Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: db8121 on December 10, 2011, 07:09:33 am
-
Hey all, I'm in the market for a MF digital system (coming from Leica M digital and film and Nikon) and I'm considering the H4D-31 and Pentax 645D. I've done pretty extensive message board research and have checked out both cameras at a dealer, but I wanted to get everyone's input. I'm a grad student with a budget of $10-15k.
First a bit about what I'd be doing: Mostly travel/landscape, some architecture. Some editorial fashion, some in studio, some location. I personally prefer handheld, but of course for things like landscape and architecture I'd be using a tripod. I've considered the Leica S2 (which I frankly think would be perfect) but it's well beyond what I'm willing to spend.
So here are my questions:
1) Of the Pentax and Hassy, which yields a better overall file? I'm aware that the Pentax has the newer sensor, but, ALL THINGS EQUAL (aside from lens and camera body of course), does that translate to a higher quality overall photo?
2) Is the H4D difficult to travel with? How does it handle in the field? (as I've said i've handled it at a dealer but don't have extensive experience with it)
3) Anyone have any experience with the Pentax 645D in studio? How does it handle skin, etc.
I'm of course going to rent/demo the equipment when I'm ready to buy but I wanted to get Lu-La board member thoughts first.
Thanks in advance.
-
1. The camera both have the same sensor. Pentax has made the sensor perform at ISO1600 and really well at that speed. Which is better? That would come down to the way each company processes the image and your personal taste.
3. The Pentax handles skin tones very well in the studio with strobes.
Why do you need a tripod for landscape and architecture? I do those with the Pentax handheld all the time. The Pentax is great to travel with and works well with street photography both with AF and manual focus.
I think the choice come down to personal connection to the camera. And maybe the budget for the lenses you want.
-
What exactly are you expecting from MF compared to top end DSLRs?
That might help provide a relevant advice.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd like the ability to print huge. Does that mean I will frequently? Probably not. But I'd like the ability to, and with a lot of detail/microdetail.
-
What exactly are you expecting from MF compared to top end DSLRs?
That might help provide a relevant advice.
Cheers,
Bernard
How? Both the H4D and 645D are medium-format digital cameras. All the question pertain to a comparison between the two.
-
db -
Are you in an area where you may be able to check both out on the same day (or shoot?) - not so obvious things like the weight of the camera, or the way it feels in your hands are important, non-technical aspects of your evaluation. Does the autofocus respond as you imagine, or how quickly can you change exposure (or how easy/difficult.)
The workflow is another area that encompasses the end-to-end experience for your specific type (and styles) of photography and I recommend getting a qualified demonstration by another power-user or expert so you can gauge the capabilities of the system, rather than just the separate components (Software / Camera / Digital) It is a big deal, and getting as much experience as possible before making the final decision is a real benefit.
Good Evaluating!
John
-
Thanks for the responses so far guys. Yes I live in NYC, and I'm planning a trip to Photocare.
-
How? Both the H4D and 645D are medium-format digital cameras. All the question pertain to a comparison between the two.
If the answer is higher resolution for larger prints, then I would advise to wait until January 2012 since high end DSLRs will soon be in the same ballpark resolutionwise at 1/3 the price in a smaller, lighter package more suitable to landscape work. They will also offer less of a headache in terms of DoF control. This might be part of the reason why Pentax is starting to offer cash back campains in Japan by the way.
If the answer is a certain look, particular lenses, impress customers,... then MF is IMHO a relevant option.
Between the pentax and the Hassy:
- The pentax is rugged, waterproof and has a good cold weather battery life -> it is the preferred option for landscape work away from the road for a certain amount of time,
- The Hassy has the option to provide T/S so it could be the better choice for some type of less extreme landscape work. It has a brand name that will impress more some customers also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
How much are you planning on spending for lenses over the years? With a 10-15k initial budget, I don't think you can get much more than the body and 1 normal lens. I think accessories like the tilt-shift adapter run something like 5-6k. Personally, I would price out not only the initial purchase, but the most likely lenses that you will want to grab in both systems.
Hasselblad is nice in that they have built in digital lens correction that is specific for each lens. I don't know if the pentax has this as well. Also, in my limited experience with the H4D, the battery life just sucks compared to 35mm dslrs. Personally, I wouldn't use the H4D for travel as I found it hard to handhold, there is no image stabilization, and with the lenses the system is just gigantic compared to a 35mm setup. Also if you are going to travel remotely, you should consider what will you do for backup.
-
3. The Pentax handles skin tones very well in the studio with strobes.
Flash sync = 1/125th of a second....probably a bit limiting, Hasselblad kindof has an edge there with much more expensive leaf shutter lenses with flash sync speeds at almost all shutter speeds....
-
If the answer is higher resolution for larger prints, then I would advise to wait until January 2012 since high end DSLRs will soon be in the same ballpark resolutionwise at 1/3 the price in a smaller, lighter package more suitable to landscape work. They will also offer less of a headache in terms of DoF control. This might be part of the reason why Pentax is starting to offer cash back campains in Japan by the way.
You mean the same number of pixels. More to resolution than pixel resolution. DoF is no problem. Besides, I have not seen a press release of a new camera for Jan 2012, perhaps you can give us the link?
Well, no company offers discounts to cameras that have been on the market for a year. And the prices are not much different from when I bought it in Japan this March. And market pricing is not uniform around the world. Camera companies base local prices on the national distributor and conditions. This goes as well for discounts. Since the camera is manufactured overseas, Pentax Japan could also be taking advantage of a strong Yen.
Link to current prices in Japan:
http://kakaku.com/item/K0000095422/
That is quite a spread...
-
Flash sync = 1/125th of a second....probably a bit limiting, Hasselblad kindof has an edge there with much more expensive leaf shutter lenses with flash sync speeds at almost all shutter speeds....
The flash sync speed is not limiting at all. In the studio, the flash duration is a little more important. Pentax has made two LS lenses if you really want to use a lens shutter.
I do not believe this was a comparative question. The Pentax 645D works really well in the studio and does a nice job with skin tones. Is there anything in that statement that is not true about the 645D?
You will notice I did not answer the question (#2) about the H4D. I have no experience with that camera and have not offered any opinion.
-
How much are you planning on spending for lenses over the years? With a 10-15k initial budget, I don't think you can get much more than the body and 1 normal lens. I think accessories like the tilt-shift adapter run something like 5-6k. Personally, I would price out not only the initial purchase, but the most likely lenses that you will want to grab in both systems.
Hasselblad is nice in that they have built in digital lens correction that is specific for each lens. I don't know if the pentax has this as well. Also, in my limited experience with the H4D, the battery life just sucks compared to 35mm dslrs. Personally, I wouldn't use the H4D for travel as I found it hard to handhold, there is no image stabilization, and with the lenses the system is just gigantic compared to a 35mm setup. Also if you are going to travel remotely, you should consider what will you do for backup.
Just to add to this.
I bought a 645D with a D FA 55m, A 120mm Macro, A 35mm, and FA 300mm f/5.6 and the cost came in under $13k, just for reference.
Battery life with the 645D is the same as any smaller DSLR. And batteries are cheap and plentiful.
-
You mean the same number of pixels. More to resolution than pixel resolution. DoF is no problem. Besides, I have not seen a press release of a new camera for Jan 2012, perhaps you can give us the link?
If I were to buy a new camera the price of a small car now, I'd be interested in listening to rumors of imminent releases, even if there is no official "link". Would you not? As an informal adviser I believe it is my duty to provide such information because they are extremely likely to be accurate. Especially when the budget of the OP points to the obvious fact that MF is not the right answer for him all things considered.
Resolution is for sure impacted by more than pixel count:
- accuracy of focus - nothing beats live view here,
- lenses quality over the full frame - a great image in the center with weak corners is poor landscape style knowing that all the stitchers around will come up with perfectly uniform images down to the very corners,
- sensor characteristics - although it is a clear heresy from a signal processing standpoint, many landscape photographers seem to prefer AA filter less sensors. True or not, like it or not, the rumors I am refering to point to an AA filter less DSLR sensor,
- lack of cropping/sufficient reach - this means having the right focal lenght at hand, high quality zooms available for DSLRs help a lot here in landcape situations where lightness and compactness are key. Tele lenses of high quality that remain reasonnably light also open up great possibilities for distant landscape, not an option for MF because of the weight,
- suitable sharpening, ideally tuned to the local weaknesses of the lens - only DxO can do this today at a reasonnable cost, and is only available for DSLRs,
- working state of the camera - a back up of suitable performance is mandatory for some landscape endeavours with once in a lifetime opportunities. Oops... that means a second car if you go the MF route as well as a sherpa to carry the gear. :)
Like it or not, most of these things point to a superior image quality with the DSLR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting... I hope you are right and smaller sensors will be better than medium format when it comes to image quality. I will buy a Nikon D4x or whatever they come up with when that happens. For some reason all of this sounds like the bumble bee theory though.
-
I will buy a Nikon D4x or whatever they come up with when that happens. For some reason all of this sounds like the bumble bee theory though.
I am not sure whether there will be a D4x, most probably a D800. But the 5DIII or A1000 will be similar.
Sorry, I am not familiar with the bumble bee theory.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
There is a rumor saying that bumble bees having fixed wings would not be able to fly. Bumble bees don't have fixed wings, however, and they can fly.
Best regards
Erik
I am not sure whether there will be a D4x, most probably a D800. But the 5DIII or A1000 will be similar.
Sorry, I am not familiar with the bumble bee theory.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Latest rumors are about a D800 having 36 MP sensor. A 16 MP APS-C sensor has the same characteristics as a 36 MP full frame sensor, so we can essentially know the kind of performance such a sensor will offer. Regarding Sony the rumor is right now that first A9X camera will be a 24 MP one, followed by a Nikon D3 styled camera with 36MP. Canon will probably wait until D800 or Sony shows up before presenting next version of 5D.
- I'd say that there is a merit to having a larger sensor, it collects more photons makes less demands on lens performance.
- Live view is a great advantage
- Mirrorless and fixed mirror designs in combination with electronic first shutter curtain reduce camera vibration a lot
In my view, the Alpa approach makes a lot of sense. A very high precision technical camera with truly excellent lenses.
Best regards
Erik
I am not sure whether there will be a D4x, most probably a D800. But the 5DIII or A1000 will be similar.
Sorry, I am not familiar with the bumble bee theory.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I were to buy a new camera the price of a small car now, I'd be interested in listening to rumors of imminent releases, even if there is no official "link". Would you not? As an informal adviser I believe it is my duty to provide such information because they are extremely likely to be accurate. Especially when the budget of the OP points to the obvious fact that MF is not the right answer for him all things considered.
Resolution is for sure impacted by more than pixel count:
- accuracy of focus - nothing beats live view here,
Something you constantly like to overstate. I get perfect focus with the 645D.
- lenses quality over the full frame - a great image in the center with weak corners is poor landscape style knowing that all the stitchers around will come up with perfectly uniform images down to the very corners,
You don't read LuLa very much. The great MF shoot out throws a Canon DSLR in the mix and the corners were worse in the Canon optics.
- sensor characteristics - although it is a clear heresy from a signal processing standpoint, many landscape photographers seem to prefer AA filter less sensors. True or not, like it or not, the rumors I am refering to point to an AA filter less DSLR sensor,
The 645D has no AA filter
- lack of cropping/sufficient reach - this means having the right focal lenght at hand, high quality zooms available for DSLRs help a lot here in landcape situations where lightness and compactness are key. Tele lenses of high quality that remain reasonnably light also open up great possibilities for distant landscape, not an option for MF because of the weight,
There is a Pentax 600mm telephoto. I just bought a 300mm f/5.6 telephoto that weighs in at 700g.
- suitable sharpening, ideally tuned to the local weaknesses of the lens - only DxO can do this today at a reasonnable cost, and is only available for DSLRs,
Can you show actually data with all the RAW processors including the software given for free with the 645D. But if I can afford the 645D, I can also get Photoshop which does a splendid job. And ACR is in Lightroom too.
- working state of the camera - a back up of suitable performance is mandatory for some landscape endeavours with once in a lifetime opportunities. Oops... that means a second car if you go the MF route as well as a sherpa to carry the gear. :)
Sorry, there again you have missed the target. I carry my Pentax 645D and four lenses all day through the mountains plus the other gear I need for climbing. There is actually no proof that this mythical camera will be lighter or smaller.
Like it or not, most of these things point to a superior image quality with the DSLR.
Cheers,
Bernard
Your distain for MFD has been shown in other threads. Your lack of experience and knowledge about it is shown here. I am sure the OP has looked at 35mm DSLRs and he/she has concluded that MFD is a better fit. His/Her experience is in the OP. The questions are clearly aimed at cameras he/she has researched and is looking for experienced users to give feedback--and you certainly have no experience in MFD nor this "new" camera that has been yet to be announced. Funny, when Canon released its flagship X model, it only put 18MP in it. Rumors were much greater, but perhaps they will leave that for the amateurs.
-
In my view, the Alpa approach makes a lot of sense. A very high precision technical camera with truly excellent lenses.
Best regards
Erik
An excellent option as well. Unfortunately, I think that is out of the OPs budget. I have never priced the Cambo tech camera and that might be closer with a 22MP back. Still, having done a far amount of documentary work with a Horseman SW612, it might be intimidating for travel photography--most photographers gravitate to AF for that.
-
Thanks again for the responses guys. Very helpful.
A few more tidbits:
- Yes, I've budgeted out for lenses, spare batteries, etc so that's not an issue.
- Yes, I'm hearing that Nikon will introduce/unveil its next flagship early next year. I'm not in any sort of time crunch so I would probably wait to see what develops in January/Feb. I do, however, like the rendering of Kodak's CCD with no low-pass filter, which is why I prefer my M9s over the pro DSLRs. And in general, I greatly prefer the "look" of MF (micro detail, dynamic range, etc etc), even if I'm not printing big all the time.
- How a camera handles is very important to me. I know that's a very personal thing, but I like to hear what others think nonetheless.
Cheers,
Brian
-
Hi,
There is little difference in CCD and CMOS. Both collect electrons. CCD has slightly larger area per pixel while CMOS may have much less read noise.
The difference in rendition is more likely to come from differences in CGA (Color Grid Array), color profiles and processing software.
AA-filters on DSLRs soften images a bit, but if you stop down beyond f/11 (or so) you probably soften as much.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks again for the responses guys. Very helpful.
A few more tidbits:
- Yes, I've budgeted out for lenses, spare batteries, etc so that's not an issue.
- Yes, I'm hearing that Nikon will introduce/unveil its next flagship early next year. I'm not in any sort of time crunch so I would probably wait to see what develops in January/Feb. I do, however, like the rendering of Kodak's CCD with no low-pass filter, which is why I prefer my M9s over the pro DSLRs. And in general, I greatly prefer the "look" of MF (micro detail, dynamic range, etc etc), even if I'm not printing big all the time.
- How a camera handles is very important to me. I know that's a very personal thing, but I like to hear what others think nonetheless.
Cheers,
Brian
-
Good to know, thank you. (I'd rate my knowledge of the physics/EE side of things as slightly above address at best.)
Hi,
There is little difference in CCD and CMOS. Both collect electrons. CCD has slightly larger area per pixel while CMOS may have much less read noise.
The difference in rendition is more likely to come from differences in CGA (Color Grid Array), color profiles and processing software.
AA-filters on DSLRs soften images a bit, but if you stop down beyond f/11 (or so) you probably soften as much.
Best regards
Erik
-
- How a camera handles is very important to me. I know that's a very personal thing, but I like to hear what others think nonetheless.
I have no experience with the Hasselblad model you are interested in, but I have really enjoyed using the Pentax 645D. In spite of it size, it is really easy to shoot with handheld. I like the dual tripod sockets for vertical and horizontal mounting. Write times are a bit of a pain, but the plusses outweigh that. I like that you can setup the card slots to like a mini RAID array where each card has the same data in case one card is corrupt--I had a corrupt SD card in one camera once in a situation I could not reshoot. The electronic level is really nice and well as the weatherproof remote that can be used for bulb and mirror lock up. I did buy the Pentax 645 Refconverter, a 90 degree finder attachment, which has been great when the camera is in awkward positions. I swapped my viewfinder scene for the gridded one. Having grown up with manual cameras, I was unsure how all the exposure modes were going to help, but I have found different situations were each is valuable, although I usually use aperture priority and manual exposure. Customizing how the camera works is also nice.
But the most important thing is I enjoy using the camera. Regardless of the bells and whistles, that is the most important because you are more likely to pick it up and use it--bad cameras are a chore. Clicking with your equipment is important and that is really personal. I would give yourself some time to test these--you really need to get comfortable with the camera before you can see where it is annoying. I took me a while to get used to the character of the 645D mostly because I was used to manual cameras.
Whatever you end up with will make great images--MFD or 35mm.
-
An excellent option as well. Unfortunately, I think that is out of the OPs budget. I have never priced the Cambo tech camera and that might be closer with a 22MP back. Still, having done a far amount of documentary work with a Horseman SW612, it might be intimidating for travel photography--most photographers gravitate to AF for that.
From "Cost Per Megapixel" from theguywitha645D:
What I really like in MFD gear conversations with folks trying to get into the area where member X it thinking about a Phase/Mamiya 30MP system and then someone comes on and suggests an Alpa and an IQ180 as if it is really a simple choice and money is no object--like it was like choosing between a micro four thirds GH2 and E-P3.
this had me laughing rather hard.
-
- How a camera handles is very important to me. I know that's a very personal thing, but I like to hear what others think nonetheless.
Cheers,
Brian
I bought a Hasselblad without ever holding it (big mistake) because, I personally did not like the way it handled. To me, it always felt like the grip was going to fall off, because the grip and the battery are one and the same and obviously the battery is removable. I understand this was a bit a personal unjustified fear, but none-the-less it was how I felt about the camera. Lenses work great, UI on back is fine, not exceptional but fine, body is a bit clunky.
I liked the 645DF better, and the 645D is rather nice, the 645D has more buttons, which could get in the way for some, but whatever...
-
From "Cost Per Megapixel" from theguywitha645D:
What I really like in MFD gear conversations with folks trying to get into the area where member X it thinking about a Phase/Mamiya 30MP system and then someone comes on and suggests an Alpa and an IQ180 as if it is really a simple choice and money is no object--like it was like choosing between a micro four thirds GH2 and E-P3.
this had me laughing rather hard.
HA HA HA...
I never said I was perfect. ;)
-
Hi!
You don't need to put an IQ180 on the Alpa. The body is a bit on the expensive side, but MF digital is expensive, I got the impression that lenses are reasonably priced.
The Pentax 645D is a great value, of course, especially if you happen to have a bunch of 645 lenses.
It really depends on what you plan to use the camera for.
Best regards
Erik
From "Cost Per Megapixel" from theguywitha645D:
What I really like in MFD gear conversations with folks trying to get into the area where member X it thinking about a Phase/Mamiya 30MP system and then someone comes on and suggests an Alpa and an IQ180 as if it is really a simple choice and money is no object--like it was like choosing between a micro four thirds GH2 and E-P3.
this had me laughing rather hard.
-
Hi!
You don't need to put an IQ180 on the Alpa. The body is a bit on the expensive side, but MF digital is expensive, I got the impression that lenses are reasonably priced.
The Pentax 645D is a great value, of course, especially if you happen to have a bunch of 645 lenses.
It really depends on what you plan to use the camera for.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, Brian was actually quoting me, but it is not obvious in the formatting. Still, he did not have to be so rude as to point out my hypocrisy! :)
-
Erik, Brian was actually quoting me, but it is not obvious in the formatting. Still, he did not have to be so rude as to point out my hypocrisy! :)
heheh just sayin :-)
-
... Why do you need a tripod for landscape and architecture?...
Say what!?
-
Say what!?
Maybe he was thinking, small apertures, big DOF, long exposure + M/up and stability?
-
Db, the folks @ Fotocare are knowledgable and can provide a solid review of the Hasselblad H4D-40, along with workflow both tethered and untethered performance.
Something not mentioned in the argument from small format is the 16-bit of MF sensors that capture 400x the color data than 14-bit, and 1600x more color data than 12-bit; the reality of this is apparent when editing your finals - plenty of room to stretch...Check out Hans Strand on YouTube; he discusses this from the photographers POV.
John
-
Hi,
That statement is heavily contested in this discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=59856.0
Best regards
Erik
Something not mentioned in the argument from small format is the 16-bit of MF sensors that capture 400x the color data than 14-bit, and 1600x more color data than 12-bit; the reality of this is apparent when editing your finals - plenty of room to stretch...Check out Hans Strand on YouTube; he discusses this from the photographers POV.
John
-
Something not mentioned in the argument from small format is the 16-bit of MF sensors that capture 400x the color data than 14-bit
John
wahahahahahahaha
ROTFL
Edmund
-
1. The camera both have the same sensor.
Umm, they don't - it's the 31MP H4D he's asking about, not the 40MP H4D.
Same manufacturer (Kodak), same sensor area (44x33 mm), same sensor concept (with microlenses); but the 31MP is a generation older, with bigger (6.8 micron vs 6.0 micron) and slightly noiser (most noticeably in long exposures) pixels.
If it were my decision, I'd pick the 645D. Both sensors are very good, with the nod to the Pentax as their firmware delivers higher ISO and unrestricted longer exposures. But my main focus would be on the two lens ranges, which are very different - what do you need from them? Faster apertures? (Pentax); higher flash synch? (Hasselblad); longer telephotos? (Pentax, including P67 ones too); Compatible with 3rd party lenses? (Pentax, with adapters for Exakta/Pentacon/Kiev etc.); tilt-shift adapter? (Hasselblad)...
Ray
-
Thanks again for all your replies. I'm going to head to Fotocare tomorrow morning and try out the Hassy (both the H4D-31 and 40). Really appreciate all of your responses.
Cheers,
Brian
-
If the answer is higher resolution for larger prints, then I would advise to wait until January 2012 since high end DSLRs will soon be in the same ballpark resolutionwise at 1/3 the price in a smaller, lighter package more suitable to landscape work.
The pentax is pretty affordable ... any 36mp offering from Canon or Nikon most likely will be in the $8k range, so only a little less than the Pentax. It remains to be seen if it even happens, given Canon's recent announcement and Nikon's rumored D4 specs (16mp) with much less chatter about a D4x. I'd be curious as to what you are basing your January 2012 prediction on.
Not even sure if the manufacturers of dSLR's have an interest anymore in higher resolution ... they all seemed to be moving in other directions right now.
-
.......snip
Well, no company offers discounts to cameras that have been on the market for a year. And the prices are not much different from when I bought it in Japan this March. And market pricing is not uniform around the world. Camera companies base local prices on the national distributor and conditions. This goes as well for discounts. Since the camera is manufactured overseas, Pentax Japan could also be taking advantage of a strong Yen.
Link to current prices in Japan:
http://kakaku.com/item/K0000095422/
That is quite a spread...
Pentax in the UK at least, are currently offering a 10% discount on the price of a 645d body only or lens kit. They have been running the promotion since August.
-
Something not mentioned in the argument from small format is the 16-bit of MF sensors that capture 400x the color data than 14-bit, and 1600x more color data than 12-bit; the reality of this is apparent when editing your finals - plenty of room to stretch...Check out Hans Strand on YouTube; he discusses this from the photographers POV.
Let's assume for a minute that you don't want to be bothered by electron counts in the sensor wells or the mysteries of noise (the KAF40000 has a well capacity of +/-42000 e and a read noise of 13e) Let's also assume that you got the basic math right (fwiw 2^12 is 4096, 2^14 is 16384 and 2^16 is 65536).
What would be, in your opinion, the difference in size between two shots of the same scene where one camera records 1600 times more _actual_ data than the other?
-
Hi,
Lenses are also worth consideration. It's more about the whole package than just components.
A Nikon D800 is rumored to arrive soon with 36 MPixels. There are some truly amazing lenses available for that camera, like the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and the Zeiss lenses Distagon 21/2.8 and Macro Planar 100/2. The Pentax has a larger format, but lenses seem to be of quite different quality. The larger format stresses lenses less.
I'm not really sure in which direction "professional" cameras go. With Nikon the D3X has been very expensive. Canon has lost many of it's 1DsIII shooters to 5DII, in part because of the lighter weight. I assume that the new Canon D1X is mainly a high ISO camera. And I fully expect higher MP solutions from Canon, once competition demands it.
Best regards
Erik
The pentax is pretty affordable ... any 36mp offering from Canon or Nikon most likely will be in the $8k range, so only a little less than the Pentax. It remains to be seen if it even happens, given Canon's recent announcement and Nikon's rumored D4 specs (16mp) with much less chatter about a D4x. I'd be curious as to what you are basing your January 2012 prediction on.
Not even sure if the manufacturers of dSLR's have an interest anymore in higher resolution ... they all seemed to be moving in other directions right now.
-
The pentax is pretty affordable ... any 36mp offering from Canon or Nikon most likely will be in the $8k range, so only a little less than the Pentax. It remains to be seen if it even happens, given Canon's recent announcement and Nikon's rumored D4 specs (16mp) with much less chatter about a D4x. I'd be curious as to what you are basing your January 2012 prediction on.
http://nikonrumors.com/category/nikon-d800/
36 MP with/without AA filter, rumored price around 4,000 US$, availability in Jan 2012.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Apparently, Canon lenses are not all that great. From a simple comparison of the 645D the Mamiya/Phase equivalent and a Leica M9 and Canon 35mm DSLR thorn in for fun:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml
I don't have any experience with the Hasselblad line, but some of the Pentax lenses are really very nice. But there are a few bad ones--the 45mm prime and the manual focus 150mm f/3.5 are not favored. The autofocus FA 150mm f/2.8 is very nice. A few of the manual focus lenses are the same design as the autofocus cousins, a few are not. The 35mm lenses, which have a different designs, the manual focus seem more prized for it corner performance, but shows a little more CA which is easily fixed in post. I have the manual focus 35mm, and it is a fine lens. You really need to pixel peep to see anything. The 120mm Macro lens is universally loved and the telephoto lenses are highly regarded as well. But the Hasselblad H line, for the most part, is newer. Someone else will have to chime in on that.
Comparisons to smaller formats can be hard, but I find more problems with smaller format lenses, not that there are some gems out there. It will be interesting to see what some 35mm users think of some of their optics on a 30+MP sensor. I think pixel peepers are going to be a little surprised.
-
Hi,
Comparing a general purpose zoom lens (Canon 24-105/4) with a 50/1.4 Sumilux (costing 3700 $US at B&H right now) is hardly a level playing field. You can put some fine lenses on the Canon, too, like Zeiss lenses and some of the better Canon lenses. On the other hand the Canon seems to be good in tests around 50mm. I guess sample variations and focusing variation may play a role.
The Canon has an OLP filter while the Leica does not, so Canon needs much more sharpening. It seems that Nikon has much less OLP filtering on their sensors.
A Leica M9 with the Sumicron costs like the Pentax 645D you have.
Best regards
Erik
Apparently, Canon lenses are not all that great. From a simple comparison of the 645D the Mamiya/Phase equivalent and a Leica M9 and Canon 35mm DSLR thorn in for fun:
-
Hey guys just an update: Tried out the H4D at Foto Care and a friend's 645D. I ended up with an H4D-40. I was able to get a really good deal on a used one in great condition with two lenses (in terms of value-for-money I almost had to say yes). I skipped the H4D-31 - great camera but the firmware and better high ISO performance on the 40 sold me.
The 645D is a fantastic camera - the image quality and particularly the weather sealing are attractive. But at the end of the day, the H System's images out of the box were just a bit more pleasing to me. The system's maturity and general resale value obviously don't hurt either (the 645D is untested in the latter area obviously).
Thanks again to everyone for their input!
-
As another "guywitha645D" I can tell you I am very pleased with the camera, in spite of some of the previously discussed shortcomings. A few years ago I owned a Contax 645 with Phase One 22 mgpx back. A fine camera, a bit heavy and the ergonomics weren't great, but better I thought than the Hasselblad (I think it was the H2D at the time) that I also tried out. The Zeiss lenses on the Contax were simply wonderful for sharpness and color rendering. Six months ago I picked up the 645D, letting go of my Nikon D3x. I have not regretted that decision. The files are great, the ergonomics are superb, and Pentax lenses, always underrated are just fine. As a field camera, this is one of the best choices one could make.
The biggest issue for the 645D, and I am convinced this is affecting resale values, is the paucity of new lenses for the camera. While the older lenses for the 645 are good, CA in the 35MM 3.5 for example, could probably be better handled with a new digitally optimized lens. As D owners know there are only two lenses made specifically for the camera, the 55 and the 25. The 55 is available but the 25 is vaporware from normal US sources like B&H with no arrival time announced. The system will not be fully viable until Ricoh gets off its ass and makes a full commitment to support the 645D system in both stronger customer support and availability of new lenses.
-
As another "guywitha645D" I can tell you I am very pleased with the camera, in spite of some of the previously discussed shortcomings. A few years ago I owned a Contax 645 with Phase One 22 mgpx back. A fine camera, a bit heavy and the ergonomics weren't great, but better I thought than the Hasselblad (I think it was the H2D at the time) that I also tried out. The Zeiss lenses on the Contax were simply wonderful for sharpness and color rendering. Six months ago I picked up the 645D, letting go of my Nikon D3x. I have not regretted that decision. The files are great, the ergonomics are superb, and Pentax lenses, always underrated are just fine. As a field camera, this is one of the best choices one could make.
The biggest issue for the 645D, and I am convinced this is affecting resale values, is the paucity of new lenses for the camera. While the older lenses for the 645 are good, CA in the 35MM 3.5 for example, could probably be better handled with a new digitally optimized lens. As D owners know there are only two lenses made specifically for the camera, the 55 and the 25. The 55 is available but the 25 is vaporware from normal US sources like B&H with no arrival time announced. The system will not be fully viable until Ricoh gets off its ass and makes a full commitment to support the 645D system in both stronger customer support and availability of new lenses.
Probably you should have never sold your Contax! Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
-
Not sold the Contax? The camera has been out of production for years, almost invisible support and slow repair turnaround. It took my friend 6 weeks to get her Contax 645 back from repair. Sure. Keeping it would have been a smart idea. :o
-
The Pentax 645D does not tether, it is most decidedly a field camera. That said I just used it for a corporate client's new web site images - all people photos - and the skin tones were perfect. I'm not a Pentax booster so much as someone who likes to use medium format and finds that the Pentax 645D, using the same sensor as the Leica S2, even with its shortfall regarding new lenses is a fantastic buy at $10,000. For those of us who don't have a need or want to spend upwards of $30,000 for a three lens kit ($50K if you are considering the S2), and do not have a need for tethering the Pentax is a great choice.
-
Hi BC,
How much of the color rendition depends on the sensor and how much on the software in your view?
Best regards
Erik
Now if I was buying new today I'd go with a Hasselblad 4 whatever just because the camera body is the standard in rentals and the skin tones on the Hasselblad are the best I've seen from medium format (in a very brief test). Also the 40mp chip goes to 800 clean, once again in my limited testing.
IMO
BC
-
As another "guywitha645D" I can tell you I am very pleased with the camera, in spite of some of the previously discussed shortcomings. A few years ago I owned a Contax 645 with Phase One 22 mgpx back. A fine camera, a bit heavy and the ergonomics weren't great, but better I thought than the Hasselblad (I think it was the H2D at the time) that I also tried out. The Zeiss lenses on the Contax were simply wonderful for sharpness and color rendering. Six months ago I picked up the 645D, letting go of my Nikon D3x. I have not regretted that decision. The files are great, the ergonomics are superb, and Pentax lenses, always underrated are just fine. As a field camera, this is one of the best choices one could make.
The biggest issue for the 645D, and I am convinced this is affecting resale values, is the paucity of new lenses for the camera. While the older lenses for the 645 are good, CA in the 35MM 3.5 for example, could probably be better handled with a new digitally optimized lens. As D owners know there are only two lenses made specifically for the camera, the 55 and the 25. The 55 is available but the 25 is vaporware from normal US sources like B&H with no arrival time announced. The system will not be fully viable until Ricoh gets off its ass and makes a full commitment to support the 645D system in both stronger customer support and availability of new lenses.
Hi, I am using Nikons and considering the jump to 645 or S2. Can you share your thoughts on the transition? How much of a difference do you feel there is in the files for prints up say A1?
Also, how do you experience the more limited depth of field effects your shooting?
Chris
-
As a 645D user I would say if you can afford the S2, you should go for it. I just couldn't justify the expense. Although the body is about 2.5X the cost of the Pentax, the processor, designed for the sensor, is quicker, the ergonomics equal and there is a battery grip that offers a vertical release button, something I sorely miss on the 645D. I believe They have the same sensor, but as I have not seen a side by side comparison of the same files i cannot address the performance as regards the software on board. The Leica can also be used as a studio camera, tethered and has central leaf shutter lenses available for it. Finally, although every time I look it seems that all lenses but the 75mm are out of stock, at least you know that all of Leica's glass was designed specifically for this camera. If I could afford it, and lenses were more readily available I would buy the S2.
-
CP+ (the major Japanese photo trade fair) is due in less than one and a half month and if I was to consider Pentax for an investment I would certainly wait for it. In my personal opinion at very least we will see at that point (first decade of February):
- the new Pentax portrait lens in final form (I hope for a 100-110mm with an maximum aperture of 2.4 or less and full 645 circle coverage);
- the prototype of the new ultrawide to normal zoom (30 - 70mm) that will replace two current zooms (33-55/f4.5 and 45-85/f4.5) - well to be fair the two new 30-70mm and 65-160mm will replace three current zooms the two previosly mentioned plus the 80-160mm/f4.5;
- the tethering software in very close or in the final form.
maybe a lot more hints about the future regarding the 645D successor and new/improved/reintroduced in production lenses).
Happy Holidays!
Radu
-
I( switched from the Nikon to the Leica S2, specifically from a D300/D700 and occasionally the D3X, to the Leica. There is a
world of difference, which I will try to briefly summarize:
(1) The Leica is medium format and as such, the depth of field "feels" (and perhaps mathematically is) considerably less than on 35 mm
(2) You lose the 51 focus points, so you either learn to use the one focus point and "recompose", or in reality, merely manually focus
after setting the composition. The large difference is the fact that manual focusing is EASY. The viewfinder on the Leica is SO bright,
and clear, and the focus ring so precise, that it is almost effortless to manually focus (quickly, I might add). That said, medium format
is not a fast action camera.
(3) I find that the dynamic range appears to be significantly greater on the Leica. I haven't done a HDR image since getting the Leica!
(I do mostly fine art landscape, abstracts, NOT studio work). This is a large change in workflow.
(4) The Leica lenses are remarkable, and if your like extreme detail, clarity, micro-contrast, and the "draw" or character of the leica
lenses, they leave the Nikon's "in the dust." (I have the Nikon 14-24, 70-200, 24-70, so the better Nikon lenses).
(5) There are no long telephotos currently available for the Leica, except by way of adapters.
(6) The post processing workflow is simplified because you do not have to "work" as much to achieve the same "micro-contrast",
3-dimensionality. I don't know quite how to express this, but there is certainly a distinct difference in the way the images appear.
You may like the look, or not, but it is definitely not the same as with the Nikon.
(7) The native size of the image from the Leica is 20x30 inches. I moved to medium format because I want to PRINT VERY LARGE
images. Up-sizing from the Nikon is not the same as starting with 20x30 inch images. Furthermore, the medium format images
have such detail, contrast, etc. that they can easily be printed 40x60.
(8) Ergonomics: The Leica feels great in my hand (which is a smaller one), and there was essentially no transition between the
Nikon and the Leica. Indeed, the simplicity of the Leica interface makes the transition essentially seemless. That said, there is
a difference with regard to the LCD. Leica does not have a "thumb wheel" and moving around the image is a "two step" process.
Yes, you get use to it, but it will never be as easy as the thumb wheel approach.
(9) The LCD is sharp enough on the Leica to judge focus.
(10) The Leica "blinkies" show BOTH highlights and shadows (red and blue) and this is VERY NICE. On the other hand,
once the preview is taken down, you can't get the histogram back (hopefully Leica will add this in a firmware update).
(11) The Leica does not allow multiple exposures or what Nikon calls image overlay. I miss this. Again, that could be
addressed in firmware.
(12) The menu or user interface is simplistic -- in the POSITIVE connotation or meaning of the word -- with the Leica. Yes,
there are not as many options, but the essentially ones are immediately available with four simple straightforward buttons
that are programmable as well.
(13) No live view. I rarely used this with the Nikon, so am not really missing this feature.
(14) The Leica battery last even longer than the Nikon D3X and D700 which is remarkable. Even looking and studying every
photo, it lasted two complete days of shooting ! (On the other hand, the Leica battery is around $225 -- it should last !)
(15) The Leica feels the same weight, and feels slightly smaller and more nimble, than the D3X or D700. Of course, I do not
have the optional grip on mine, so the comparison to the D3X may not be fair.
(16) Despite what I had read, and much to my surprise, the Leica handles low light superbly. I recently shot in an abandoned
mill, no light except what came through windows. Exposures were 8 sec at ISO 320. No noise. Excellent image quality.
But, I manually focused. There is no focus assist light on the Leica.
(17) I am still debating whether the Leica exposure metering is as accurate as the Nikon. I think it is easily "fooled", but the
histogram and the bi-color "blinkies" make correction easy.
The biggest difference is what we call here in the US "sticker shock". Lenses cost 2-3X the price of the Nikon. The body
is roughly 3X the price of the D3x. Accessories cost more.
Is it worth it? Every time I begin to question the cost (which is daily), I look at the images and stop complaining!
Hope this helps.
-
I own both the Hassy H4D40 and the Nikon D800 (and D4), and the difference in overall image quality is incomparable. I am not an expert on image quality, but the Hassy renders an image that rivals traditional film in its subtle contrast and tone. This camera produces absolutely amazing image quality for a digital camera. I have never used a Pentax, so I can't comment on it. I have no idea why it's several thousand dollars less than the Hassy...maybe it's only because of Hassy's name recognition.
The sensor, and megapixels, are obviously not the only determining factor on what makes an image clear, sharp and with excellent tonality. The cameras processors and software are just as important.
In my experience, comparing a medium format camera to a typical full-size sensor in the expensive DSLRs is like comparing a Hummer to a Ferrari. They are built for different purposes, and they both have strengths and weaknesses which make them ill suited to compete with each other. I use my Hassy mainly for landscape and architectural shots, and I use my Nikon usually for faster shots (i.e. sports, indoor activity, and wildlife) and for portrait work (since depth of field is much easier to control with Nikon lenses than Hassy). The Nikon is excellent at a wide range of different shots...it can do everything well. But, the Hassy can produce an image quality in certain situations that blows away anything I've attempted to duplicate with a Nikon, even in post production.
-
I own both the Hassy H4D40 and the Nikon D800 (and D4), and the difference in overall image quality is incomparable.
Cool, it should then be extremely easy to see this huge difference in any sample file you would be willing to share?
That would kill once for all these discussions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Cool, it should then be extremely easy to see this huge difference in any sample file you would be willing to share?
That would kill once for all these discussions.
Cheers,
Bernard
There is this, for whatever it's worth... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
-
Hi Bernard,
Alex Koloskov was friendly enough to make the comparison and also made the raw files available.
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-v-s-hasselblad-h4d40-the-end-of-medium-format-superiority-round-two/
Here is a good discussion on those tests in Lula forum: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69391.40
Best regards
Erik
Cool, it should then be extremely easy to see this huge difference in any sample file you would be willing to share?
That would kill once for all these discussions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Alex Koloskov was friendly enough to make the comparison and also made the raw files available.
Yep, I know. I don't interpret their conclusion as the back being incomparably better. :)
At best slightly superior?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
My take is that Alex found the back marginally better. The issue is still that he made a good test with trough analysis of raw images, so any one considering those two options has some material to study.
Best regards
Erik
Yep, I know. I don't interpret their conclusion as the back being incomparably better. :)
At best slightly superior?
Cheers,
Bernard