well
My shots wide open have been portraits done mostly outside, so I have haven't bothered looking at corner sharpness when shooting wide open. In the center the 3 I have used look awesome with the exception of heavy CA on the 150.
Hi natas
Thanks for your response. My previous comments about FA lens performance was commenting on the almost entire line of FA lenses and multiple samples of each...so the # of test samples would be at least some representation of what performance characteristics are like on the 645D body. It's not so much only looking at corner sharpness, but performance across the entire frame from wide open to stopped down till approx f13 (and slightly beyond). With this testing, there was enormous variability among samples of the same lens and of course variability seen with many of the FA lenses in general. This was especially seen when comparing samples of the same lenses from wide open to 2-3 stops down from max. aperture. Of course once you stopped down most any of these lenses to f13 and smaller, differences become less. I will have to preface my comments thats I was examining all shots at 100% (actual pixels), since my output is to large format prints and looking at 100% crops is the only way to determine if a image is of sufficent quality to print large. Before any real testing, I determined best Af fine tune for each sample of lens on the 645D. One thing I can say is the 120 maro is the most consistant performer on the 645D...each sample tested performed almost identically optically to the next, once minor AF fine tuning was performed on each.
Unfortunately quite a few FA lenses in general showed moderate to high levels of CA...but it must be kept in mind, most of these lenses were developed prior to the days of Pentax MF digital, and so their design and coatings weren't designed for it. As you mentioned the FA 150mm f2.8 shows a fair amount of it and the FA 75mm f2.8 showed a lot! Still all in all, good samples of these FA lenses had admirable and often times excellent and better performance when used on the 645D.
Dave