Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on April 02, 2014, 06:28:38 pm
-
It seems that the new Pentax 645D will be announced on April 15.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Excellent news. Any idea about the pricing?
-
More info:
http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/645z/
-
Excellent news. Any idea about the pricing?
My guess would be around 9,000 US$ street price in Tokyo, but we will know in a few days for sure.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hopefully the announcement will be more than just that:
1. Give a real ship date (and Pentax Ricoh make that date) unlike the 645D
2. Allow for a better U.S. and worldwide dealer support network for both support and warranty repairs.
3. Announce that there will now be a U.S. repair center (I don't believe one exists currently)
4. New lenses are also being either planned or announced at the same time (like the 35mm FA which seems to still be sold overseas new, but not in the US)
5. Tethering support will be available, I will be curious on this since I don't think Capture One planes to support this camera? LR? Pentax's own software?
Paul
-
Hopefully the announcement will be more than just that:
1. Give a real ship date (and Pentax Ricoh make that date) unlike the 645D
2. Allow for a better U.S. and worldwide dealer support network for both support and warranty repairs.
3. Announce that there will now be a U.S. repair center (I don't believe one exists currently)
4. New lenses are also being either planned or announced at the same time (like the 35mm FA which seems to still be sold overseas new, but not in the US)
5. Tethering support will be available, I will be curious on this since I don't think Capture One planes to support this camera? LR? Pentax's own software?
Paul
I think they are doing demos, later this month, in Tokyo and Osaka
http://digicame-info.com/2014/04/645d.html
This company has sold cameras for at least 50 years. Let's assume they know their business and not make up demands.
What is interesting is how they brought the MF project back to life after canceling it. The current availability of 40MP "sale" backs seems to indicate that they could put the original 645D on sale too.
Edmund
-
I think they are doing demos, later this month, in Tokyo and Osaka
http://digicame-info.com/2014/04/645d.html
This company has sold cameras for at least 50 years. Let's assume they know their business and not make up demands.
What is interesting is how they brought the MF project back to life after canceling it. The current availability of 40MP "sale" backs seems to indicate that they could put the original 645D on sale too.
Edmund
Lets hope for their sake they do, but just because they have been in business over 50 years, really means very little in today's world. The way this same company handled the 645D announcement and then roll-out did not show me that they "know their business and not make up demands". As I recall, the 645D was about the longest product in the modern era to go from talked about to delivered. The camera was shown for at least 3 years under glass in various body configurations before finally shipping. When it did ship, most U.S companies many that have been in business as long as 50 years or longer, would not carry the camera or lenses. It became more available after about 1 year of the first units shipping.
I don't see that as being very progressive and so far Pentax Ricoh is taking pretty much the same approach. If they are demoing it Japan and Asia, next week, that also tells me they consider that market where they need to be.
I don't see the current U.S. dealer statue is not much different than it was in 2010. Currently in the U.S Ricoh is known for copies and various other office equipment.
Paul
-
As for being shown under glass, Pentax went broke, in the big film-to-digital consolidation. I think it's amazing something got made in the end. When you look what remains of Kodak or Fuji Film ...
Edmund
Lets hope for their sake they do, but just because they have been in business over 50 years, really means very little in today's world. The way this same company handled the 645D announcement and then roll-out did not show me that they "know their business and not make up demands". As I recall, the 645D was about the longest product in the modern era to go from talked about to delivered. The camera was shown for at least 3 years under glass in various body configurations before finally shipping. When it did ship, most U.S companies many that have been in business as long as 50 years or longer, would not carry the camera or lenses. It became more available after about 1 year of the first units shipping.
I don't see that as being very progressive and so far Pentax Ricoh is taking pretty much the same approach. If they are demoing it Japan and Asia, next week, that also tells me they consider that market where they need to be.
I don't see the current U.S. dealer statue is not much different than it was in 2010. Currently in the U.S Ricoh is known for copies and various other office equipment.
Paul
-
For sure I agree on Kodak, but it seems to me that Fuji-Film is doing very well in digital, at least from what I have read. The Fuji-X cameras have quite a good following, not as large as Nikon or Canon, but still seem to have quite a presence.
I hope Pentax/Ricoh makes this camera and can deliver it as it hits a really large potential market, those that don't want the up front cost of a MF back, camera, etc. but still want to move into a 50MP class sensor. From what I have seen in the Phase One IQ250 shots posted this is a great sensor.
Paul
-
Fuji wisely used their technology to enter not only photo-related markets but also others, like cosmetics, seemingly unrelated. Cameras & lenses are indulgences for them. Kodak, OTOH, was run by some of the most clueless "managers" ever to walk upright. Thus their respective fates.
I dunno about Ricoh. I hope they make a big splash with the new Pentax 645 and then parlay it into something substantial. But we shall see...
The price of the current 645D was dropped substantially a while back...that's when I bought mine. :) I'd expect further discounting if the remaining supply warrants it.
-Dave-
-
So I'm confused, is the Pentax 645Z their CMOS camera?
-
In all probability, yes…
Best regards
Erik
So I'm confused, is the Pentax 645Z their CMOS camera?
-
Ah, okay thanks, so it's just some marketing hype and what not. I'm sure it has the potential to be a great / affordable camera especially considering how deep pentax's 645 line of lenses goes so it will be interesting to see what surfaces.
That being said anyone getting too excited about the "unknown" of it seems to be a bit much since its the same damn camera as the Hasselblad and PhaseOne cameras based off of the same damn Sony sensor (which will also be in the Sony MFD mirror-less camera if they actually make that a la the rumors). So basically all that leaves us with are the hardware specs and the image processing algorithms to get excited about...In a market with that little differentiation I can certainly see how people can say that medium format digital is a dying breed.
Personally thats one of the reasons why I get personally excited thinking about the current PhaseOne line-up in the sense that they have differentiation between their products, IQ180 ~ High-res, IQ260 ~ long exposure, IQ260 Achromatic ~ (well its in the name isn't it), and to a lesser extent the IQ250 (high-ISO)...all of these different cameras feature something different and, I believe differentiation builds stronger products for more specific applications, which in some ways may be a less viable business strategy then the convergence which has plagued lesser (smaller) formats...when you look back at the film days with all the different formats and cameras within those formats, I believe photographers had greater creative control simply by the piece of equipment the chose to pick up and take out with them that day.
But maybe Pentax will surprise us..
-
That being said anyone getting too excited about the "unknown" of it seems to be a bit much since its the same damn camera as the Hasselblad and PhaseOne cameras based off of the same damn Sony sensor (which will also be in the Sony MFD mirror-less camera if they actually make that a la the rumors). So basically all that leaves us with are the hardware specs and the image processing algorithms to get excited about...In a market with that little differentiation I can certainly see how people can say that medium format digital is a dying breed.
when you look back at the film days with all the different formats and cameras within those formats, I believe photographers had greater creative control simply by the piece of equipment the chose to pick up and take out with them that day.
Really? You are not excited by the possibility to shoot at ISO50,000 using a weather proofed stabilized modern 90mm lens at 50 megapixel with the closest thing to B&W film DR?
I'd be surprised if properly scanned 4x5 film were superior image qualitywise, this thing probably offers a better image quality at ISO 25,000 than a Canon 1DX/D4s,... so yes, it is less specialized than most specialized film cameras... but it still does things incredibly better than most of them.
I am not sure how this doesn't open up creative doors for creative photographers.
If it does sell at less than 10,000 US$...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Pentax Zzzzz. I kind of agree with Brian.
There's a lot to be said for a camera system that doesn't try to be everything, but tries to be something unique.
Maybe it's suicide on a business level, but for example, as a "creative door" I like the Rolleiflex twin lens cameras. They're very limited and very specific, they enable (make) you to shoot in a certain way, with a single focal length, they're very high quality, they are very fun to use and you can use them for decades.
I know, that makes zero sense to the digital, do it all for less, world view. But on a photographic or artistic level they have something special.
I'm not wanting for a digital Rolleiflex, but I wouldn't mind that kind of thinking in the "kind of large" sensor camera business. Dare to be less on some level and much much more on a different level, not just the price level.
Really? You are not excited by the possibility to shoot at ISO50,000 using a weather proofed stabilized modern 90mm lens at 50 megapixel with the closest thing to B&W film DR?
I'd be surprised if properly scanned 4x5 film were superior image qualitywise, this thing probably offers a better image quality at ISO 25,000 than a Canon 1DX/D4s,... so yes, it is less specialized than most specialized film cameras... but it still does things incredibly better than most of them.
I am not sure how this doesn't open up creative doors for creative photographers.
If it does sell at less than 10,000 US$...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There was an initial consolidation when only Nikon and Canon could do digital well, now an explosion in cropped-sensor cameras. The same will probably happen in MF in a few years, with an explosion of very different cameras as the technology percolates through the market.
Edmund
The Pentax Zzzzz. I kind of agree with Brian.
There's a lot to be said for a camera system that doesn't try to be everything, but tries to be something unique.
Maybe it's suicide on a business level, but for example, as a "creative door" I like the Rolleiflex twin lens cameras. They're very limited and very specific, they enable (make) you to shoot in a certain way, with a single focal length, they're very high quality, they are very fun to use and you can use them for decades.
I know, that makes zero sense to the digital, do it all for less, world view. But on a photographic or artistic level they have something special.
I'm not wanting for a digital Rolleiflex, but I wouldn't mind that kind of thinking in the "kind of large" sensor camera business. Dare to be less on some level and much much more on a different level, not just the price level.
-
There was an initial consolidation when only Nikon and Canon could do digital well, now an explosion in cropped-sensor cameras. The same will probably happen in MF in a few years, with an explosion of very different cameras as the technology percolates through the market.
Edmund
Before that happens we are going to see a move to Full Frame 35mm size Mirrorless Camera systems. Eventually Nikon and Canon will get into the act. The Sony A7 and A7R are great first efforts. We will see better E viewfinders, AF and speed on the next gens. The Olympus OM-S E-M1 is good enough for people to forget DSLRs, but it has a smaller sensor. Make a E-M1 like body with a great Sony full frame sensor and the game will change.
-
That being said anyone getting too excited about the "unknown" of it seems to be a bit much since its the same damn camera as the Hasselblad and PhaseOne cameras based off of the same damn Sony sensor (which will also be in the Sony MFD mirror-less camera if they actually make that a la the rumors). So basically all that leaves us with are the hardware specs and the image processing algorithms to get excited about...
I would propose that in addition to "Hardware specs, image processing algorithms" are other important factors like:
- price
- color look
- lens quality
- lens look
- long exposure performance
- sync speed
- warranty/service
- availability in rental
- knowledge of techs/assistants on a particular system
- buffer depth, shooting speed consistency
- tethering speed
- tethering stability
- tethering features
- autofocus speed/consistency/features
- availability/performance/quality of live view
- performance in diverse weather/temperatures and sealing
- quality/type of grain rendered at a given ISO (NOT guaranteed to be the same even if they use the same base sensor)
- ergonomics
- compatibility with tech cameras
- compatibility with view cameras
- on camera features like focus mask
- user interface niceties like customizable/movable grids/guide, customizable exposure warning
- other features like WiFi
Some of the above list will favor Phase One, some will favor Leaf, some will favor Pentax, some will favor Hassy. The sensor is an important part of a camera, but even regarding image quality it's only part of the story. And image quality is only a small part of the overall story of how a camera does or does not work for a particular application/person.
See also my article on the IQ250 Origin Story (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/phase-one-iq250-cmos-fully-realized).
-
Fuji wisely used their technology to enter not only photo-related markets but also others, like cosmetics, seemingly unrelated. Cameras & lenses are indulgences for them. Kodak, OTOH, was run by some of the most clueless "managers" ever to walk upright. Thus their respective fates.
Like so many makers of photographic products, these have for a long time been only a small part of Fujifilm's business; "Imaging Solutions" delivers only about 13% of its revenues: http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/investors/performance_and_finance/segment_information/index.html
However the overall size and financial health of Fujifilm does not tell us how well the part that we care about as photographers is doing, or what its future is. Even big, profitable conglomerates can cut loose divisions that are persistently unprofitable, or just insufficiently profitable: Panasonic has talked about such plans, and Kyocera abruptly shut down its photographic division Yashica/Contax in 2005, even though the parent company was not in financial trouble.
Not that I have any reason to either suspect or hope that "Fujifilm Imaging Solutions" is in trouble; the X system is the coolest of the recently launched "post-SLR" photographic systems!
P.S. Fujifilm still sells lots of film: actual transparent plastic film, which has many uses other that coating it with photographic emulsions.
-
So basically the new Sony CMOS 50MP chip is going into many different cameras with a wide variety of feature sets.
Sounds good to me!
-
Before that happens we are going to see a move to Full Frame 35mm size Mirrorless Camera systems. Eventually Nikon and Canon will get into the act. The Sony A7 and A7R are great first efforts. We will see better E viewfinders, AF and speed on the next gens. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 is good enough for people to forget DSLRs, but it has a smaller sensor. Make a E-M1 like body with a great Sony full frame sensor and the game will change.
Suits me okay. I love EVFs. But I know I'm probably unusual amongst the enthusiast crowd in that I don't care much about sensor size. Not that I don't care at all...but not much. I just bought a friend's Leica M8 (the 8.2 version), after some dithering over how much time & energy I want to put into yet another system, which means I now own interchangeable lens cameras using five different sensor sizes and two different aspect ratios. :) For me it's about the optics, and in this latest case I have a lovely set of rangefinder lenses that are clearly happier with the M8 than any other camera I own.
I've got nothing against 24x36mm sensors. But IMO the "full frame" (despise that term) push has more to do with marketing than the genuine needs of photographers.
-Dave-
-
Suits me okay. I love EVFs. But I know I'm probably unusual amongst the enthusiast crowd in that I don't care much about sensor size. Not that I don't care at all...but not much. I just bought a friend's Leica M8 (the 8.2 version), after some dithering over how much time & energy I want to put into yet another system, which means I now own interchangeable lens cameras using five different sensor sizes and two different aspect ratios. :) For me it's about the optics, and in this latest case I have a lovely set of rangefinder lenses that are clearly happier with the M8 than any other camera I own.
I've got nothing against 24x36mm sensors. But IMO the "full frame" (despise that term) push has more to do with marketing than the genuine needs of photographers.
-Dave-
Companies talk about the camera quality, the experience, or the bond, as much as you can bond with an machine.
It's all the use catch phrases, Full Frame, (what is non full frame?), megapixels, 2k, 4k, 8k.
Now the medium format guys are pushing cmos, which is funny because they spent a decade saying how their superior ccd technology produced a superior image and cmos was c__p, just like earlier large detailed lcd screens were not possible.
Lately, it's been the opposite.
I find the Pentax more alluring and also the Hasselblad H, but maybe because they are different, but what do I know, I'm still using contax and phase Plus backs and doing fine.
I'd rather use my R1 REDS than a new Epic, (and it's not costs), just the look of the file. Though I love the Olympus and Leica because both companies have a history of unique cameras and you don't see the same CN logo everytime you walk through times square.
I do hope Sony comes out with a medium format camera, because I think the fun part is the Sony lens list. I guess that have A, DX, FE, then meidum format lenses, probably called AXL. (I think I have that right, but I don't have a score sheet).
That's going to be fun watching the local dealers keep up.
To me the only gripe with Sony is they are the poster child for the consumer electronic upgrade set.
How long has the A7 been out, an hour? Now they're talking about a 4k A7, next will probably be a 2k a7 XL, then a 4k a7 XXL, then a . . .
Edmund Ronnie will be happy though, because this will probably give birth to a Casio or Samsung Medium Format Camera he can get for $600, sorry 900 euro, or 3,000 French Francs.*
IMO
BC
*Edmund, You have been hiding all those Francs in the wine cellars of your Chateau, just waiting for France to bail on the E.U. . . . right?
-
Edmund Ronnie will be happy though, because this will probably give birth to a Casio or Samsung Medium Format Camera he can get for $600, sorry 900 euro, or 3,000 French Francs.
IMO
BC
Eet is not the camera zat matters eet is ze vision.
Especially if she ees pretty :)
Edmund
J, they call them "Napoleons" over here, those nice yellow coins which the US government so hated (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/what-30-years-gold-confiscation-us-government-looks). As for my Chateau, it is probably smaller than an average Hollywood doghouse :)
-
So basically the new Sony CMOS 50MP chip is going into many different cameras with a wide variety of feature sets.
Sounds good to me!
Me too. Have we become so spoiled that a camera like the 645Z get's a "Ho Hum, another 50 MP MF camera"?
-
Does anyone know who makes the digital sensors for RED cameras? I assume they produce their own?
-
So basically the new Sony CMOS 50MP chip is going into many different cameras with a wide variety of feature sets.
Sounds good to me!
Like putting the stuff that comes in rolls in a different camera with different characteristics. . .
-
Does anyone know who makes the digital sensors for RED cameras? I assume they produce their own?
Very few people know. Check this out: http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/5/5/revolutionary-red-epic-camera-taken-apart-by-fcc.aspx
Red has taken great care to protect their tech.
-
Very few people know. Check this out: http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/5/5/revolutionary-red-epic-camera-taken-apart-by-fcc.aspx
Red has taken great care to protect their tech.
I think it might be Aptina. The fact that I don't know shows how far I'm out of touch :)
Everybody in the industry probably knows, but the supplier will be under NDA.
Edmund
-
The 645Z will NOT make 4k movies, but only 4K timelapse like K-3 does. In fact the whole video side of the camera is fairly plain and very similar to K-3's video functions. What will be impressive though are what Pentax managed to extract from the sensor and for what price. Lots of other internals are just off the shelf K-3 parts.
Best regards,
Radu
-
Well, lots of noise and rumors and then Radu comes. Certainly mouth watering info.
Any news on the wide angle zoom?
Tom
-
Well, lots of noise and rumors and then Radu comes. Certainly mouth watering info.
Don't know if it is true, but photorumors speaks of a 8,500 US$ price point.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bravo, Pentax! ... if it's true.
-
$8500? I was prepared for $12K but $8500? 1/3 of an IQ250? if so, somebody is making a statement.
-
$8500? I was prepared for $12K but $8500? 1/3 of an IQ250? if so, somebody is making a statement.
Isn't it closer to 1/4th?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
$8500? I was prepared for $12K but $8500? 1/3 of an IQ250? if so, somebody is making a statement.
Yes, Phase One are making a statement. Pentax are just applying the normal prosumer camera industry pricing model.
Edmund
-
Looks like all of the FA lenses except the 300mm/4 will finally be offered on the US market again. It's about time as many are as good as the digital lenses of other manufacturers. Prices are less than their recent new developments, giving users a wide choice of lenses. They could have done without the 45 and the 33-55, and offered the 300mm/4 instead, but otherwise it's great news as their lens range has become competitive once more.
-
Don't forget, the Pentax 645Z will also include a state of the art camera in the price.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, Phase One are making a statement. Pentax are just applying the normal prosumer camera industry pricing model.
Edmund
-
Hi Tom, hello all!
Nothing about the ultra wide zoom yet I am afraid! On the other hand the price quoted by photorumors is correct but IMO is only a reflection of the yen/USD parity compared to the 2009-2010 situation plus the fact that the price of the sensor is not paid in expensive USD to Kodak but in deprecated Yens to Sony. In fact I expect the same 850K yen retail price in Japan as for the original 645D.
Anyhow, even though the sensor is the same size as the P1 and HB I begin to suspect that either is not the same or those companies had no clue what to do with it. Of course this will only fuel the resentment of some and encourage them to believe that the price delta is due to the fact that Pentax bought the subpar sensors! Yep, those capable of 6 figure ISO value it seems! :D
Best regards,
Radu
-
Anyhow, even though the sensor is the same size as the P1 and HB I begin to suspect that either is not the same or those companies had no clue what to do with it. Of course this will only fuel the resentment of some and encourage them to believe that the price delta is due to the fact that Pentax bought the subpar sensors! Yep, those capable of 6 figure ISO value it seems! :D
Hi Radu,
This comment is a bit difficult to interpret. The first part of the sentence implies that the 645Z has better image quality than the P1/H implementations, which I would think may be the case at higher ISOs if the ISO100,000 rumours are true... but then the second part of your sentence seems to hint that the image quality may not be as good with the 645Z... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Welcome, Pentax. We need one decently priced camera in MF, that people who need better quality can get without mortgaging their house.
Edmund
-
Welcome, Pentax. We need one decently priced camera in MF, that people who need better quality can get without mortgaging their house.
Edmund
What's affordable. 35, 25, 20, 15, 10, 9, 8 grand . . . even less?
The dealers on this forum can hook you up in a heartbeat with everything from Leaf, Leica, Phase and yes Pentax that will hit any of those numbers and if whether they are new or used, they will perform . . . even out perform even the most discerning of clients and photographers.
Now I believe that for a base body 10 to 20 is the magic number as long as you don't get caught up in two syndromes. 1. I gotta have a new one the day it's announced and/or 2. I gotta have 4 billion iso and 10 fps.
For that Nikon and Canon is more than happy to oblige, but an affordable larger than 35mm camera is out there for most professional budgets.
But I think you should remember what Steve said that when he puts a 10 grand pentax on a counter, then a Leaf, then a Phase and then a Leica, even the cost sensitive buyer usually doesn't walk out with the Pentax, even though v1 was a very good camera.
Now if Pentax had the buffer, the repair facilities, easy tethering, a lens line up that took less searching and a clear intention that they plan on being in the medium format business, it might go the other way.
IMO
BC
-
Hi Bernard,
I was talking about how it seems the three companies are judging the sensor and for me it doesn't make any sense. Two are rating their cameras ISO 100-6400 and the Pentax is so hugely different that I cannot think but maybe is not same sensor (although it has the precise same dimensions and 99,99% it really is the same sensor). Also the frame rate is not in the P1+hasselblad range.
As for the real IQ we'll have to wait for the hands on tests and real pictures when the camera will be ready but at least on paper based on the factors we already know (such as ISO limits, the high number of pixels, the very apt AF system in low light) this could be (in a very weird kind on way being a medium format camera) the ultimate low light camera.
The second part was an irony because some folks tried to suggest that Pentax 645D was so inexpensive compared with similar camera from P1 or Hasselblad because Pentax took second grade sensors from Kodak, the ones that couldn't qualify for "a better camera". Which is of course totally unproven.
Best regards,
Radu
Hi Radu,
This comment is a bit difficult to interpret. The first part of the sentence implies that the 645Z has better image quality than the P1/H implementations, which I would think may be the case at higher ISOs if the ISO100,000 rumours are true... but then the second part of your sentence seems to hint that the image quality may not be as good with the 645Z... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
J,
As a fashion photographer, with real everyday billing and real ability, what you say is true.
But if you're a working pro with a studio in a provincial little town, and the economy is bad, you're living off baby pics, passport shots, senior portraits and marriages, then you want a cheap solid performer that has that no-fuss clarity which you get from the bigger cams, and a bottom price ticket, and gets the shot every time. I think the Pentax will come in *new* at 8.5 list, 7 retail and will hit this population, giving them the decent ISO and SLR flexibility at the price they want.
Also, I look at the huge interest the Pentax K3 is getting from enthusiasts, and I'm wondering if Pentax isn't doing the same thing as Olympus, staging and unexpected comeback. You've seen the Olympus phenom firsthand and no one would ever have expected that a small cam not made by N or C would become your workhorse. There's nothing less sexy than a K3, but it's at the top of the charts on that consumer site we all love to hate.
Edmund
What's affordable. 35, 25, 20, 15, 10, 9, 8 grand . . . even less?
The dealers on this forum can hook you up in a heartbeat with everything from Leaf, Leica, Phase and yes Pentax that will hit any of those numbers and if whether they are new or used, they will perform . . . even out perform even the most discerning of clients and photographers.
Now I believe that for a base body 10 to 20 is the magic number as long as you don't get caught up in two syndromes. 1. I gotta have a new one the day it's announced and/or 2. I gotta have 4 billion iso and 10 fps.
For that Nikon and Canon is more than happy to oblige, but an affordable larger than 35mm camera is out there for most professional budgets.
But I think you should remember what Steve said that when he puts a 10 grand pentax on a counter, then a Leaf, then a Phase and then a Leica, even the cost sensitive buyer usually doesn't walk out with the Pentax, even though v1 was a very good camera.
Now if Pentax had the buffer, the repair facilities, easy tethering, a lens line up that took less searching and a clear intention that they plan on being in the medium format business, it might go the other way.
IMO
BC
-
Edmund,
The reality is that market was served perfectly fine by the D100 12 years ago and just as well today by any mirrorless camera, including the Nikon V3/J4.
The 645Z is overkill by a factor of 10.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was talking about how it seems the three companies are judging the sensor and for me it doesn't make any sense. Two are rating their cameras ISO 100-6400 and the Pentax is so hugely different that I cannot think but maybe is not same sensor (although it has the precise same dimensions and 99,99% it really is the same sensor).
The range of exposure index settings (co-called "ISO") offered on a camera has only a very loose relationship to its "ISO sensitivity" in the sense of noise levels; some cameras limit the EI settings roughy to the ISO recommended upper EI limit "Ssnr10" based on a SNR of 10:1 or better (the upper end of the exposure latitude as described in ISO standard 12232), while others allow much higher settings, perhaps on the basis that those higher settings will be used as a last resort and the noise handled with downsampling, heavy noise reduction, or just by displaying at smaller sizes and so very high PPI.
It could just be the difference of Pentax offering some "High" EI settings ("pushes") to about 102,400 while the others stay roughly within the "normal" EI range based roughly on the ISO Ssnr10 spec., and so stop at 6,400, That would be the same fours stop gap as the D4S does with its maximum normal speed of 25,600 and maximum high speed of 409,600. I can imagine these different decisions, given the different target usage: Phase One and Hasselblad more "studio and tripod" oriented, while the Pentax 645 system has greater orientation to more mobile outdoor amateur usage, where users might want to be more flexible about salvaging poor light situations by "pushing" the sensor.
-
But if you're a working pro with a studio in a provincial little town, and the economy is bad, you're living off baby pics, passport shots, senior portraits and marriages ...
I mostly agree with Bernard: with the possible exception of posed wedding photos intended to allow very large prints, all those other needs are probably served perfectly well by the best of today's 36x24mm format offerings, and probably by even smaller formats, and such options are far more business savvy and cost-effective, even if not "in a studio in provincial little town where the economy is bad". I will avoid debating whether the sweet spot format for the mug-shot categories of "baby pics, passport shots, senior portraits" is now "APS-C", 4/3", or 1"!
-
But if you're a working pro with a studio in a provincial little town, and the economy is bad, you're living off baby pics, passport shots, senior portraits and marriages, then you want a cheap solid performer that has that no-fuss clarity which you get from the bigger cams, and a bottom price ticket, and gets the shot every time. I think the Pentax will come in *new* at 8.5 list, 7 retail and will hit this population, giving them the decent ISO and SLR flexibility at the price they want.
Also, I look at the huge interest the Pentax K3 is getting from enthusiasts, and I'm wondering if Pentax isn't doing the same thing as Olympus, staging and unexpected comeback. You've seen the Olympus phenom firsthand and no one would ever have expected that a small cam not made by N or C would become your workhorse. There's nothing less sexy than a K3, but it's at the top of the charts on that consumer site we all love to hate.
Edmund
Baby pics and portraits? Honestly one can be very successful with a Nikon D3200 (or Canon Equiv. or M4/3 camera) and 2-3 nice lenses. More important would be the service, style, art direction and technical competence.
Regarding the DPreview stats. They usually favor the more recently released products. (That leaves out any Canon DSLR in recent memory).
-
On one hand, at any one moment that DPReview "popular cameras" is skewed to recently reviewed (it counts page views, and reading a review can mean over dozen of them) or just recently announced, so it is best called "curiosity" and the K3 is on top now because its long-delayed review was finally published. On the other hand, the longer term "curiosity" trend is interesting: there is a far greater diversity beyond Canon and Nikon than a few years ago, with a consistent majority of ILCs on the list being non-SLRs.
-
I said "ISO is a six figure number", I never said "max ISO is 102480"! Pentax tends to be quite conservative and most of their cameras have usable ISO about 3 stops bellow the upper limit. If this camera will deliver ISO12800 equivalent with the ISO 1600 of the current 645D I imagine I won't be the only one to call this a breakthrough ...
The range of exposure index settings (co-called "ISO") offered on a camera has only a very loose relationship to its "ISO sensitivity" in the sense of noise levels; some cameras limit the EI settings roughy to the ISO recommended upper EI limit "Ssnr10" based on a SNR of 10:1 or better (the upper end of the exposure latitude as described in ISO standard 12232), while others allow much higher settings, perhaps on the basis that those higher settings will be used as a last resort and the noise handled with downsampling, heavy noise reduction, or just by displaying at smaller sizes and so very high PPI.
It could just be the difference of Pentax offering some "High" EI settings ("pushes") to about 102,400 while the others stay roughly within the "normal" EI range based roughly on the ISO Ssnr10 spec., and so stop at 6,400, That would be the same fours stop gap as the D4S does with its maximum normal speed of 25,600 and maximum high speed of 409,600. I can imagine these different decisions, given the different target usage: Phase One and Hasselblad more "studio and tripod" oriented, while the Pentax 645 system has greater orientation to more mobile outdoor amateur usage, where users might want to be more flexible about salvaging poor light situations by "pushing" the sensor.
-
I said "ISO is a six figure number", I never said "max ISO is 102480"!
I was referring to the rumor of "Highest ISO: 102,400 or 204,800" (http://photorumors.com/2014/02/15/pentax-645d-ii-specifications-and-price-report-from-cp/), not your words, and anyway those are both six figure numbers, so what exactly are you objecting to in what I said?
If this camera will deliver ISO12800 equivalent with the ISO 1600 of the current 645D I imagine I won't be the only one to call this a breakthrough ...
Where is that "three stop" claim coming from? Not that I am rejecting it; I would expect a low light improvement of a couple of stops, based on comparing Sony's CMOS sensors to Kodak and Dalsa's CCDs, and I would expect something like that much gain from Phase One and Hasselblad too, not just Pentax.
Anyway, we should probably not debate the fine details of rumored specs!
-
Looks like all of the FA lenses except the 300mm/4 will finally be offered on the US market again. It's about time as many are as good as the digital lenses of other manufacturers. Prices are less than their recent new developments, giving users a wide choice of lenses. They could have done without the 45 and the 33-55, and offered the 300mm/4 instead, but otherwise it's great news as their lens range has become competitive once more.
Tom,
I can't help but think the absence of the 300mmm f/4 is a data entry problem (in other words, somebody screwed up). B&H lists the 300mm f/5.6, which has been discontinued, for $4800. That price is much higher than in the past and the current prices in Japan and Europe; it's more appropriate for the f/4 version of the lens.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=pentax+645+lenses&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=
Tom
-
good news about the lenses. Pentax/Ricoh is making good on the earlier statement of committing to the 645 platform.
-
You do have a point there, Tom. I was also surprised about the excessive pricing for the 300mm f/5.6 when compared to the other lenses (e.g. the 150-300mm or the 400mm). The $4.5K range matches what is charged in Japan or Europe for a new 300mm f/4. Hope you are correct as it's one of my favorite lenses.
-
Hi,
I guess that having a state of the alternative MF camera at a decent price would be a great advantage for anyone looking for improved image quality. If leaf shutters and high speed shutter sync is needed or for tethered shooting with C1 look somewhere else.
Putting a twice as large CMOS sensor of EXMOR type into an MFDSLR obviously gives higher image quality in some conditions than a similar sensor of half the area.
A question is weather small sensor cameras with high end lenses like Zeiss Otus and some Sigma A-series can keep up with larger sensor, specially with 54 MP possibly showing up on DSLRs in a year or so. Are those Pentax lenses good enough to compete with the best of 24x36 lenses of today and tomorrow?
Best regards
Erik
-
Specification for the 645Z have appeared on the German site:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.de/de/mittelformatkameras/technische-details/645D.html
Key features (for me anyway):
51 MP
Live view with focus peaking
3 fps
Oh and ISO 100-204,800!!?
Tom
-
"Phase detection autofocus system SAFOX 11 with 27 AF sensors (including 25 cross-type sensors and flux sensors for optimum AF performance with fast lenses).
Spot AF and AF automatic, switchable to tracking (Servo) Autofocus. Focus Lock on trigger.
Each of the 27 AF points can be selected manually.
The Predictive already sums up the subject on the edge and calculates the correct focus for moving subjects advance."
Wonder how good that is compared to tru-focus or the phamiya?
-
"Phase detection autofocus system SAFOX 11 with 27 AF sensors (including 25 cross-type sensors and flux sensors for optimum AF performance with fast lenses).
Spot AF and AF automatic, switchable to tracking (Servo) Autofocus. Focus Lock on trigger.
Each of the 27 AF points can be selected manually.
The Predictive already sums up the subject on the edge and calculates the correct focus for moving subjects advance."
Wonder how good that is compared to tru-focus or the phamiya?
Yes, one of our great hopes is that Pentax will finally force the existing guys to upgrade their AF systems to something closer to a normal dSLR, although I guess with the new sony CMOS everybody gets liveview focus in the studio.
There's some camera porn of the Z up on digicameinfo (http://digicame-info.com/2014/04/pentax-645z.html#more).
The display screen looks tiltable, which makes sense because it lets some cooling airflow get closer to the sensor and distances a heat source. Vertical shooters will as always appreciate the side tripod mount.
Edmund
-
Same images here, but this site confirms a price of $8,500 US.
http://www.cameraegg.org/pentax-645z-front-top-back-side-images/
-
Same images here, but this site confirms a price of $8,500 US.
http://www.cameraegg.org/pentax-645z-front-top-back-side-images/
Images *from* the camera might be more interesting than images *of* the camera :)
Edmund
-
You sure? This is an MFD thread!
Best regards
Erik
Images *from* the camera might be more interesting than images *of* the camera :)
Edmund
-
Images *from* the camera might be more interesting than images *of* the camera :)
Edmund
I agree. I must say I'm skeptical of the utility of ISO 200k, but if even 6400 is usable, it is of considerable value.
It's clear from the specs that Pentax has incorporated much from the K-3 and that's a good thing.
Tom
-
You sure? This is an MFD thread!
Best regards
Erik
It's the weekend - the dealers are away, the mice can play :)
Edmund
-
I'm struggling to think of an uglier camera.
On a more positive note I'm struggling to think of a better value camera.
Keith, that's a really nice website homepage you have there.
Don't struggle too much ;)
Edmund
-
I use my 645D mostly on a tripod at ISO 100 so higher sensitivities don't make much difference to me. If I need handholding in low-ish light I use a different camera. But given all the other stuff that comes along with ISO whateveritis I certainly wouldn't object to it.
(Note: the 645D can do a credible EI 3200 via underexposing a stop at ISO 1600 & then pushing in post.)
As for looks: I find all blob cameras—meaning most current SLRs—to be, shall we say, rather homely. But if they deliver the goods it hardly matters.
I'm rooting for Ricoh to do well with this camera. The more good players in the game the better.
-Dave-
-
I'm struggling to think of an uglier camera.
I guess it is fortunate that the looks of a the camera have no influence whatsoever on its ability to fullfill its core mission. ;)
Now, it is true that this core mission, capturing images, sometimes seems to rank low in the priorities of some camera byuers. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess it is fortunate that the looks of a the camera have no influence whatsoever on its ability to fullfill its core mission. ;)
Now, it is true that this core mission, capturing images, sometimes seems to rank low in the priorities of some camera byuers. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
The core mission of a camera is to sell. Itself.
Edmund
-
I'm excited to see what is released. On a related note I'm playing with the IQ250, doing a side by side with my H4D-50, so 50mp verses 50mp. As much as I love the Phase One, under 10K for a 50mp camera!?! Plus B&H seems to have gone wild with the Pentax 645 lenses - lots of options.
-
I'm excited to see what is released. On a related note I'm playing with the IQ250, doing a side by side with my H4D-50, so 50mp verses 50mp. As much as I love the Phase One, under 10K for a 50mp camera!?! Plus B&H seems to have gone wild with the Pentax 645 lenses - lots of options.
Joe,
what are your impressions in the side by side?
Edmund
-
Specification for the 645Z have appeared on the German site:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.de/de/mittelformatkameras/technische-details/645D.html
Key features (for me anyway):
51 MP
Live view with focus peaking
3 fps
Oh and ISO 100-204,800!!?
If that site is correct, also HD video (and 4K time lapse video)
-
The core mission of a camera is to sell. Itself.
Edmund
True enough for the accountants, but sometimes the mission of the designers is to make the best possible product (which should sell itself).
The 645D(Z) is not nearly as attractive as its predecessor the 645N; it is wider and less angular (something like aging), but it I've learned to like its appearance.
Tom
-
Pentax 645Z Full specs are out. (http://photorumors.com/2014/04/12/pentax-645z-detailed-specifications/#more-56804)
Edmund
-
It will be interesting if it's ever published/printed that the chip is exactly the same as Phase One/Hassi are using. However the range to 208K does not really surprise me.
1. Sony is currently tearing up the video market with the A7s announcement, only 12MP, but video up to 400K I believe, and so far the demo videos I have seen are impressive indeed on the new A7z, obviously Sony knows how to get to a higher ISO range.
2. Back in Feb, 2014, Alpa did a quick blog post on the IQ250, which showed the back in live view mode in total darkness. Basically the view view was able to pull the night scene into daylight, enough to allow easy focus, and there was not a lot of noise (like Nikon has in low light with live view on the D800).
Phase One may have chosen for internal reasons to govern the max ISO down in the IQ250 for now and they may push it in the future. If they are using the same chip as in the Pentax, then there is alot of more room possibly. However their ability to show a totally night scene in basically daytime, tells me the IQ250 may have the same reach.
You can read the Alpa blog here:
http://www.alpa.ch/en/news/2014/IQ250-review1 (http://www.alpa.ch/en/news/2014/IQ250-review1)
At the very bottom of the blog article.
Paul
-
If Pentax's higher "ISOs" compared with the IQ250 are mathematically derived rather than via analog gain, which is almost surely the case at least in part, folks owning/using the latter should be able to underexpose & then match the former by pushing in post (assuming a RAW processor with quality pushing algorithms). I tend to do this sort of thing as a matter of course when putting new (to me) cameras through their paces.
-Dave-
-
If Pentax's higher "ISOs" compared with the IQ250 are mathematically derived rather than via analog gain, which is almost surely the case at least in part, folks owning/using the latter should be able to underexpose & then match the former by pushing in post (assuming a RAW processor with quality pushing algorithms). I tend to do this sort of thing as a matter of course when putting new (to me) cameras through their paces.
-Dave-
Agreed: the evidence on recent Sony sensors strongly indicates that using the camera set to EI=409,600 will give about the same results as using it with a far lower IE like 6400 (six stops lower) at the same shutter speed and aperture on the same scene, and then push-processing ... and a push in the digital domain is a very simple algorithm: a bit shift. It also seems very unlikely that the analog gain on the Sony sensor goes anywhere near as high as 409,600, and more likely stops at 6400 or below, so what is done in the Pentax 645Z (and in the Nikon D4s) at high ISO is almost certainly just bit-shifting done in-camera, or in raw->JPEG conversion based on a flag in the raw file: a convenience to avoid one step in post-processing, and to make reviews on the rear LCD more useful.
One guess is that EI=6400 is the limit of analog gain, and only Pentax has decided to add some "bit shifting" higher ISO options with this 44x33mm sensor.
I imagine that the upper limit of analog gain before digital bit-shifting takes over can be worked out by analyzing a raw level histogram: AFAIK, gaps open up between the numerical raw levels once digital ISO speed pushing is done, and the size of the gaps reveals the number of stops of digital pushing, with S stops of push giving gaps of 2^S levels.
-
Has there been any announcement on tethering? The camera looks fantastic but it's not going to be taken seriously if it can't tether.
-
Has there been any announcement on tethering? The camera looks fantastic but it's not going to be taken seriously if it can't tether.
The allegedly leaked specs say that it will support the Pentax FluCard for wireless remote control, as with Pentax K3, and the (rumored) dual SD slots seem a good fit for this.
For a review of how that works with the K3, see http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8850365696/pentax-o-fc1-flucard-the-wireless-details
-
the trouble with a jpeg only wireless tether solution is that its next to useless for critical work as you need to view raws with your selected profile/look/sharpening and know how much highlight/shadow leeway you have.
according to the specs 'Camera Utility 5 for camera control from the computer’ will enable you to connect to the camera from a computer. no idea how stable/usable that is?
-
the trouble with a jpeg only wireless tether solution is that its next to useless for critical work as you need to view raws with your selected profile/look/sharpening and know how much highlight/shadow leeway you have.
according to the specs 'Camera Utility 5 for camera control from the computer’ will enable you to connect to the camera from a computer. no idea how stable/usable that is?
+1
I base this on the current Phase One Capture Pilot/wireless solution. Just not enough data, can't tell good focus info at 100% view, moving around the preview file takes wayyyy to long to repaint the image, not to mention connection a bit flakey at times.
Where as tethering, via USB3 can give much more information, faster, and it's easier to determine fine focus. See Ken Doo's blog on this.
http://kendoophotography.wordpress.com/ (http://kendoophotography.wordpress.com/)
The 645Z has a USB3 port per the spec's on Photo rumor, however no mention of software support, either LR or Capture One, I don't expect to see it from the later.
Paul
-
the trouble with a jpeg only wireless tether solution is that its next to useless for critical work as you need to view raws with your selected profile/look/sharpening and know how much highlight/shadow leeway you have.
according to the specs 'Camera Utility 5 for camera control from the computer’ will enable you to connect to the camera from a computer. no idea how stable/usable that is?
Yes that part at http://photorumors.com/2014/04/12/pentax-645z-detailed-specifications/ about Camera Utility in
Tripping functions
...
- Flucard for wireless camera control and image transmission (Optional)
- Camera Utility 5 for camera control from the computer (Optional)
could be promising.
-
It's official:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/04/15/ricoh-announces-medium-format-pentax-645z?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_0_0
To be available in the later half of June for 8,500 US$. Street price in Japan looks like it is going to be around 775,000 Yen at launch.
All the other rumors were true.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
and IR = http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/14/medium-format-thy-name-is-ricoh-pentax-645z-has-no-competition
-
Buffer is twice as large as the 645D and the preview is twice as fast. If it can tether in LR Pentax won't be able to keep up with demand.
I'm still happy with my 645D tethered via Eyefi to an iPad but the Z has got my attention.
-
Sample images (FWIW on an LCD):
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/ex/
-
The most intriguing part is the confidence Pentax seems to have that the 645Z has the best image quality on the market.
I have met some of those guys, they are not really of the over blown ego type.
I guess we'll know as soon as DxOMark puts their hands on a 645Z.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
a bit soft for my taste, but i am not in the game for a new camera anyway :D
-
a bit soft for my taste, but i am not in the game for a new camera anyway :D
Yep, probably no sharpening applied. Besides they tend to use small apertures and most of the samples must be diffraction affected.
Btw, according to DPreview, the implementation of live view is excellent!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Pentax seems a bit cheaper than Phase. :)
I do wonder how they manage that.
And 3fps, 200 000 ISO?
Edmund
-
This looks like it could be perfect for my type of work, the price is reasonable. I have two questions though. Does it have live view? Are there any tilt shift lenses that would work with it?
The Canon 45mm TS-E has a very large image circle and can be used with some medium format sensors (I think the Hartblei Hcam is one). It would be great if the Canon TS-E could be adapted for this Pentax. Anyway, I'm very impressed that Pentax has brought this "affordable" option to market. Good work!
-
This looks like it could be perfect for my type of work, the price is reasonable. I have two questions though. Does it have live view? Are there any tilt shift lenses that would work with it?
The Canon 45mm TS-E has a very large image circle and can be used with some medium format sensors (I think the Hartblei Hcam is one). It would be great if the Canon TS-E could be adapted for this Pentax. Anyway, I'm very impressed that Pentax has brought this "affordable" option to market. Good work!
It does have live view, apparently an excellent implementation, but no pentax T/S lenses.
I doubt the Canon one could fit, there may be other MF options through adapters?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This looks like it could be perfect for my type of work, the price is reasonable. I have two questions though. Does it have live view? Are there any tilt shift lenses that would work with it?
The Canon 45mm TS-E has a very large image circle and can be used with some medium format sensors (I think the Hartblei Hcam is one). It would be great if the Canon TS-E could be adapted for this Pentax. Anyway, I'm very impressed that Pentax has brought this "affordable" option to market. Good work!
You can use the Zoerk adapter with Pentax 67 lenses for tilt and shift.
http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_pshift.htm
-
We are all excited. :)
-
but no pentax T/S lenses.
3rd party = http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_45mm.htm
-
I wonder if there are any color shift issues when using these 3rd party T/S solutions on the 645Z and how they can be corrected?
I guess we'll have to wait until the camera is available in june.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Both 45mm shift option for the P645 are o.k., but not stellar: the Hartblei and the 45mm 67 Pentax on a Zoerk adapter.
-
It's an interesting situation. It looks like Phase and Hasselblad have carefully prepared a market niche for Pentax to slide into :)
Edmund
-
It's an interesting situation. It looks like Phase and Hasselblad have carefully prepared a market niche for Pentax to slide into :)
Considering the performances of those Sony sensors relative to their legacy CCDs (see the comparisions done by Doug), did they have any other choice but to use the Sony chip?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Considering the performances of those Sony sensors relative to their legacy CCDs (see the comparisions done by Doug), did they have any other choice but to use the Sony chip?
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe not, but Phase didn't *need* to price at 3x Pentax, when the comparison between a Pentax body and a Phase body is not necessarily in their favor ;)
Edmund
-
Amazing value for money!
It looks as if the samples are soft due to compression, rather than lens softness. There are quite a few artefacts and I see that are in camera auto conversions from RAW.
-
Buffer is twice as large as the 645D and the preview is twice as fast. If it can tether in LR Pentax won't be able to keep up with demand.
I'm still happy with my 645D tethered via Eyefi to an iPad but the Z has got my attention.
is the 645d very fast to tether? can you shoot 20-30 shots at full speed and not wait that long to see the 30th shot? this is a big deal for me. at the moment i can shoot that fast with a canon and it doesn't get too far behind. even faster if i force the camera to only shoot at 3fps...
i guess the files are only a little bigger, but if everything else is twice as fast then it has potential
paul
-
has anyone seen a pic of the viewfinder display? keen to see if the af points are around a wide area of the display.
cheers paul
-
Maybe not, but Phase didn't *need* to price at 3x Pentax, when the comparison between a Pentax body and a Phase body is not necessarily in their favor ;)
Hi Edmund,
I think Phase One and Pentax will serve a different market segment.
People willing to spend the money will also buy into the Phase upgrade programs and have a dealer network with replacement models (for on the job calamities) available. They also have Capture One which might not offer much quality for Pentax users.
People going for the Pentax will probably never invest the amount of money required for 'a Phase' (back + camera) upfront, and have to accept a somewhat lower level of dealer support for a more affordable purchase price.
One concern I have is the 645Z Raw conversion quality. It would be really mature of Phase One if they would support the 645Z PEF Raw format. They would probably sell more Capture One packages/upgrades than they would ever sell their digital backs to the same people, so probably also commercially a good move. All they need to do is make sure that there is a (perceived and real) benefit for the more affluent users of their backs to spend more money. Support network, customer programs, loan equipment, upgrade programs, excellent Raw conversion (and there are still some improvements possible in Capture One).
Cheers,
Bart
-
One concern I have is the 645Z Raw conversion quality. It would be really mature of Phase One if they would support the 645Z PEF Raw format. They would probably sell more Capture One packages/upgrades than they would ever sell their digital backs to the same people, so probably also commercially a good move. All they need to do is make sure that there is a (perceived and real) benefit for the more affluent users of their backs to spend more money. Support network, customer programs, loan equipment, upgrade programs, excellent Raw conversion (and there are still some improvements possible in Capture One).
Yes... but they didn't want to support the 645D that they apparently considered to be a competitor, let's indeed hope they will change their mind.
My guess is that a high pourcentage of 645Z buyers would end up using Capture One if it did support the 645Z.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm pretty impressed and excited... affordable easy to use all-around medium format. If I wasn't a tech cam shooter I'd probably be all over this. It has enough DSLR-like features for me so I could probably sell my Canon system and just have a 645Z, which makes it cheaper still, one system is less costly than two :).
Lenses are not exactly cheap though, and I wonder about their performance.
On the other hand a Nikon system with Otus lenses is not going to be exactly cheap either. I wonder how a 645Z camera with Pentax lenses compare to that in pixel peep resolution :)
Now I just want to see an even cheaper Sony mirrorless with this sensor, it would be usable for tech cam table top photography too, like A7r is today.
With this Hasselblad's, Phase One's and Leica's pricing just look even more crazy.
-
has anyone seen a pic of the viewfinder display? keen to see if the af points are around a wide area of the display.
cheers paul
Second that It could be great or it could be not so good (as the D600) or it could be totally underwhelming. Since the sensor is not that big (compared to full frame 35mm) I will hope that is the second option, but we will like to know.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
I'm pretty impressed and excited... affordable easy to use all-around medium format. If I wasn't a tech cam shooter I'd probably be all over this. It has enough DSLR-like features for me so I could probably sell my Canon system and just have a 645Z, which makes it cheaper still, one system is less costly than two :).
Lenses are not exactly cheap though, and I wonder about their performance.
On the other hand a Nikon system with Otus lenses is not going to be exactly cheap either. I wonder how a 645Z camera with Pentax lenses compare to that in pixel peep resolution :)
Now I just want to see an even cheaper Sony mirrorless with this sensor, it would be usable for tech cam table top photography too, like A7r is today.
With this Hasselblad's, Phase One's and Leica's pricing just look even more crazy.
Yeah, tech cams are still king for landscapes. The problem with the 645D and now the 645Z is that there are no wide angle tilt / shift lenses available. 45mm is not wide enough.
Also, yes the Otus 55mm lens is impressive…on a tripod. It is VERY hard to consistently accurately focus a 55mm f1.4 lens @ f1.4 handheld. I think it works best on a camera with an EVF (focus peaking and zoom focus). Once you start missing focus then the optical advantage over other 50mm lenses is all but gone. (you still have the nice bokeh though and rendering characteristics) Also, Zeiss should make Otus wide angle lenses which is the lens range most in need of improvement on the 36mp DSLR's and ILMC's.
IMHO Pentax should have made the 645Z mirror less. It would have opened up a world of lenses usable on it.
-
Yeah, tech cams are still king for landscapes. The problem with the 645D and now the 645Z is that there are no wide angle tilt / shift lenses available. 45mm is not wide enough.
Also, yes the Otus 55mm lens is impressive…on a tripod. It is VERY hard to consistently accurately focus a 55mm f1.4 lens @ f1.4 handheld.
In fact, live view on a DSLR like the D800 can be used with pretty good results hand held with the Otus at f1.4. It may be doable also with the 645Z, although it is pretty heavy.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2811/13833540695_4785dc4903_o.jpg)
It is also reasonably easy to focus handheld compared to most other lenses, but I agree, it is not 100% reliable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The problem with the 645D and now the 645Z is that there are no wide angle tilt / shift lenses available. 45mm is not wide enough.
There is/soon will be a 35/3.5 available, if that helps.
Edit: Oh, and a 25/4.
-
Hello,
does anyone know wether the 645Z needs a "dark exposure" after each bulb longtime exposure?
e.g. 10s bulb exposure-> 10s waiting :( ???
Thank you in advance!
Barkeeper
-
Ricoh is a going japanese camera concern, so it's pretty obvious that if the 645Z sells, there will be a cascade of new lenses, adapters, accessories etc. and probably new bodies or tech backs dropping out of the mothership and homing in on niche markets. Japanese companies are really good at product proliferation once sales of the base product take off.
One interesting question is whether the 645Z HD video will have some special "look" which will make it attractive for some productions.
Edmund
-
Focus points in a diagram here. http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/feature/02.html
USB 3.0 tethering here. http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/feature/05.html
-
This thing even has sensor auto-cleaning
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/feature/03.html
A modern MF camera - what are we going to get next? a politician who cares about jobs?
I have a nasty suspicion that if the product is successful the price might go ... down.
Edmund
-
To me, it seems pretty straightforward that you can buy (3) $8,500 Pentax 645Z cameras and still have some spare change left over vs. buying (1) IQ250 1-lens system...
That would leave you with (2) extra backup bodies, just in case you need to service one. Heck, you'd still have a backup body if you sent in the first, leaving you with "only 2"...
Heck, buy 2 bodies, so you have a backup, and you won't have to wait that ~24-48hr period for your "loaner" body to arrive on location ::)
Is it just me that the above seems logical? I'm interested in checking this camera out when it finally launches. I prefer to shoot film, but now traveling for work, digital is a much more competent choice due to lack of labs and time to get things processed. I really like the Pentax 645NII system, just wish this 645Z took a traditional screw-in cable release like the 645NII does...
-Dan
-
I think the other shoe is about to drop, people are going to realize that price is irrelevant, if you want a crop-MF SLR then the Pentax is actually the most modern camera of the bunch now on sale. It's a bit like comparing an old prestige hotel with a modern hotel block - marble staircases and high ceilings are great, but sometimes you want airconditioning and a working wifi connection.
Edmund
To me, it seems pretty straightforward that you can buy (3) $8,500 Pentax 645Z cameras and still have some spare change left over vs. buying (1) IQ250 1-lens system...
That would leave you with (2) extra backup bodies, just in case you need to service one. Heck, you'd still have a backup body if you sent in the first, leaving you with "only 2"...
Heck, buy 2 bodies, so you have a backup, and you won't have to wait that ~24-48hr period for your "loaner" body to arrive on location ::)
Is it just me that the above seems logical? I'm interested in checking this camera out when it finally launches. I prefer to shoot film, but now traveling for work, digital is a much more competent choice due to lack of labs and time to get things processed. I really like the Pentax 645NII system, just wish this 645Z took a traditional screw-in cable release like the 645NII does...
-Dan
-
looking at the Pentax/Ricoh link it looks like they are taking this camera seriously and putting some weight behind it. the pic of the photographer in the studio tethered to a computer and looking at his Eizo screen was exactly what i wanted to see not just example pics of pagodas and cherry blossom to satisfy the home market.
some very impressive features too like the multi zone AF, the tilting screen, focus peaking etc.
i look at this camera and think that it should be £30k and the phase model with it’s archaic camera body and glacial rate of improvements that should be £8k
i wonder which U.K. rental house cracks first? Pro-center (H/Blad owned) have some phase kit but are unlikely to go there and pear tree (leaf) probably not either but it wouldn’t surprise me to see calumet dip their toe in the water
-
....................... I really like the Pentax 645NII system, just wish this 645Z took a traditional screw-in cable release like the 645NII does...
-Dan
Dan,
Get this for $25US; it's better than a cable release.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/688838-REG/Pentax_39892_Waterproof_Infrared_Remote_Control.html
-
looking at the Pentax/Ricoh link it looks like they are taking this camera seriously and putting some weight behind it. the pic of the photographer in the studio tethered to a computer and looking at his Eizo screen was exactly what i wanted to see not just example pics of pagodas and cherry blossom to satisfy the home market.
some very impressive features too like the multi zone AF, the tilting screen, focus peaking etc.
i look at this camera and think that it should be £30k and the phase model with it’s archaic camera body and glacial rate of improvements that should be £8k
i wonder which U.K. rental house cracks first? Pro-center (H/Blad owned) have some phase kit but are unlikely to go there and pear tree (leaf) probably not either but it wouldn’t surprise me to see calumet dip their toe in the water
My forecast is that in a year's time Phase will be out of the general market, and selling well to ... industrial, airplane survey and institutional users, who neither need nor want SLR features.
Edmund
-
i just priced the body, 45mm 2:8, short zoom (35-55?) 75mm, 120mm macro and the 150 2:8 and it came to £10,000 (ex vat)
:o
-
I never regretted selling my Phase/Leaf stuff about a year ago and getting a D800 with a couple of fine lenses instead.
MF became history for me - after roughly 20 years of working with this format. Too many disadvantages, too high costs, 4 weeks for a little service (sensor adjustment that has to be done in Israel) that cost me almost 800 Euro, connection problems...
Now i'm getting tempted again. Sounds like a great new camera.
the only thing i'm missing are leaf shutter lenses.
and: are the available lenses up to the sensor?
-
This thing even has sensor auto-cleaning
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/feature/03.html
.........
Edmund
Edmund,
It works too. I've had the 645D for 3.5 years and it's used mostly outside. I have never had to clean the sensor, it cleans itself (it will also map out bad pixels).
Tom
-
Re: the AF coverage on the 645Z
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870)
-- this is from a Pentax US employee.
The same AF array component from their latest APS-C dSLR is used in the 645Z, so the coverage is pretty much crowed into the centre area.
The Imaging-Resource coverage may also be of interest:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870)
-
To me, it seems pretty straightforward that you can buy (3) $8,500 Pentax 645Z cameras and still have some spare change left over vs. buying (1) IQ250 1-lens system...
At $34,990 for the IQ250 you can actually buy 4 Pentax 645Z cameras... and you get a modern body...
Even if Phase One delivers the perfect new body with Photokina, there simply is no justification whatsoever for the price difference.
-
At $34,990 for the IQ250 you can actually buy 4 Pentax 645Z cameras... and you get a modern body...
Even if Phase One delivers the perfect new body with Photokina, there simply is no justification whatsoever for the price difference.
Once enough pros go over to the Pentax camp the Phase "aura" will be gone, and then Phase will be stuck competing against a product which may well be better at a quarter of their price ...
Edmund
-
Uk price for phase 645df body £4475 (comes with free strap)
Uk price for 645z body £5665 (comes with free 50mp sensor)
so a sony 50mp sensor only costs £1000? (allowing a little bit for an up to date AF, weather sealing etc)
you would think with the the growth in sales after 2009 plus all that venture capital investment not to mention the serious profit margins there must be with a £1k sensor mated to warmed over camera/back technology (remind if usb3 works yet??) selling for 30k that phase must have a serious all singing and dancing camera body waiting in the wings?
-
Once enough pros go over to the Pentax camp the Phase "aura" will be gone, and then Phase will be stuck competing against a product which may well be better at a quarter of their price ...
Edmund
It would be really great if Pentax would produce a separate digital back as well.
-
At $34,990 for the IQ250 you can actually buy 4 Pentax 645Z cameras... and you get a modern body...
Even if Phase One delivers the perfect new body with Photokina, there simply is no justification whatsoever for the price difference.
$35k vs $8.5k:
I know, but I was also factoring in(with the "spare change" difference in money) a few lenses being purchased, like the 25/f4, etc..
Also, depending on what state you reside in, sales tax(usually 7-10%). I'm just glad I don't(currently) live in the EU, with VAT added to pretty much everything >:(
To me, the "perfect"(or as close to it) MFD body is the Hy6 Mod2. I wish P1 would offer their backs in that mount. Basically a modernized Hasselblad V system IMO, with a motor winder and autofocus. Oh, and those sexy-as-hell-bitingly-sharp Schneider lenses... And don't get me started on that super comfortable articulating hand grip...
I wish Pentax/Ricoh much success with this new model, looking at the specs and their marketing campaign to date, I think they're pushing hard for this to become a major player in the pro scene worldwide, not just in the home market of landscape shooters.
-Dan
-
Long faces in the Phase and Blad canteens.
Hi Keith,
Not necessarily. This is a great opportunity for Phase One / Hasselblad to demonstrate the differences in equipment/lens line-up, services, support network when on the road, upgrade programs, Raw conversion quality, etc.. A digital back is more than just a sensor.
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's right Bart. And I'm not going to replace my IQ160 with Pentax. It's still much bigger sensor, I can put it on tech cam and use Digitar lenses, I can use Capture One.
But, it's nice to see that competition is growing which can lead to great changes in future (especially price changes).
-
Pentax has a huge advantage by having consumer DSLRs to borrow technology from. Development of most electronics can be financed by the consumer products. With CMOS it's easy to just change the sensor size, moreso than with CCD (which seems to need black magic analog circuitry to work well).
Hasselblad and and Phase One don't have that, making development costs focused on a much smaller sales volume, ie much higher prices to the end customer. I'm not sure Hasselblad or Phase One can lower prices even if they wanted to. They're stuck in their small-volume + high-cost business model.
I don't think the 645Z will be a huge hit and game-changer over night, but as user-base grow, get some more lenses, maybe fine-tuned raw conversions etc, it may be a very tough competitor for Hasselblad and Phase One. They still have 645 full-frame though for those that need that, and tech cam space.
-
If there is a Contax fit P1 IQ250 S/H back for sale, I offer a little more than a new Pentax for it... I guess it's a smashing offer that "one can't refuse" ::) :D ...I doubt they'll find another one so tempting again! :-X ;D
-
Re: the AF coverage on the 645Z
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870)
-- this is from a Pentax US employee.
The same AF array component from their latest APS-C dSLR is used in the 645Z, so the coverage is pretty much crowed into the centre area.
The Imaging-Resource coverage may also be of interest:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870)
Thanks,
I was concern since Pentax does not have a 35mm full frame flagship to borrow the array from.
In the other hand this camera is superior to any other CMOS MF camera in so many ways. It lacks Technical camera support and the composition capabilities of the Hasselblads but hardly any thing more.
The other question is the lenses: As we knew and the DXO team have proven we really need good lenses to make the difference between a high resolution chip and one that is not.
Medium format is less demanding on the lenses than full frame DSLR (or APC) and 50mpixels is not that much so it may not be an issue.
The camera is so far ahead that even if it costed 25k will be difficult to justify the other guys pricing.
The MF vendors need to react, before they become the MF version of the Lunar. (or worse since the Hasselblad is not an antique, even if is not state of the art)
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
Aloha,
Just OMG why freaking quibble, this camera is going to rock, just like the first one only better, cant freaking wait!
And the cherry on top- the new 24-70 zoom, I might just break down from only primes and get it.
Maybe they did something with the AF points as the first cameras point selection is a bit narrow...
-
Nice camera! Samples look a little soft compared to my DP2M but down-ressed to 15MP they should be plenty sharp (among other available sharpening constructs/workflows).
That said, the samples look brilliant. I also love that they've posted full size samples.
I can't help but wonder what the SD1 Quattro will bring to the table.
Disclaimer: I'm Medium Format illiterate.
-
Nice camera! Samples look a little soft compared to my DP2M but down-ressed to 15MP they should be plenty sharp (among other available sharpening constructs/workflows).
I actually think that the samples look horrible compared to what the camera is capable of. I have the first model and the raws are certainly sharper, especially when it comes to picking up micro details. The best sample out of all of those is the second image of the girl. You can tell the detail is picked up by the lens but blurred over by some sort of jpg processing. The landscape shot with the 55mm lens could be a lot sharper. Again, I assume this is the jpg processing out of the camera and has nothing to do with the actual raw output. The jpg samples from the D800e that nikon posted at launch were grim looking as well. Pixel for pixel none of those cameras will beat the DP2M. Considering the merrill has considerably fewer pixels in it's final image, it's enlargement capabilities will not match a 50mp or even 40mp file.
I'm excited for this update and will probably upgrade to the new body this year.
-
And.... the Japanese kill the European camera industry all over again.
-
I actually think that the samples look horrible compared to what the camera is capable of. I have the first model and the raws are certainly sharper, especially when it comes to picking up micro details. The best sample out of all of those is the second image of the girl. You can tell the detail is picked up by the lens but blurred over by some sort of jpg processing. The landscape shot with the 55mm lens could be a lot sharper. Again, I assume this is the jpg processing out of the camera and has nothing to do with the actual raw output. The jpg samples from the D800e that nikon posted at launch were grim looking as well. Pixel for pixel none of those cameras will beat the DP2M. Considering the merrill has considerably fewer pixels in it's final image, it's enlargement capabilities will not match a 50mp or even 40mp file.
I'm excited for this update and will probably upgrade to the new body this year.
I agree, that's the kind of observations I made when I went through the samples myself.
As interesting as this development is, as I mentioned, I can absolutely not wait to see what Sigma delivers with the DP1Q.
-
And.... the Japanese kill the European camera industry all over again.
Hmmm. Very definitive statement.
It sounds like a lot of comments when the 645D Mark 1 was released.
Since then Phase One unit sales, sales volume, and profit are all up year over year.
-
The samples are unbelievably bad, and incredibly soft, but I'm 99% sure this is due to the out-of-camera JPEG quality. I'm sure RAW will be way better. And who's samples HAVEN'T been bad? They're always bad.
If they release their own digital back for even less, that would be awesome, but unlikely. They never released a 645D digital back. Doh.
-
Hmmm. Very definitive statement.
It sounds like a lot of comments when the 645D Mark 1 was released.
Since then Phase One unit sales, sales volume, and profit are all up year over year.
Agree, but I was not impressed by the first one except in terms of price. This one is , in paper, impressive. I hope Phase and Hasselblad are taking this machine
seriously.
There are tipping points, not sure this is one but it should be close. The next generation Phase One camera better be good.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
Hmmm. Very definitive statement.
It sounds like a lot of comments when the 645D Mark 1 was released.
Since then Phase One unit sales, sales volume, and profit are all up year over year.
The situation is completely different than it was back then Doug... :P At those days, Pentax used an inferior sensor to Dalsa's 40mp, in fact I don't think that the Kodak 40mp was any better than Kodak's 31mp sensor and people could get P30+ backs at comparable prices to the Pentax camera... Then, the line of modern lenses designed for digital that Pentax offered was pretty limited... :-[ Now it is a completely different situation, sensor is the same as with IQ250, line of lenses is great, the camera is even cheaper than the previous introduction and it even shoots video... at 30% price from the nearest (complete) camera alternative, which happens to be the Hassy! ::) How much is a complete camera with IQ250 Doug? ...how much is the 25mm P1 lens? ...no, I'm not asking for the 28. ;)
-
Sales can be up by finding new markets, like industrial, luxury markets in the east etc. I wonder how the sales are going in the traditional western markets, if they're been up there too. Seems like there's been many moves both from and to medium format, so it's hard to say without having the numbers.
I would not be surprised though if the rise in Phase One's good numbers is mostly thanks to new markets rather than going well in the old.
-
The thing is that the 645z very much looks like the last camera most people would ever need.
Heck, it will offer near 4x5 image quality hand held at ISO6400 with anti-vibration... and you can do that in a downpour without having to care about anything but your own feet getting wet...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Re: the AF coverage on the 645Z
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870)
-- this is from a Pentax US employee.
The same AF array component from their latest APS-C dSLR is used in the 645Z, so the coverage is pretty much crowed into the centre area.
The Imaging-Resource coverage may also be of interest:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870 (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53499870)
thanks for the info. this is a disappointment- this is a major weakness of any medium format (I've owned most), i guess only 20% of photos in advertising has the subject anywhere near the centre, and it a right pain and adds inaccuracy to focus/ recompose every time. this is where the dslrs have this almost solved (although they need more coverage too).
paul
-
I always knew this day was coming (it ought to). For some reasons beyond my comprehension, digital medium format back manufacturers almost drove the professional's favorite gear to extinction with their ridiculous bussines and pricing format. I'm very glad Pentax and Sony came to the rescue. Some others will come soon. Finally we can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Fellow photographers: It was a long cold lonely night! Congratulations everybody!
Best
Eduardo
Long faces in the Phase and Blad canteens.
-
MFD engineering for CCD chips relied on crafting a good analog front end and doing clean conversion. You could compete partly on the basis of whether you did that well or not.
But the new MFD Exmor is different. It does all of that on-chip, and delivers digital at the pin-outs. In large part, the "look" is baked in before the camera ever reads it off the sensor.
If P/L/H are going to claim they offer $20,000-$28,000 more value for the same imaging pipeline, they will have to make a strong case. I'm not saying they can't do it. But I am saying it's a different game than before.
-
I believe the consequences from this release at that price will be more than we possibly may expect at first site:
1. Existing new MF products price will drop.
2. S/H market prices of older digital MF will be significantly reduced
3. There is no market anymore for expensive FF (like 1Ds or D3x)
4. Hasselblad V&F lenses will find a new home via adapter, other 6x6 lenses with aperture ring also...
5. Leica S sales will be also affected - It is almost certain now that they 'll have to have a Cmos sensor for the S, Cmosis is the logical source...
6. MF market will rise considerably
7. Hasselblad will have no choice but to "re-open" the H system...
8. 54x40.5 Cmos sensors are to be expected soon...
I am sure more possible consequences will be suggested by others...
-
How about ... things going back to normal? :D
For example: At least one MF camera in every studio.
Eduardo
I am sure more possible consequences will be suggested by others...
[/quote]
-
How about a 100-120mp 16bit back with poor live view, no long exposures, unusable above 100asa and £35k?
Isn't that what MFD customers want? Only that looked the way things were going before the applecart got upset.
-
If P/L/H are going to claim they offer $20,000-$28,000 more value for the same imaging pipeline, they will have to make a strong case. I'm not saying they can't do it. But I am saying it's a different game than before.
There are still unique values for backs: ability to mount on technical cameras, shutter leaf lenses, tethering, excellent support from VARs, their very price and the corresponding induced feeling to own the best,...
Now, I am not sure that a majority of MFDB owners really use those possibilities much. My guess is that a majority of non pro owners just buy a DF camera or a HxD and just shoot with it the same way they would shoot with a DSLR.
For that important segment, the 645Z does appear to provide much better value and possibly also better performance as a system depending on your applications. It is very obvious for landscape work, would it only be thanks to its rugged construction.
Now, an interesting side effect of Pentax adopting Exmor technology is the more widespread acknowledgement that some 35mm sensors, such as that of the D800/a7r, do provide equal if not better pixel quality than much more expensive backs. ;)
Now, 51mp and 36mp are not that different for most applications, in fact they are pretty much the same if stitching is added to the picture. This means that the 6,800 US$ D800E + Zeiss Otus55mm f1.4 is de facto made into a credible competitor of the the 37,000 US$ IQ250 + 80mm f2.8. I am unclear which of the 2 delivers the sweetest images... in fact I am pretty sure that the rendering of the Otus is nicer and that the actual detail is superior at wider apertures, regardless of the lower sensor resolution. We would need DxOMark to test the P1 80mm f2.8 on the UQ250 to be sure.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
MFD engineering for CCD chips relied on crafting a good analog front end and doing clean conversion. You could compete partly on the basis of whether you did that well or not.
But the new MFD Exmor is different. It does all of that on-chip, and delivers digital at the pin-outs. In large part, the "look" is baked in before the camera ever reads it off the sensor.
If P/L/H are going to claim they offer $20,000-$28,000 more value for the same imaging pipeline, they will have to make a strong case. I'm not saying they can't do it. But I am saying it's a different game than before.
There are still variations in implementation. With the CMOS chips, image quality still depends on stuff like thermal dissipation, and some filtering. And of course fps, buffer and video depend on what you are prepared to spend. From the specs, my impression is that Pentax are actually using a fairly sophisticated and expensive design compared to Hassy and Phase; it remains to be seen whether everything really works in practice, or whether the tenth shot inside the church and low-light video is in fact drowned out by noise.
The one thing which we can all agree on is that the Pentax body and pricing will really hurt the Phase enthusiast and general pro market, and Pentax sales will be good. The sound on this forum shows that. The 645Z is not going to be ignored like the 645D.
Edmund
-
Sales can be up by finding new markets, like industrial, luxury markets in the east etc. I wonder how the sales are going in the traditional western markets, if they're been up there too. Seems like there's been many moves both from and to medium format, so it's hard to say without having the numbers.
I would not be surprised though if the rise in Phase One's good numbers is mostly thanks to new markets rather than going well in the old.
NYC is up year-over-year since I arrived here, with growth seen in both traditional commercial (fashion/catalog/portrait/still-life/architecture), fine art, enthusiasts, and our "new" market (though we've done it for years) of cultural heritage imaging (http://www.dtdch.com/).
-
3. There is no market anymore for expensive FF (like 1Ds or D3x)
"no market"?
Genres like Photojournalism (especially in rugged environments) and sports/action will still have the same use for a high-speed, built-like-a-tank, low-light-performance, super-AF-tracking bodies like a 1DX.
Also I feel the 5DIII feels like cheap junk when held compared to a 1Ds III. If it was my main camera, rather than backup/second camera on a wedding I'd much rather have the 1DX than the 5DIII/D800 (my choice for a backup camera is very influenced by weight, especially since I'm carrying a medium format camera as the primary camera).
-
Fellow photographers: It was a long cold lonely night! Congratulations everybody!
So you'll be buying one?
-
So you'll be buying one?
Doug, it may be time to become a Pentax dealer to supplement your day job as a marriage photographer :)
BTW, the last three companies I worked for went broke - there seems to be no stability anymore ...
Edmund
-
I am sure more possible consequences will be suggested by others...
we are due for next big recession soon... somebody shall not see it through....
-
I didn't realize P1s and Hasseys are flying off the shelves. Hmm. I will say one of the worst lenses I ever used was the HC 35mm---fine for interiors, not fine at infinity. My Sony a850/Zeiss 24-70 rendered much better IQ at 24mm. I'd even go so far to say that the Tokina APS 11-16 @ 16mm on an a850 produced better files than the HC35 mounted on an HDX. The 50 I was another dog. Lenses often trump sensor size. I see the Pentax 645Z being a game changer--similarly to how the original Canon 5D was a game changer.
-
NYC is up year-over-year since I arrived here [...]
That's because there's a sign at the tunnel and bridge entrances that says "You must be THIS rich to ride this city."
I know you work hard for the money Doug. If there is a minor price war in the offing, I hope you are the one to make out on it.
-
Doug, it may be time to become a Pentax dealer to supplement your day job as a marriage photographer :)
BTW, the last three companies I worked for went broke - there seems to be no stability anymore ...
Edmund
Edmund.
Given that last sentence I don't know if I would take career advice from you.
Doug,
Your arguing with the wind man. 90% of the people here that say they love this Pentax won't buy it, once they count the numbers of adding a new lens set and some kind of backup body, that's not a 5d something.
Me, I'm glad everyone is hot for the cmos world, that just leaves one more Leica S available on the shelf.
IMO
BC
-
Edmund.
Given that last sentence I don't know if I would take career advice from you.
Doug,
Your arguing with the wind man. 90% of the people here that say they love this Pentax won't buy it, once they count the numbers of adding a new lens set and some kind of backup body, that's not a 5d something.
Me, I'm glad everyone is hot for the cmos world, that just leaves one more Leica S available on the shelf.
IMO
BC
Just wait for Photokina, the CCD Leicas will get thrown out of rich guy's windows like chamberpots, as they buy the new CMOS versions :)
Edmund
-
Not for the moment. I'm on a sabbatical till further notice. Still, excited about it and following closely these developments. I closed my studio over a year ago and moved to paradise. I don't know exactly what to do next. I may open the studio again or decide to totally get into landscape photo, even if it is harder to make money with this. Since I don't have any urgency, I'll wait for Photokina and see. If this Pentax was a mirrorless body, I would be putting my order today.
Good luck to you all. Like someone just said: The game is the same. Just the options changed.
Best
Eduardo
So you'll be buying one?
-
Hi,
Those cameras don't compete with MF at all. 1Ds is about robustness and high speed shooting at high ISO, D3X is 24 MP sensor in heavy duty body.
D800E and Sony A7r are the closest thing to MF, right now.
I guess that the 645Z makes room for some expansion for MF. It also shows that the competition is overpriced. It seems that this may be a serious attempt by Ricoh to stay in the MF segment, as many lenses seem to be available.
A digital back offers more options, but I don't know if that is enough to motivate a 20000-30000$ difference in price.
Best regards
Erik
3. There is no market anymore for expensive FF (like 1Ds or D3x)
-
I will be interesting to see if solutions like Camranger/DxO/... support the 645Z.
A major value of more standard solutions is that they are typically supported by a much wider eco-system of creative solutions.
The potential of Prime noise reduction and perfect distorsion correction on 645Z files would open new doors for hand held architectural work, the popular "free style".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"no market"?
Genres like Photojournalism (especially in rugged environments) and sports/action will still have the same use for a high-speed, built-like-a-tank, low-light-performance, super-AF-tracking bodies like a 1DX.
Also I feel the 5DIII feels like cheap junk when held compared to a 1Ds III. If it was my main camera, rather than backup/second camera on a wedding I'd much rather have the 1DX than the 5DIII/D800 (my choice for a backup camera is very influenced by weight, especially since I'm carrying a medium format camera as the primary camera).
I am clearly referring to 1DS & D3x... my comment has nothing to do with 1DX or D4/S... There is no room for these cameras (like 1DS or D3X) since they now have direct price competition from the "Z" (and with more LL ability) but also from cheaper cameras like D800... put it otherwise: "there is no room anymore for "slow" sensor on an "action" body"...
-
Hi,
Those cameras don't compete with MF at all. 1Ds is about robustness and high speed shooting at high ISO, D3X is 24 MP sensor in heavy duty body.
D800E and Sony A7r are the closest thing to MF, right now.
I guess that the 645Z makes room for some expansion for MF. It also shows that the competition is overpriced. It seems that this may be a serious attempt by Ricoh to stay in the MF segment, as many lenses seem to be available.
A digital back offers more options, but I don't know if that is enough to motivate a 20000-30000$ difference in price.
Best regards
Erik
1DS for LL photography? ...sure you didn't mistook it for 1DX? See for my reply to Doug above.
-
Even more now than before it's become obvious that you pay about $25k in "inefficiency tax" when you buy a Phase One back, ie you pay for that they can only sell in low volumes, they have no consumer products to borrow technology from, they have a dealer model that requires higher overhead. A product that should cost $10k or even less sells for $35k. The sales force need a great deal of skill and imagination to educate potential buyers what fantastic feature set you get for those extra $25k, or just turn to customers where a high price is not an issue (industrial, institutions), or even an advantage (luxury). I'm not worried about survival of Phase One's current business model just yet, it will be probably even more difficult to sell to the "struggling pro" market, but there are other markets to turn to.
I think it's quite hard though to make a digital back that would sell in volumes similar to what a Pentax 645Z can do. Only(?) tech cam users want detachable backs, and tech cam sales is a more complicated issue (involve more than one company, harder to use etc), especially today when this CMOS sensor don't do tech wides very well.
Hopefully Pentax or Sony will make a mirrorless CMOS MF camera sooner or later, then you have all tech cam table top photography (ie longer focal lengths) covered in a far more affordable package. For landscape/architecture tech cam photography including wides, we're still stuck on expensive CCD backs for yet some time...
-
I know you work hard for the money Doug.
So do a lot of working photographers, it's not exactly a 9-5 job if it's your sole source of income. Even Doug has to supplement his wedding income by working in sales.
Which is why a good value digital solution that keeps £20k in the bank is not to be dismissed.
If I need a tech-cam I'll hire and the dealer can deliver it in their SUV and give me a branded truckers cap and USB stick as a little thankyou so I can feel good about the 'value added package'
-
I have a 645D and can offer some comment on a few of the lenses being re-released:
The standard 55mm FA weatherproof lens is good to very good.
The 35mm FA lens is the sharpest, most aberration free wide angle lens I have used on any format.
Similarly, the 75mm FA and 120mm FA macro lenses are two of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. I particularly like the contrast & colour with the 35mm & 120mm lenses. Not sure what it is about them, but I have an 80mm wide angle grandagon lens as part of my now unused 4x5 kit, and it used to give me the most beautiful colour rendition, and these two pentax lenses remind me a bit of that.
The 200mm FA lens is ok. It is fine for portraits, but I have yet to get the best results for landscape images.
I have not tried the 25mm because the price for me is a bit high.
-
Talking about IQ250 being an MFDB, while "Z" being a camera, I wonder what sales Pentax would achieve if they decided to sell an MFDB specified like the "Z" for all Contax, Mamiya, H1/2/2F/4X, V and the like... ;) Maybe a version of their 25mm lens too for Contax could be a good idea... :o This would bring tears on many current makers :'(, would increase profits for Pentax considerably :D, would provide a cheap solution for view and tech cameras with high ISO capabilities ;D and would give the MF market a new boost ::) ...not that the competition would love such a decision from Pentax :-[, could make them very angry indeed... ??? Could even make Sony aim for a 54x40.5 sensor for them to have a second version of the back... 8)
I wouldn't like to be a P1 shareholder having in mind that it would cost them insignificantly to make such a decision at no time... Maybe I would even expect them to try and resurrect Contax and have a single line of lenses for both cameras... :-*
-
just had a look at some of the samples, nice to see some cherry blossom but no pagoda :’(
all the jpegs look poor because they are jpegs and with some fringing C/A but the high iso examples look potentially very good
-
The specs have impressed me so much I nearly find myself saying I want one or I'm getting one.
Not an impossibility, but I hesitate, history has shown me it probably will not happen for me.
In lots of ways this is the biggest threat to Canon, more so than the D800. Switching back and forth from one 35mm system to the other as each betters the other is a game for fools. Changing to a MF could be considered a step up the food chain for a lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly, I can see a lot of Canon shooters considering this.
Canon have been squeezing the last drop of goodness out of their technology for a long time, now is the time for the next generation. I keep getting the feeling they have something up their corporate sleeve, I just wonder if it might be a Foveon type sensor. Sigma have shown the strength and weakness of the type. Now if Canon had got one to perform more like the cmos we all use, ironing out or at least smoothing some of the Foveon flaws, we would have a great studio/landscape camera. We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
I just know if I switch to a Pentax MF system, Canon will announce the camera I didn't know I wanted.
-
We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
:D :D
-
The specs have impressed me so much I nearly find myself saying I want one or I'm getting one.
Not an impossibility, but I hesitate, history has shown me it probably will not happen for me.
In lots of ways this is the biggest threat to Canon, more so than the D800. Switching back and forth from one 35mm system to the other as each betters the other is a game for fools. Changing to a MF could be considered a step up the food chain for a lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly, I can see a lot of Canon shooters considering this.
Canon have been squeezing the last drop of goodness out of their technology for a long time, now is the time for the next generation. I keep getting the feeling they have something up their corporate sleeve, I just wonder if it might be a Foveon type sensor. Sigma have shown the strength and weakness of the type. Now if Canon had got one to perform more like the cmos we all use, ironing out or at least smoothing some of the Foveon flaws, we would have a great studio/landscape camera. We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
I just know if I switch to a Pentax MF system, Canon will announce the camera I didn't know I wanted.
Pretty much in the same boat as you. I cant keep waiting around though. New technology will always be coming out with 'better' things. Just have to take the leap sometimes :)
-
Hmmm. Very definitive statement.
It sounds like a lot of comments when the 645D Mark 1 was released.
Since then Phase One unit sales, sales volume, and profit are all up year over year.
Not an entirely serious statement Doug ! Though I do think there will be some painful discussions at Phase and Hasselblad this week.
Now we know someone can put the exact same sensor in a camera for around $8000, its very hard to swallow their $25,000+ mark up, for an inferior camera body/outfit. Impossible for anyone to justify I would say. (And I say this as a Phase One user for 8+ years, with 3 upgrades)
-
I know somebody with a p45/HBlad 500 and and all the lenses from 45-150.
Phase will give him a generous 10k trade-in for an IQ-250 and you now have access to usable high iso and live view so you can finally shoot those lenses wide open (focus is very hit and miss on a 500)
or you could keep your p45 and for half the money of the phase upgrade you could have a pentax system that covers the same focal lengths (bit wider to make up for crop)
i’m struggling to think why you would pay double and gain very little? not everyones situation is the same but there must be a fair few people who were contemplating an IQ-250 upgrade who are thinking again?
-
Talking about IQ250 being an MFDB, while "Z" being a camera, I wonder what sales Pentax would achieve if they decided to sell an MFDB specified like the "Z" for all Contax, Mamiya, H1/2/2F/4X, V and the like...
My guess is that Pentax is getting little profit from the digital part of the system (most of those profits going instead to Sony), with the goal instead being to increase overall sales of lenses and the non-digital parts of the body; the parts that Pentax itself designs and makes. The unit profit margin on MF lenses is probably quite high, as needed to defray R&D costs over relatively low unit sales, so anything that increases those lens sales, especially on existing lenses on which the R&D costs have already been incurred, is very desirable.
The clear trend in the DMF business has been towards needing profits from lenses, bodes and such, not just from the sensor plus electronics part that goes into to DMF back. The four main companies that formerly made DMF backs but did not sell their own lens and body system all eventually abandoned that business model, either by joining with a body and lens system (Phase One, Imacon, Leaf), or by abandoning DMF entirely (Kodak). A Kodak rep. explained that it had to abandon the digital back and DSLR body markets because it was not profitable for them without the follow-on income from lens sales. That was already true in the era of CCD sensors, where that back-makers had a lot to contribute with the support electronics for analog signal processing and conversion to digital; it becomes even more so when all that is handled by the sensor maker and done on the sensor chip, pushing the "added value" to other more traditional parts of the body, the lenses, support services, etc.
So sadly, that last thing that Pentax or any DMF maker wants to put a lot of R&D resources into is helping people to use some other brand of lenses or bodies!
-
The specs have impressed me so much I nearly find myself saying I want one or I'm getting one.
Not an impossibility, but I hesitate, history has shown me it probably will not happen for me.
In lots of ways this is the biggest threat to Canon, more so than the D800. Switching back and forth from one 35mm system to the other as each betters the other is a game for fools. Changing to a MF could be considered a step up the food chain for a lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly, I can see a lot of Canon shooters considering this.
Canon have been squeezing the last drop of goodness out of their technology for a long time, now is the time for the next generation. I keep getting the feeling they have something up their corporate sleeve, I just wonder if it might be a Foveon type sensor. Sigma have shown the strength and weakness of the type. Now if Canon had got one to perform more like the cmos we all use, ironing out or at least smoothing some of the Foveon flaws, we would have a great studio/landscape camera. We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
I just know if I switch to a Pentax MF system, Canon will announce the camera I didn't know I wanted.
I am one of those fools, selling off most of my Canon equipment and moving to the 800 series Nikon's. Never looked back, as the 800 gave me what Canon can't, so for me it was easily justifiable. It's an individual decision for each photographer and I agree changing back again would make no sense as I really can't see ever needing more than I have with the 800 series.
Waiting on Canon to follow up their long used 20-21MP lineup to me may be the fools game.
Nikon, Pentax, Sony, all use Sony chips, and now so do Phase One and Hassi. Canon still fabs their own chips, and no doubt have had some trouble getting to the same level of DR of the 2012 Sony, 2013 Sony and now 2014 Sony Chips. Sure if they come out with a Foveon type chip, it may revolutionize everything again, however no one has yet to make one of these that performs very well in low light or can give the same range of DR of a single image that the Sony chips can. Canon is now getting surpassed even in video, with the new A7s now coming soon. Only Canon knows whats coming next and they are not talking for sure.
Competition is great, as it helps to keep prices down, and I would love to see Canon get a new chip set out, and hopefully they might in Sept at Photokina. However it still may not be available till 2015.
Paul
-
I know somebody with a p45/HBlad 500 and and all the lenses from 45-150.
Phase will give him a generous 10k trade-in for an IQ-250 and you now have access to usable high iso and live view so you can finally shoot those lenses wide open (focus is very hit and miss on a 500)
or you could keep your p45 and for half the money of the phase upgrade you could have a pentax system that covers the same focal lengths (bit wider to make up for crop)
i’m struggling to think why you would pay double and gain very little? not everyones situation is the same but there must be a fair few people who were contemplating an IQ-250 upgrade who are thinking again?
Or sell the P45+V combo... (for less than 2 months ago) and only buy a "Z" and adapter for your lenses...
-
I know somebody with a p45/HBlad 500 and and all the lenses from 45-150.
Phase will give him a generous 10k trade-in for an IQ-250 and you now have access to usable high iso and live view so you can finally shoot those lenses wide open (focus is very hit and miss on a 500)
or you could keep your p45 and for half the money of the phase upgrade you could have a pentax system that covers the same focal lengths (bit wider to make up for crop)
i’m struggling to think why you would pay double and gain very little?
If your friend likes shooting with the Pentax more than with his 500 series, and will not miss the features (1/500th flash sync, vertical shooting without turning camera, waist level viewfinder, robust professional tethering, Capture One support, etc) then he should absolutely go with the Pentax. If he wants to use his 500 series body and can justify the cost of the IQ250 (or an IQ160 which would bring many, but not all the advantages of the IQ250, and also have a larger sensor and slightly higher resolution) then he might want to do that.
The cost is a very important part of the equation, but it's just one part of the equation. You can't put a Pentax on the back of a 500 series and the 500 series doesn't have the autofocus of a Pentax. They are very very very different systems - both with advantages and disadvantages.
-
They are very very very different systems - both with advantages and disadvantages.
Doug, can your company then become a dealer for Pentax w/o any issues with P1 ?
-
Doug, can your company then become a dealer for Pentax w/o any issues with P1 ?
Hi,
Does Pentax even offer a dealer pricing and support structure?
Cheers,
Bart
-
My guess is that Pentax is getting little profit from the digital part of the system (most of those profits going instead to Sony), with the goal instead being to increase overall sales of lenses and the non-digital parts of the body; the parts that Pentax itself designs and makes. The unit profit margin on MF lenses is probably quite high, as needed to defray R&D costs over relatively low unit sales, so anything that increases those lens sales, especially on existing lenses on which the R&D costs have already been incurred, is very desirable.
The clear trend in the DMF business has been towards needing profits from lenses, bodes and such, not just from the sensor plus electronics part that goes into to DMF back. The four main companies that formerly made DMF backs but did not sell their own lens and body system all eventually abandoned that business model, either by joining with a body and lens system (Phase One, Imacon, Leaf), or by abandoning DMF entirely (Kodak). A Kodak rep. explained that it had to abandon the digital back and DSLR body markets because it was not profitable for them without the follow-on income from lens sales. That was already true in the era of CCD sensors, where that back-makers had a lot to contribute with the support electronics for analog signal processing and conversion to digital; it becomes even more so when all that is handled by the sensor maker and done on the sensor chip, pushing the "added value" to other more traditional parts of the body, the lenses, support services, etc.
So sadly, that last thing that Pentax or any DMF maker wants to put a lot of R&D resources into is helping people to use some other brand of lenses or bodies!
For Pentax, if adding an MFDB to their system currently, it would mean nothing against the "Z" sales (they would sell the same amount of cameras), it would require insignificant to consider development cost (most of the work that is required for an MFDB is included in the "Z" camera) and multiplying the digital part of the "Z" sales would mean more profit... Its not the same situation building MFDBs as if having a digital camera and add sales by making an MFDB out of the digital part of it... its rather the opposite, you decrease cost further by becoming the major customer for your sensor provider and by producing more products that require no further development.
-
If your friend likes shooting with the Pentax more than with his 500 series, and will not miss the features (1/500th flash sync, vertical shooting without turning camera, waist level viewfinder, robust professional tethering, Capture One support, etc) then he should absolutely go with the Pentax. If he wants to use his 500 series body and can justify the cost of the IQ250 (or an IQ160 which would bring many, but not all the advantages of the IQ250, and also have a larger sensor and slightly higher resolution) then he might want to do that.
The cost is a very important part of the equation, but it's just one part of the equation. You can't put a Pentax on the back of a 500 series and the 500 series doesn't have the autofocus of a Pentax. They are very very very different systems - both with advantages and disadvantages.
That's why I suggested that it would be sensible for Pentax to make a "Z" MFDB along with the camera... At 80% of the camera price it could mean no excuse for buying other... It could actually "finish" competition off the map...
-
Hi,
Does Pentax even offer a dealer pricing and support structure?
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart, the question IMO should be... "do they need one"? At the price they may use the service centres that they use for their current cameras and pro customers can buy double (again for the price) to have the support difference they may require "covered"...
-
For Pentax, if adding an MFDB to their system currently, it would mean nothing against the "Z" sales (they would sell the same amount of cameras),
You have completely overlooked my headline point, which is that offering a back for other bodies could cause Pentax to lose some highly profitable lens sales. More so since the Pentax 645 system has no body on which such a back could be used, so unlike Phase One or Sinar backs, and even more so Hasselblad backs, a Pentax back would be used solely with bodies and lenses from other makers. Remember that Kodak (and Leaf and Imacon and Phase One) eventually abandoned a business model without bodies, even with their backs already developed and in production: the situation would be worse for Pentax which would have some R&D expenses to launch a back, and would have to fight the likely lock-in efforts of the companies making DMF bodies, like proprietary back-to-body communication.
One possible alternative is that Ricoh could also invest in a more modular Pentax 645 body, one that accepts separate backs. But Pentax has never taken that approach with its 645 system, and I doubt that it would be seen as profitable now by the Ricoh management. (There would be the appeal of being able to use either a film or a digital back, but dampened by the format sizes being so different, so that different viewfinders would be highly desirable, and Pentax has also never had interchangeable viewfinders, so adding that option would be yet another R&D expense.)
-
You have completely overlooked my headline point, which is that offering a back for other bodies could cause Pentax to lose some highly profitable lens sales. More so since the Pentax 645 system has no body on which such a back could be used, so unlike Phase One or Sinar backs, and even more so Hasselblad backs, a Pentax back would be used solely with bodies and lenses from other makers. Remember that Kodak (and Leaf and Imacon and Phase One) eventually abandoned a business model without bodies, even with their backs already developed and in production: the situation would be worse for Pentax which would have some R&D expenses to launch a back, and would have to fight the likely lock-in efforts of the companies making DMF bodies, like proprietary back-to-body communication.
One possible alternative is that Ricoh could also invest in a more modular Pentax 645 body, one that accepts separate backs. But Pentax has never taken that approach with its 645 system, and I doubt that it would be seen as profitable now by the Ricoh management. (There would be the appeal of being able to use either a film or a digital back, but dampened by the format sizes being so different, so that different viewfinders would be highly desirable, and Pentax has also never had interchangeable viewfinders, so adding that option would be yet another R&D expense.)
You have completely overlooked that I've answered all the above... but you "cropped" my reply.
-
I am one of those fools, selling off most of my Canon equipment and moving to the 800 series Nikon's. Never looked back, as the 800 gave me what Canon can't, so for me it was easily justifiable. It's an individual decision for each photographer and I agree changing back again would make no sense as I really can't see ever needing more than I have with the 800 series.
Waiting on Canon to follow up their long used 20-21MP lineup to me may be the fools game.
Nikon, Pentax, Sony, all use Sony chips, and now so do Phase One and Hassi. Canon still fabs their own chips, and no doubt have had some trouble getting to the same level of DR of the 2012 Sony, 2013 Sony and now 2014 Sony Chips. Sure if they come out with a Foveon type chip, it may revolutionize everything again, however no one has yet to make one of these that performs very well in low light or can give the same range of DR of a single image that the Sony chips can. Canon is now getting surpassed even in video, with the new A7s now coming soon. Only Canon knows whats coming next and they are not talking for sure.
Competition is great, as it helps to keep prices down, and I would love to see Canon get a new chip set out, and hopefully they might in Sept at Photokina. However it still may not be available till 2015.
Paul
Some of us can remember when Nikon had very little to offer the digital photographer, it switches around. Canon fabricating their own sensor is a plus for Canon. Nikon could find themselves over a Sony shaped barrel, Sony are getting very aggressive, Nikon have flown the Sony flag very well for them.
I have some good L lenses, they could fit the A7r if I needed. I can see the temptation in changing to Nikon, it will be swings and round-a-bouts again.
-
You have completely overlooked that I've answered all the above... but you "cropped" my reply.
Where in your reply do you say anything about the effect of lost lens sales?
-
Hi,
Does Pentax even offer a dealer pricing and support structure?
Cheers,
Bart
Capture Integration, last time I checked, was U.S. dealer for the 645D, not sure if they will pick up the 645Z. I am not sure how they handled in warranty repairs, as I thought the only repair facility for the 645D was in Japan.
Paul
-
Where in your reply do you say anything about the effect of lost lens sales?
What cost lens sales if one sells the lenses with the "Z" as he currently does? It's additional back sales not sales instead of...
-
Capture Integration, last time I checked, was U.S. dealer for the 645D, not sure if they will pick up the 645Z. I am not sure how they handled in warranty repairs, as I thought the only repair facility for the 645D was in Japan.
Paul
You could buy two Pentax and still have change compared to either the Phaseone or the Hasselblad.
The Pentax is asking some difficult questions of Phase and Hasselblad and the public will not be handed off with an answer like "the Lord moves in mysterious ways" clap trap.
-
It's only 14 bit though so not a serious contender.
-
What cost lens sales if one sells the lenses with the "Z" as he currently does? It's additional back sales not sales instead of...
I was referring to this proposal
I wonder what sales Pentax would achieve if they decided to sell an MFDB specified like the "Z" for all Contax, Mamiya, H1/2/2F/4X, V and the like...
which would involve selling to people using lenses for Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad bodies instead of using Pentax lenses on a Pentax 645Z body. The point is that adding the MDDB options would cause some customers to change from "buy 645Z + lenses" to "buy Pentax MFDB and use it with non-Pentax body and lenses". The balance between increased back sales vs lost lens sales has to be considered.
-
Hi,
Like the IQ250…
Best regards
Erik
It's only 14 bit though so not a serious contender.
-
Sorry forgot this : ;D
-
Sorry forgot this : ;D
Erik has grown a sense of humor, it seems, and has no more need of yellow pills :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
I guess that anyone can make an MFDB for a dumb camera, like the Hasselblad V-series or technical cameras. Integration with Phase One cameras or Hasselblad H-series may have issues with intellectual property.
Best regards
Erik
-
Sorry forgot this : ;D
I'm glad I counted to ten before taking bait!
-
I was referring to this proposalwhich would involve selling to people using lenses for Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad bodies instead of using Pentax lenses on a Pentax 645Z body. The point is that adding the MDDB options would cause some customers to change from "buy 645Z + lenses" to "buy Pentax MFDB and use it with non-Pentax body and lenses". The balance between increased back sales vs lost lens sales has to be considered.
You really don't read what you quote on... don't you? ;D I've even proposed that they could make more versions of their 25mm lens for other brands like Contax... but you just "cropped" the sentence, replied on the remaining, although the answer was already on what you thrower away... Amazing! :P
-
1st Generation (cropped) CMOS vs Mature 'full sized' CCDs.
That's my stumbling block. First world problems and all.
-
Hi,
I guess that anyone can make an MFDB for a dumb camera, like the Hasselblad V-series or technical cameras. Integration with Phase One cameras or Hasselblad H-series may have issues with intellectual property.
Best regards
Erik
Sinar (Leica now) makes adapters to make their own backs fully compatible with both P1 and H cameras... Contax fit backs are of high demand and all MFDB makers make them... I suspect that Rollei owners would find much interest to a new back that would provide a cheap solution for their cameras... I would suggest the use of adapters like Sinar does or Imacon/CF ixpress used to do.
-
I'll post up what I personally experienced with the IQ250 (amazing) a little later. Pentax is going to have a bit of fun in the near future, lots of press and photogs looking to try their product. I hope LensRentals picks up more of the 645 lenses and the Z, as they are the only Pentax MF rental shop I know of.
Unless there's a stockpile of gear waiting for this initial rush, I fear Pentax will have too much of a good thing. Manufacturing these items isn't a high volume business model, so expect to wait a while as they get their process up to speed. Toss in any service issues, and you could have a lot of pissed off people. Yes, now you can get a body with 3 lenses for $15-$18k, but that service and support that you've experienced with local dealers or with Steve or Doug isn't currently there (spares, experience, loaner gear, etc). It will take some time, and in that time I expect even more new products.
It is a good, but expensive time to be a photographer.
-
Hi,
Contax and Rollei are probably not a problem, nor are Sinar, Alpa, Arca, Cambo and the rest…
Phase One and Hasselblad may be a problem.
Best regards
Erik
Sinar (Leica now) makes adapters to make their own backs fully compatible with both P1 and H cameras... Contax fit backs are of high demand and all MFDB makers make them... I suspect that Rollei owners would find much interest to a new back that would provide a cheap solution for their cameras... I would suggest the use of adapters like Sinar does or Imacon/CF ixpress used to do.
-
I have a 645D and can offer some comment on a few of the lenses being re-released:
The standard 55mm FA weatherproof lens is good to very good.
The 35mm FA lens is the sharpest, most aberration free wide angle lens I have used on any format.
Similarly, the 75mm FA and 120mm FA macro lenses are two of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. I particularly like the contrast & colour with the 35mm & 120mm lenses.
The 200mm FA lens is ok. It is fine for portraits, but I have yet to get the best results for landscape images.
This mirrors my own experience. I also like the 150/2.8 FA lens wide open for portraits and stopped down for other moderate telephoto work. Skip the 45mm—it's a low-performing anomaly in the lineup (assuming Ricoh hasn't improved it for re-release)—and go for either the 35mm or the newer 55mm instead.
-Dave-
-
I even proposed that they could make more versions of their 25mm lens for other brands like Contax ...
How does that one proposed lens for one discontinued line of bodies help with the use of the back on Mamiya and Hasselblad bodies as was also part of your proposal? Even with such a "third party" lens, it is likely that a Pentax back would be used overwhelmingly with lenses from those other makers, and so divert sales away from the Pentax lenses needed by Pentax 645 bodies.
Let me add the implausibility of redesigning and making third-party lenses that are usable only on a line of medium format camera bodies that was discontinued eight years ago after only about six years on the market, so that there are surely far fewer of those bodies around that of the surviving medium format systems. No company has ever gone into the business of "unauthorized" third party medium format lenses even for currently active systems, which strongly suggests that no lens maker considers it a profitable venture, and so that doing it for a "dead" system has even less profit potential. But maybe you understand the business better than any of the current lens makers.
P. S. I edit quotes from previous posts because that is generally considered good practice in forum discussions: your full text is there above for all to see, and quoting an entire post just to comment on one sentence is a waste of space.
-
Contax and Rollei are probably not a problem, nor are Sinar, Alpa, Arca, Cambo and the rest…
Phase One and Hasselblad may be a problem.
Indeed, and if the big two MF systems hamper the use of third party backs on their bodies by making lens-body-back interaction less smooth, profiting on a "third party" back would be a challenge.
-
How does that one proposed lens for one discontinued line of bodies help with the use of the back on Mamiya and Hasselblad bodies as was also part of your proposal? Even with such a "third party" lens, it is likely that a Pentax back would be used overwhelmingly with lenses from those other makers, and so divert sales away from the Pentax lenses needed by Pentax 645 bodies.
Let me add the implausibility of redesigning and making third-party lenses that are usable only on a line of medium format camera bodies that was discontinued eight years ago after only about six years on the market, so that there are surely far fewer of those bodies around that of the surviving medium format systems. No company has ever gone into the business of "unauthorized" third party medium format lenses even for currently active systems, which strongly suggests that no lens maker considers it a profitable venture, and so that doing it for a "dead" system has even less profit potential. But maybe you understand the business better than any of the current lens makers.
P. S. I edit quotes from previous posts because that is generally considered good practice in forum discussions: your full text is there above for all to see, and quoting an entire post just to comment on one sentence is a waste of space.
Making their 25mm lens for other cameras with focal plane shutter has nothing to do with them selling more backs... it simply has to do with them selling more lenses! Particularly as the size of some sensors narrows the angle ability of their lenses... A 25mm for Contax 645 mount would find many customers among the users of this widely used system...
-
Hi,
Contax and Rollei are probably not a problem, nor are Sinar, Alpa, Arca, Cambo and the rest…
Phase One and Hasselblad may be a problem.
Best regards
Erik
Hasselblad H1,H2,H2F & H4X can't be a problem... there maybe some incompatibility with some versions of the Phamyia 645 bodies though...
-
Jesus Doug, you just mentioned 4 very powerful things very hard to dismiss even for a "buy latest" photog like me. Nothing beats the 6X6 WLF for covenience and rapport with one's subject.
Eduardo
"If your friend likes shooting with the Pentax more than with his 500 series, and will not miss the features (1/500th flash sync, vertical shooting without turning camera, waist level viewfinder, robust professional tethering"
-
Doug, you just mentioned 4 very powerful things very hard to dismiss even for a "buy latest" photog like me. Nothing beats the 6X6 WLF for covenience and rapport with one's subject.
Eduardo
"If your friend likes shooting with the Pentax more than with his 500 series, and will not miss the features (1/500th flash sync, vertical shooting without turning camera, waist level viewfinder, robust professional tethering"
That's rather the point though. For YOU those four features are very important. For someone else they may not be important at all, but some other feature (weather sealing, or availability of very long autofocus lenses) may be vital.
These discussions on forums often turn into statements of absolutes like "no one would ever pay X for A when B is less expensive". A photographer doesn't buy a spec or a component (you don't buy megapixels or sensors), they buy a camera system. What makes sense for one photographer won't make any sense for another photographer.
Thank goodness too, or all we'd have is one camera in the world. And that would be boring. Instead we have many great cameras, each with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages, and yes, different prices.
-
That's rather the point though. For YOU those four features are very important. For someone else they may not be important at all, but some other feature (weather sealing, or availability of very long autofocus lenses) may be vital.
These discussions on forums often turn into statements of absolutes like "no one would ever pay X for A when B is less expensive". A photographer doesn't buy a spec or a component (you don't buy megapixels or sensors), they buy a camera system. What makes sense for one photographer won't make any sense for another photographer.
Thank goodness too, or all we'd have is one camera in the world. And that would be boring. Instead we have many great cameras, each with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages, and yes, different prices.
I think it all depends on the size of the difference... If people think that a price is inexcusably many times higher when compared to a similarly specified product that offers lesser build quality, then they turn against the more expensive product... It happens with cars too... some people are prepared to spend 1.5x or 2x the price to get a BMW than a similarly specified "mass production" car made by a trustful maker... but what if BMW was asking 4 or 5 times the price?
-
I have a 645D and can offer some comment on a few of the lenses being re-released:
The standard 55mm FA weatherproof lens is good to very good.
The 35mm FA lens is the sharpest, most aberration free wide angle lens I have used on any format.
Similarly, the 75mm FA and 120mm FA macro lenses are two of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. I particularly like the contrast & colour with the 35mm & 120mm lenses. Not sure what it is about them, but I have an 80mm wide angle grandagon lens as part of my now unused 4x5 kit, and it used to give me the most beautiful colour rendition, and these two pentax lenses remind me a bit of that.
The 200mm FA lens is ok. It is fine for portraits, but I have yet to get the best results for landscape images.
I have not tried the 25mm because the price for me is a bit high.
This mirrors my own experience. I also like the 150/2.8 FA lens wide open for portraits and stopped down for other moderate telephoto work. Skip the 45mm—it's a low-performing anomaly in the lineup (assuming Ricoh hasn't improved it for re-release)—and go for either the 35mm or the newer 55mm instead.
-Dave-
Is the 35mm being sold in the US? B&H lists a bunch of Pentax lenses now but I couldn't find the 35mm...
-
Jesus Doug, you just mentioned 4 very powerful things very hard to dismiss even for a "buy latest" photog like me. Nothing beats the 6X6 WLF for covenience and rapport with one's subject.
Eduardo
I was musing over using the pentax screen tilted up with the camera at just above waist height and the image magnified slightly and using the focus peaking for portraits thus enabling that interaction I remember with a 500c (film)
Just the odd look down when you notice the subject move and a quick back and forth focus check that is obviously much easier with peaking.
-
It's only 14 bit though so not a serious contender.
Were you serious in saying this? Or is there an implied smiley that I didn't pick up on?
-
So do a lot of working photographers, it's not exactly a 9-5 job if it's your sole source of income. Even Doug has to supplement his wedding income by working in sales.
Which is why a good value digital solution that keeps £20k in the bank is not to be dismissed.
If I need a tech-cam I'll hire and the dealer can deliver it in their SUV and give me a branded truckers cap and USB stick as a little thankyou so I can feel good about the 'value added package'
I feel like you didn't understand me here. I said I knew Doug worked hard at supporting expensive medium format gear in order to provide something like value for the money. Obviously he does. I did not say that working photographers would continue to see that as the main criterion for putting up that amount of money. Nor did I say that the value proposition was a good one. In fact it's a questionable one for all but a very few to whom money is no object. In fact, I think PhaseOne had a lot of nerve pushing its price point, and is in danger of being unclothed here. But that doesn't mean I'm going to disrespect a guy who gets up in the middle of the night to take care of an customer issue.
-
The 35mm FA lens is the sharpest, most aberration free wide angle lens I have used on any format.
Similarly, the 75mm FA and 120mm FA macro lenses are two of the sharpest lenses I have ever used.
I agree with all of this! Not shooting on a 645D, but on a Canon system....I find myself reaching for the pentax glass more than the Canon!
Colours, contrast, rendition...look.
-
Is the 35mm being sold in the US? B&H lists a bunch of Pentax lenses now but I couldn't find the 35mm...
The 35mm has been available outside the US so I imagine B&H (and perhaps others) will stock it again soon enough. (I bought mine in 2002 for a 645Nii film body...kept the lenses when I sold the camera. It's amazed me how often seemingly orphaned lenses have come back into play with new camera technology!)
-Dave-
-
Is the 35mm being sold in the US? B&H lists a bunch of Pentax lenses now but I couldn't find the 35mm...
JV, I thought the same thing, but they have a 35mm F3.5 listed lower down, no picture yet, price is $1500.00 which is more, quite a bit more than the 35mm FA sold for when it was available in the U.S. Mine was 989.00.
Here is the link:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045498-REG/pentax_26917_35mm_f_3_5_smcp_fa_645.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045498-REG/pentax_26917_35mm_f_3_5_smcp_fa_645.html)
-
It is just so Pentastish (forgive), i.e. it fits the old P645 concept so well. The P645 never gained the traction it deserved due to dogmatic reservations about the non-interchangable back. Perhaps this time Ricoh/Pentax have another chance with
- relatively low price
- robustness and weather sealing
- availability of outstanding lenses in all price ranges. Used FA and A lenses, new FA lenses, and the most recent DA and D FA lenses
- optional adaptation of even more lenses
- basic movie capability
This time is looks like it'll add top of the line sensor quality. It's the medium format camera for the sophisticated amateur once more priced between full-frame and the other players. I find it the first overwhelmingly convincing Pentax offering in a decade, especially with the renewed availability of FA lenses. I wish them the success they deserve. Looks like they have put a lot of thought and effort into it.
-
It is just so Pentastish (forgive), i.e. it fits the old P645 concept so well. The P645 never gained the traction it deserved due to dogmatic reservations about the non-interchangable back. Perhaps this time Ricoh/Pentax have another chance with
- relatively low price
- robustness and weather sealing
- availability of outstanding lenses in all price ranges. Used FA and A lenses, new FA lenses, and the most recent DA and D FA lenses
- optional adaptation of even more lenses
- basic movie capability
This time is looks like it'll add top of the line sensor quality. It's the medium format camera for the sophisticated amateur once more priced between full-frame and the other players. I find it the first overwhelmingly convincing Pentax offering in a decade, especially with the renewed availability of FA lenses. I wish them the success they deserve. Looks like they have put a lot of thought and effort into it.
I agree Tom; it's nice to see them back where they once were, particularity after the turmoil of the past few years. Had the FA lenses been available with the 645D, it might have been sooner. Kudos to Ricoh and those who took the gamble.
That said, I'm really happy with the 645D and I'll have to be convinced, for my applications, that the modest increase in pixels and conversion to CMOS is worth the upgrade.*
Tom
*I'm easily convinced. ;D
-
Where is Azrael or Samael or whatever the name of the Pentax dealer/rep on this forum is?
Is there a special incantation? Do we need to say "Cleveland!" or Madison!" or even "Chase!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US-$10000-FRN-1934-Fr.2231-E.jpg)?
I would have expected an appearance around *now*!
Edmund
PS. We all know that "Wilson!" makes Doug appear with a complete suitcase of P1 gear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US100000dollarsbillobverse.jpg).
-
Where is Azrael or Samael or whatever the name of the Pentax dealer/rep on this forum is?
Is there a special incantation? Do we need to run two Amex cards together?
I would have expected an appearance around *now*!
Edmund
LOL. Traditionally Pentax has been very low-key in advertising and publicity - perhaps one of the reasons they fell from prominence. Some reps have appeared on other, more Pentax-centric forums.
-
JV, I thought the same thing, but they have a 35mm F3.5 listed lower down, no picture yet, price is $1500.00 which is more, quite a bit more than the 35mm FA sold for when it was available in the U.S. Mine was 989.00.
Here is the link:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045498-REG/pentax_26917_35mm_f_3_5_smcp_fa_645.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045498-REG/pentax_26917_35mm_f_3_5_smcp_fa_645.html)
Thanks for pointing that out! It is listed as a new item, available for pre-order, perhaps a new version of the lens?
All in all a very impressive offer from Pentax! Finally a realistically priced MFD system and food for thought for Phase, Hasselblad and Leica.
Now we just also need Sony and Fuji to show up at the party as well and hopefully some companies will start revising their unmaintainable business model.
-
I would think the secondhand value of Phaseone and Hasselblad has just been blitzed to scrap value in comparison to what was paid. No doubt if you have a couple of years to run on a lease or HP you are now in serious negative equity. There might be a niche business reason for buying a secondhand P65 over the Z, I doubt that will apply to many. Digital has saved us photographers so much money right?
-
Hi,
All those reasons also applied to the Pentax 645D, and I guess Pentax sold quite a lot of them.
What I ask is if the 645Z is a major redesign of the 645 to fit the small sensor or if it is the original 645 with a Sony sensor.
The 645D was one of those cameras I considered from time to time.
Another point may be that we will probably see 50+MP CMOS on full frame 135 pretty soon, I guess. With great lens options like Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art and some other lenses 135 digital may move into the same territory as 50 MP MF.
As a final thought, I am pretty sure the 645Z will shine in DxO-mark, the 68% larger sensor surface should add 8-10 points, I guess 105-110 on the DxO scale.
Best regards
Erik
It is just so Pentastish (forgive), i.e. it fits the old P645 concept so well. The P645 never gained the traction it deserved due to dogmatic reservations about the non-interchangable back. Perhaps this time Ricoh/Pentax have another chance with
- relatively low price
- robustness and weather sealing
- availability of outstanding lenses in all price ranges. Used FA and A lenses, new FA lenses, and the most recent DA and D FA lenses
- optional adaptation of even more lenses
- basic movie capability
This time is looks like it'll add top of the line sensor quality. It's the medium format camera for the sophisticated amateur once more priced between full-frame and the other players. I find it the first overwhelmingly convincing Pentax offering in a decade, especially with the renewed availability of FA lenses. I wish them the success they deserve. Looks like they have put a lot of thought and effort into it.
-
All in all a very impressive offer from Pentax! Finally a realistically priced MFD system and food for thought for Phase, Hasselblad and Leica.
Now we just also need Sony and Fuji to show up at the party as well and hopefully some companies will start revising their unmaintainable business model.
There can't be another MF maker in the game for a while... not unless the market proves that it worths the investment... The sales figures are too low to support another entry... Additionally, if Fuji would care to enter that market, they would do so with their own sensor. I also doubt a new entry that would need from the maker to design and build a completely new range of lenses. MO is, that Pentax would have never make the move if they didn't have the old base of customers from the film days to support them. What may happen, is that if the "Z" pushes prices down considerably (which is very possible), it may cause the MF market to grow further and it may -as a consequence- cause the "resurrection" of camera makers that where forced to stop production (like Contax or Rollei) although their systems are "digital ready". However, I suspect that such a "resurrection" can't occur under the previous status of these companies, but rather if they are integrated with other active companies in the MF market... Leica for instance does need a modular system to "bridge" the "S" system with Sinar (a system that would provide an MF platform for Sinarbacks and that would have fully compatible lenses with the "S" via an adapter like it happens with C645 and may also happen with Rollei if they proceed to make the Rollei to "S" adapter).
Never the less, I believe that the market positioning of the shortly coming Mamyia/Leaf Credo back with the same Sony Cmos sensor, will play a vast role on the future of the MF market... If they decide pricing it following the same policy as it was up today, I'm afraid that the MF market can't expand considerably, if they decide (risk?) towards higher production - lower profit, the MF market may expand considerably... Sinar/Leica's move may also be of major importance... I don't think that Sinar will only proceed to offer a CMOS version of their "S" (with other than Sony sensor), but it is likely that they will also have a Sinarback based on the same technology in parallel production to the CMOS Leica-S.
-
Hi,
All those reasons also applied to the Pentax 645D, and I guess Pentax sold quite a lot of them.
What I ask is if the 645Z is a major redesign of the 645 to fit the small sensor or if it is the original 645 with a Sony sensor.
The 645D was one of those cameras I considered from time to time.
Another point may be that we will probably see 50+MP CMOS on full frame 135 pretty soon, I guess. With great lens options like Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art and some other lenses 135 digital may move into the same territory as 50 MP MF.
As a final thought, I am pretty sure the 645Z will shine in DxO-mark, the 68% larger sensor surface should add 8-10 points, I guess 105-110 on the DxO scale.
Best regards
Erik
All recent lenses for the Pentax system, have an image circle able to cover the whole 56x42mm area of 6x4.5 film... mount to light sensitive area distance is also the same. Pentax can have a "FF" version of the 645 if they decide to do so...
-
I think the Sony 50 Mpix sensor fits into a much larger scheme than a niche market. If you look at the camera industry in general, selling megapixels is not anymore the right message : there are camera-phones with 20-40 Mpix sensors. And everybody can see that they are not the same quality as DSLRs with 20-40 Mpix sensors. So what's the difference ? The sensor size !
So in the future, we will see camera makers differentiate themselves from their competitors (be it camera phones, compacts,...) by emphasizing sensor size instead of Mpix count. Bigger is better !
So you have a camera phone ? To increase image quality, you need a bigger sensor ! Get a large sensor compact (like the Sony RX-100). You have a Sony RX-100 but want better quality: get a FF-DSLR, and yes, Sony has one ! You have a FF-DSLF ? You want better quality ? Get an MF-sensor !
I believe this general marketing scheme will boost MF sales. I also don't think Sony is in the business of filling small market niches. It's a consumer electronics company. So I really think they see a big potential in MF, because it fits into the new general camera sales pitch: forget Mpix, bigger sensors is what you want / need / must have.
Of course, I could be completely wrong ;D
-
Aloha,
I think the 35 listed at b&h must be;
typo as they are releasing a 33-55 "D" version
Or they are getting some new stock in the old 35mm in!
I know they will be releasing a monster wide zoom soon.
My friend saw one at a show and said it was giant, bigger than the camera, maybe something in the 24-70 range....
-
Wasn't the 645D a 1:1 crop, like the P45+? Even 1:1 can make a difference. I never installed the masks in my DF for the 1:1 and thus quite a few times unintentionally cropped out a critical part of my shot.
The 645Z will be 1:3 just like the IQ250, so I will assume that Pentax has installed either a mask or some other method of showing the real view. As T stated earlier all the the FA lenses would work fine on a 1:0 sensor.
Paul
-
Hi,
645D was 1.3X crop.
The Pentax is built around the sensor so there is no need for viewfinder mask.
Best regards
Erik
Wasn't the 645D a 1:1 crop, like the P45+? Even 1:1 can make a difference. I never installed the masks in my DF for the 1:1 and thus quite a few times unintentionally cropped out a critical part of my shot.
The 645Z will be 1:3 just like the IQ250, so I will assume that Pentax has installed either a mask or some other method of showing the real view. As T stated earlier all the the FA lenses would work fine on a 1:0 sensor.
Paul
-
Just speculating and a bit out of topic, I imaging Sony designing a medium format sort of like the 7Ar, but a bit larger and with the 50megapixel sensor and a new set of lenses. No mirror, shorter flange and amazing quality.. :D
-
Hi,
645D was 1.3X crop.
The Pentax is built around the sensor so there is no need for viewfinder mask.
Best regards
Erik
Eric thanks for the clarification, but even built around the sensor, a 35mm lens on the 645Z would be an effective 45mm?
It's just the viewfinder is built to the 1.3 crop already so you still see everything the sensor is seeing?
Thanks
Paul
-
Hi,
Yes, a 35 mm lens would be like 45mm on 1.0 crop.
I have no P645D, so I cannot say about the viewfinder, but as you cannot put another sensor on the camera it makes perfectly good sense to add a viewfinder mask in production and use a smaller prism which will save some weight.
Best regards
Erik
Eric thanks for the clarification, but even built around the sensor, a 35mm lens on the 645Z would be an effective 45mm?
It's just the viewfinder is built to the 1.3 crop already so you still see everything the sensor is seeing?
Thanks
Paul
-
Hi,
645D was 1.3X crop.
The Pentax is built around the sensor so there is no need for viewfinder mask.
Best regards
Erik
The Pentax body is build around a FF 56x42mm image area as film area was... It's the finder that is "adjusted" along the sensor, not the body.
-
Eric thanks for the clarification, but even built around the sensor, a 35mm lens on the 645Z would be an effective 45mm?
It's just the viewfinder is built to the 1.3 crop already so you still see everything the sensor is seeing?
Thanks
Paul
The AOV that you effectively see, has to do with sensor size not with the sensor area that the lens was designed for... Therefore, for a 44mm sensor, the equivalent HORIZONTAL AOV with respect to 35mm FF is (aprox) 22% larger.... i.e., 36x1.22=44 (aprox) so, with a 35mm lens you see a (horizontal) AOV that equals one of 29mm equivalent in 35mm simply because, 29x1.22=35.38...
-
T.
I was referring to 35mm lens on a 645, so the if the 645z has a 44 x 33 sensor, basically a 1:3 crop. So as I understand it, the Pentax 35mm 645 FA F3.5 Pentax lens would be in effect a 45mm view on the 645z or the IQ250 or the Hassi when it's out.
Isn't that correct?
Thanks
Paul
-
Eric thanks for the clarification, but even built around the sensor, a 35mm lens on the 645Z would be an effective 45mm?
It's just the viewfinder is built to the 1.3 crop already so you still see everything the sensor is seeing?
Thanks
Paul
The AOV that you effectively see, has to do with sensor size not with the sensor area that the lens was designed for... Therefore, for a 44mm sensor, the equivalent HORIZONTAL AOV with respect to 35mm FF is (aprox) 22% larger.... i.e., 36x1.22=44 (aprox) so, with a 35mm lens you see a (horizontal) AOV that equals one of 29mm equivalent in 35mm simply because, 29x1.22=35.38...
EDIT: If you calculate the same for a 54mm sensor, you'll find that 35mm lens in 44mm sensor equals 42.7mm lens AOV on a 54mm width sensor.
-
I would think the secondhand value of Phaseone and Hasselblad has just been blitzed to scrap value in comparison to what was paid. No doubt if you have a couple of years to run on a lease or HP you are now in serious negative equity. There might be a niche business reason for buying a secondhand P65 over the Z, I doubt that will apply to many. Digital has saved us photographers so much money right?
i agree. seeing the prices on ebay and the 2 major dealers for 2nd hand backs, i believe that you are looking at, in the post pentax 645z mfdb market, at least a 40 to 50 percent reduction in price for p45/p45+ on down. the ability to use on view cameras for most photographers does not justify today's 2nd hand market prices.
-
waist level viewfinder"
live view with a flippable screen is a waist level finder to me....though only in landscape orientation.
-
Just for clarification. I understand all Pentax 645 lenses being manufactured today cover the 42X56mm area. Right?
If this is true, doesn't this hint that a full-frame 645 body will come sooner or later?
Eduardo
Hi,
645D was 1.3X crop.
The Pentax is built around the sensor so there is no need for viewfinder mask.
Best regards
Erik
-
I'm a lover of fully articulated screens in every format but my phone :D. I was truly disappointed about the one-axis articulated screen in the Z.
As DPR pointed out, it is strange that Pentax didn't include one considering that they provide this camera a second tripod connection for convenient portrait shooting.
As I always have said, all camera designers are a little schizo.
Eduardo
live view with a flippable screen is a waist level finder to me....though only in landscape orientation.
-
i agree. seeing the prices on ebay and the 2 major dealers for 2nd hand backs, i believe that you are looking at, in the post pentax 645z mfdb market, at least a 40 to 50 percent reduction in price for p45/p45+ on down. the ability to use on view cameras for most photographers does not justify today's 2nd hand market prices.
There are probably enough Phase and Hassy backs already in the market to satisfy the needs of tech cam shooters for the next decade - and Azrael and Samael will be pleased to sell them to you with a warranty ...
Edmund
-
I wonder how the pentax compares to the d800 in the noise/DR department. I only find the d800 usable @ iso 100, is this still the case with the new sony sensor?
-
Lloyd Chambers has just confirmed the Pentax Z has no electronic first curtain. :(
I think this issue and the mirror vibration (even if dampened) could produce a sizable difference in sharpness with tech cams.
What do you guys think?
Eduardo
-
Lloyd Chambers has just confirmed the Pentax Z has no electronic first curtain. :(
I think this issue and the mirror vibration (even if dampened) could produce a sizable difference in sharpness with tech cams.
What do you guys think?
Eduardo
I think you're completely right. Not only that, but the Hassy with its leaf shutter is possibly sharper too :)
Edmund
-
Lloyd Chambers has just confirmed the Pentax Z has no electronic first curtain. :(
I think this issue and the mirror vibration (even if dampened) could produce a sizable difference in sharpness with tech cams.
What do you guys think?
If you're comparing it to a tech cam, you've probably got plenty of time to turn off live view and/or lock the mirror up. That still leaves acceleration and deceleration of the first curtain, and acceleration of the second. From the 1/125 synch speed, it looks like the shutter acceleration (and thus deceleration) is about the same as, say, a D800.
Jim
-
Just for clarification. I understand all Pentax 645 lenses being manufactured today cover the 42X56mm area. Right?
If this is true, doesn't this hint that a full-frame 645 body will come sooner or later?
Eduardo
It doesn't hint anything... it's just a precaution to ensure that the system will be compatible if things turn that way in the future... Nobody has a crystal ball these days.
-
If you're comparing it to a tech cam, you've probably got plenty of time to turn off live view and/or lock the mirror up. That still leaves acceleration and deceleration of the first curtain, and acceleration of the second. From the 1/125 synch speed, it looks like the shutter acceleration (and thus deceleration) is about the same as, say, a D800.
Jim
Ah, they've left 5 axis stabilisation to the next liveview only model.
Edmund
-
I wonder how the pentax compares to the d800 in the noise/DR department. I only find the d800 usable @ iso 100, is this still the case with the new sony sensor?
Who cares to buy an MF system for ultra high Iso performance? ...Faster lenses of FF format will always benefit FF cameras on that region... One buys MF to improve on his studio, landscape or artistic photography, not to shoot sports or wildlife at dim light.
-
If you're comparing it to a tech cam, you've probably got plenty of time to turn off live view and/or lock the mirror up. That still leaves acceleration and deceleration of the first curtain, and acceleration of the second. From the 1/125 synch speed, it looks like the shutter acceleration (and thus deceleration) is about the same as, say, a D800.
Jim
Jim, Eronald, ....aren't you forgetting that acceleration/deceleration mostly occurs outside the image area of what 33mm covers? :P The shutter mech can cover 42mm ...remember? ;D
-
Who cares to buy an MF system for ultra high Iso performance? ...Faster lenses of FF format will always benefit FF cameras on that region... One buys MF to improve on his studio, landscape or artistic photography, not to shoot sports or wildlife at dim light.
Sometimes I like to take a landscape shot while wandering without setting up the tripod, but the d800 colors start to look awful when underexposing or going up the isos, so I am wondering how the new pentax behaves in this regard.
-
Sometimes I like to take a landscape shot while wandering without setting up the tripod, but the d800 colors start to look awful when underexposing or going up the isos, so I am wondering how the new pentax behaves in this regard.
What that has to do with high Iso/DR comparison? All DSLR colours suck when compared to an MF sensor... even at base Iso...
-
Hi,
Ultra high speed means good shadow detail, in best of case good shadow detail and good DR. Ranking up ISO means underexposure, simply enough. Bad high ISO performance essentially means noisy sensor, noisy signal processing or both.
That is the short version. For the long version read: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html
Best regards
Erik
Sometimes I like to take a landscape shot while wandering without setting up the tripod, but the d800 colors start to look awful when underexposing or going up the isos, so I am wondering how the new pentax behaves in this regard.
-
Shure, but how does the Pentax perform?
-
Just for clarification. I understand all Pentax 645 lenses being manufactured today cover the 42X56mm area. Right?
If this is true, doesn't this hint that a full-frame 645 body will come sooner or later?
I think it means that at the introduction of the 645 (mark I) they had a lineup of proven lenses and a manufacturing setup for making them. They also had a user base with existing lenses that would work with the new camera, which would accelerate adoption. It also means that they have the option of making a full 645 body at some point at their option.
-
Well,
It should be identical to the IQ-250, regarding sensor quality at base ISO. Going to extreme ISO ratings, I would say that Pentax does some noise reduction tricks which Phase may not exercise. The Sony EXMOR chip used by both probably has some option for selectable noise reduction.
Best regards
Erik
Shure, but how does the Pentax perform?
-
Who cares to buy an MF system for ultra high Iso performance? ...Faster lenses of FF format will always benefit FF cameras on that region... One buys MF to improve on his studio, landscape or artistic photography, not to shoot sports or wildlife at dim light.
Seriously? You need to step outside your comfort zone and think about how all those images you see in the media are captured. Believe it or not not every commercial image you see has a team of 5, a huge grip truck and 20'000 joules of flash to light it. Lots of people work with small portable lighting of 500-1000w and have to produce the goods within time and budget constraints and hand over a decent sized tiff.
I'm shooting a bling watch/mclaren sports car for an editorial client next week on location and taking everything I need in a roller case and backpack and have about an hour and a half to do the shoot. I may need to be at 400asa or higher depending on how I light and the ambient lighting, if I do I don't want to worry about noise. I'll be shooting on an A7r, I would happily shoot on a sony 50mp sensor. I wouldn't contemplate it on a p45.
-
Seriously? You need to step outside your comfort zone and think about how all those images you see in the media are captured. Believe it or not not every commercial image you see has a team of 5, a huge grip truck and 20'000 joules of flash to light it. Lots of people work with small portable lighting of 500-1000w and have to produce the goods within time and budget constraints and hand over a decent sized tiff.
I'm shooting a bling watch/mclaren sports car for an editorial client next week on location and taking everything I need in a roller case and backpack and have about an hour and a half to do the shoot. I may need to be at 400asa or higher depending on how I light and the ambient lighting, if I do I don't want to worry about noise. I'll be shooting on an A7r, I would happily shoot on a sony 50mp sensor. I wouldn't contemplate it on a p45.
What all that has to do with my comment? ...what your project has to do with my opinion on D800 vs. "Z" comparison at ultra high Iso (presumably higher than 3200) that I replied on?
-
Ah, apologies. I have speed read and missed the crucial 'ultra'
Though that definition is getting higher over time.
Though my comment was partly about "One buys MF to improve on his studio, landscape or artistic photography" there are many areas outside those where the ability to shoot high asa and hand over a big file with no noise issues are an advantage.
-
Seriously? You need to step outside your comfort zone and think about how all those images you see in the media are captured. Believe it or not not every commercial image you see has a team of 5, a huge grip truck and 20'000 joules of flash to light it. Lots of people work with small portable lighting of 500-1000w and have to produce the goods within time and budget constraints and hand over a decent sized tiff.
I'm shooting a bling watch/mclaren sports car for an editorial client next week on location and taking everything I need in a roller case and backpack and have about an hour and a half to do the shoot. I may need to be at 400asa or higher depending on how I light and the ambient lighting, if I do I don't want to worry about noise. I'll be shooting on an A7r, I would happily shoot on a sony 50mp sensor. I wouldn't contemplate it on a p45.
You're lying. You don't exist. ( :) ) At least that's what P1 want everyone to believe. Because the guy who arrives with the canned sunlight and the hot assistant and cold buffet cart and the crane and the giraffe can *afford* to get the back or rent it, while somebody who just quietly makes a picture can and in fact probably needs to use ... something with a Sony sensor - precisely because of lights.
I know this game - when I did editorials for a year or so, I used a dSLR - and I still remember how I came to one job with a folded Elinchrom Octabank, which is about the size of a small beach umbrella, and the magazine AD canted her nose up at a 45 degree angle and asked me how come I hadn't brought any lights (!).
Edmund
-
I understand all Pentax 645 lenses being manufactured today cover the 42X56mm area. Right?
If this is true, doesn't this hint that a full-frame 645 body will come sooner or later?
Most of these "FA 645" lenses were originally design for 645 format film cameras, before the 645D. I only know of one new "FA 645" lens that covers the 70mm image circle of 645 format even though covering only the 55mm image circle of 44x33mm would have simplified the design: the 55/2.8 mm. Some plausible explanations for that include:
a) covering the possibility of returning to 645 format, and
b) making that lens attractive to the many people still using Pentax 645 film cameras (who greatly outnumber owners of the 645D), and so increasing its sales.
P. S. The 25mm is an "DA 645", meaning I think that it only overs the smaller 44x33 format. What other new "645" lenses has Pentax introduced since it discontinued the 645 film cameras?
-
Most of these "FA 645" lenses were originally design for 645 format film cameras, before the 645D. I only know of one new "FA 645" lens that covers the 70mm image circle of 645 format even though covering only the 55mm image circle of 44x33mm would have simplified the design: the 55/2.8 mm. Some plausible explanations for that include:
a) covering the possibility of returning to 645 format, and
b) making that lens attractive to the many people still using Pentax 645 film cameras (who greatly outnumber owners of the 645D), and so increasing its sales.
P. S. The 25mm is an "DA 645", meaning I think that it only overs the smaller 44x33 format. What other new "645" lenses has Pentax introduced since it discontinued the 645 film cameras?
The 90mm macro is D FA and the 25mm in Asia is also D FA; for some unknown reason, Pentax sells the reduced image circle DA 25mm in North America.
-
Aloha,
That interesting and good to know, so there is a difference in the D FA and what is sold here, in the USA.
Do you think there would be any noticeable difference in the lenses on a 645D or 645Z
As I'm most likely to pair the 25mm with the new body.
(I miss ultra wide with the 645D 35mm combination.)
As a side note, I told my friend I was going to get it and it might be one of the last primary cameras i bought, as the Z denoted the camera was at the end of the alphabetical line...
He quipped back; well there's always the 645Z1
lol
-
Hi,
The sensor size is the same, but the 645Z has more pixels so it will be a bit more demanding on lenses. The difference in linear sensor resolution is just 13%, that is not a lot.
So a lens that is very good on the 645D will also be very good on the 645Z. On the other hand a lens that does not work well on the 645D will be a small bit worse on the 645Z.
On technical cameras it would be a bit different, as the sensor can be tilted and shifted, but with the Pentax 645 the sensor is fixed and the wide angle lenses are retrofocus designs, to give room for the mirror box. So beam angle will be no problem.
Best regards
Erik
Aloha,
Do you think there would be any noticeable difference in the lenses on a 645D or 645Z
lol
-
The sensor size is the same, but the 645Z has more pixels so it will be a bit more demanding on lenses. The difference in linear sensor resolution is just 13%, that is not a lot.
So a lens that is very good on the 645D will also be very good on the 645Z. On the other hand a lens that does not work well on the 645D will be a small bit worse on the 645Z.
Hi Erik,
Only worse per pixel. The higher sampling density (5.3 micron pitch instead of 6 micron pitch) will improve the combined resolution in cycles/mm of any lens. Output to the same size will improve. It's all about system MTF response, and sampling density makes a lot of difference.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The difference in linear sensor resolution is just 13%, that is not a lot.
Hi Erik,
I'm always struggling with this concept. Could you please explain how you came to this 13% figure? Thanks!
-
I'm always struggling with this concept. Could you please explain how you came to this 13% figure? Thanks!
Hi Peter,
The resolution increase mentioned is derived from the higher sampling density (5.3 micron pitch versus 6 micron pitch, ). There are 13% more sensels that sample the same sized projected lens detail. That does not translate to a 13% system resolution increase (one would need to combine the MTF curves for both sensor scenarios to determine the actual system improvement), but a significant (anything more than 1% is visible, and thus significant) boost in micro-detail contrast and smaller features will be achieved.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart,
You are obviously right, I was a bit sloppy in formulating my response.
To elaborate a bit. A really good lens will shine on any sensor. A lens that is barely adequate will not be worse with a sensor having better resolution but the softness/aberration will be more obvious with the better resolving sensor.
I don't think a 12-13% difference is a lot, if we can print 20x26" with 39 MP we could 22.5x30" with 50MP, just as an example.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Only worse per pixel. The higher sampling density (5.3 micron pitch instead of 6 micron pitch) will improve the combined resolution in cycles/mm of any lens. Output to the same size will improve. It's all about system MTF response, and sampling density makes a lot of difference.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart & Erik,
BTW, on the topic of MTF curves combined by sensor and lens I've found this lengthy tutorial by Panavision's John Galt and Canon's Larry Thorpe to be very interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqq8QKMmtYg
It's a few years old and about resolution in motion/video mostly, but quite a lot of it applies to stills as well. Although I must admit I didn't understand all of it :)
-
Most of these "FA 645" lenses were originally design for 645 format film cameras, before the 645D. I only know of one new "FA 645" lens that covers the 70mm image circle of 645 format even though covering only the 55mm image circle of 44x33mm would have simplified the design: the 55/2.8 mm. Some plausible explanations for that include:
a) covering the possibility of returning to 645 format, and
b) making that lens attractive to the many people still using Pentax 645 film cameras (who greatly outnumber owners of the 645D), and so increasing its sales.
P. S. The 25mm is an "DA 645", meaning I think that it only overs the smaller 44x33 format. What other new "645" lenses has Pentax introduced since it discontinued the 645 film cameras?
It says here clearly http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-D-FA-645-25mm-F4-Lens.html that the 25mm covers the whole image circle of 645 film image area with 109 deg of AOV...
-
To elaborate a bit. A really good lens will shine on any sensor. A lens that is barely adequate will not be worse with a sensor having better resolution but the softness/aberration will be more obvious with the better resolving sensor.
Agree.
I don't think a 12-13% difference is a lot, if we can print 20x26" with 39 MP we could 22.5x30" with 50MP, just as an example.
While not earth shattering, another way of looking at it is represented in the attached MTF simulation, which compares both cameras with a very good lens, and a more mediocre one, at f/5.6. If we assume that MTF=10% (according to the ISO standards on resolution) is approximately comparable to the visual resolution limit we get the following:
Good lens, 0.7 sigma Gaussian blur radius, at f/5.6:
MTF10 is approx. 92 cy/mm versus 82 cy/mm, 12.2% higher resolution limit, with 7% higher modulation for the 645Z at the limit of the 645D. Medium size spatial frequencies get something like a 9.5% boost in modulation, when output at the same size. That's almost an order of magnitude, I'd call that significant.
Mediocre lens, 0.9 sigma Gaussian blur radius, at f/5.6:
MTF10 is approx. 72 cy/mm versus 63 cy/mm, 13.3% higher resolution limit, with 6% higher modulation for the 645Z at the limit of the 645D. Medium size spatial frequencies get something like an 8% boost in modulation, when output at the same size. That's slightly less than for a good lens, but still approaching an order of magnitude, I'd still call that significant.
The additional modulation also allows much better detail quality as a basis for post-processing, e.g. with Topaz Labs Detail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The lens quality does concern me slightly because I love my 100mm Hassy 2.2
But as I concentrate a lot of my paid work on people and weddings I could well achieve a more unique look with a less than perfect lens.
-
The 90mm macro is D FA and the 25mm in Asia is also D FA; for some unknown reason, Pentax sells the reduced image circle DA 25mm in North America.
Slightly disturbing. Why would Pentax sell the reduced image circle DA in the US and not the D FA?
The DA 25mm is being sold for $4,996 which already is not exactly cheap. You are basically talking Hasselblad and Phase One prices here.
-
Slightly disturbing. Why would Pentax sell the reduced image circle DA in the US and not the D FA?
The DA 25mm is being sold for $4,996 which already is not exactly cheap. You are basically talking Hasselblad and Phase One prices here.
The first offering in the US was D FA version; I have never seen an official explanation for the switch to DA, just internet speculation (better flare control, less manufacture cost, etc.). The DA version has a longer built in hood yet is 30 g lighter, so the change is more than just a longer hood. I've read that many Japanese still use the 645 film cameras, so the D FA version continues to be offered there.
As to the shocking (for Pentax) price: as much as I like the 645D and would love to have this lens, I find the price too much of a deterrent. I keep telling myself I could get a D800 and Zeiss 15mm for the about the same price, or an A7r and a Samyang 14mm for a lot less, or just continue to stitch with the excellent 35mm for no cost at all.
Tom
-
The lens quality does concern me slightly because I love my 100mm Hassy 2.2
But as I concentrate a lot of my paid work on people and weddings I could well achieve a more unique look with a less than perfect lens.
You may use Hasselblad V glass on it and even the Schneiders (60 Curtagn, 80 xenotar, 150&250 tele-xenar) for the Exakta 66/P6... Even some CZJ for the Exakta 66/P6 can be worth considering, but be careful with the later ones because there can be huge sample variations...
By the way... I wonder why nobody does a Rollei SL66 adapter for all 645 cameras that bear a focal plane shutter... there is surely enough space for a simple/cheap focusing mechanism to work properly... Most of the Rollei SL66 glass is simply superb! ;)
-
Have you checked the flange distances involved?
Best regards
Erik
You may use Hasselblad V glass on it and even the Schneiders (60 Curtagn, 80 xenotar, 150&250 tele-xenar) for the Exakta 66/P6... Even some CZJ for the Exakta 66/P6 can be worth considering, but be careful with the later ones because there can be huge sample variations...
By the way... I wonder why nobody does a Rollei SL66 adapter for all 645 cameras that bear a focal plane shutter... there is surely enough space for a simple/cheap focusing mechanism to work properly... Most of the Rollei SL66 glass is simply superb! ;)
-
The 90mm macro is D FA and the 25mm in Asia is also D FA; for some unknown reason, Pentax sells the reduced image circle DA 25mm in North America.
It says here clearly http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-D-FA-645-25mm-F4-Lens.html that the 25mm covers the whole image circle of 645 film image area with 109 deg of AOV...
Thanks tsjanik and Theodoros: so apparently there are two different 25mm lenses, the "D FA 645 25mm" offered in Asia (mostly Japan?) which covers the full 645 film format, and the "DA 645 25mm" offered in markets like the USA, covering only the smaller 44x33mm format. (Maybe because the Japanese/Asian market has a far stronger contingent of Pentax 645 films camera users?)
Anyway, from what I know now, Pentax has introduced two new lenses in the "digital era" where it took an an extra design effort and costs in order to cover the 645 film format: the D FA 635 25mm f/4, and the D FA 55mm f/2.8. I exclude the "digital era" D FA 645 90mm, because with lenses like that of FOV narrower than normal, optical designs naturally produce an image circle of diameter almost as large as the focal length, so any 90mm design will naturally cover the 70mm image circle of 645 film format. (The image is then cropped by baffles, the lens body, the lens mount and so on to the size needed.) It is only when a larger image circle involves a normal to wide angular coverage that it involves extra effort and expense.
P. S. Am I right that lenses designated "FA 645" without any "D" are designs from the film era? If so, I see just the four digital era Pentax 645 lenses mentioned above.
-
The sensor size is the same, but the 645Z has more pixels so it will be a bit more demanding on lenses.
As far as I can tell, the resolution of the new Sony 44x33mm sensor is limited to its Nyquist frequency of 94lp/mm, whereas there are monochrome films with high MTF to well beyond that. For example, Kodak T-MAX 100 has MTF of 50% at 125lp/mm according to Norm Koren at http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html and IIRC, its MTF at 94lp/mm is very high, over 80%.
So I expect that any lenses whose resolving power holds up well with fine-grained monochrome films will also resolve well enough for this sensor.
-
Regarding leaf shutter lenses with the 645Z. Does anyone know if there's a limitation with the 645D or Z to theoretically sync past 1/500th? I own the 75 f2.8 LS lens and once you get past having to manually cock the lens it's not a bad piece of glass and actually very sharp. The 645D fully supports the lens electronically. I wonder if the possibility exists for Pentax or some 3rd party to produce a line of LS lenses like the Phase/ Schneider lenses for the 645Z that would sync higher than 1/500th.
-
P. S. Am I right that lenses designated "FA 645" without any "D" are designs from the film era? If so, I see just the four digital era Pentax 645 lenses mentioned above.
Yes, and if you recall we made a five-year bet two years ago about MF sensor prices; I'm not sure who's winning. :)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65392.msg520976#msg520976
-
Adapters to the Rolleiflex SL66 system with helicoid are available, but will set you back $800. They work pretty well. Alternatively, you can have a skilled mechanic rework those 645 helicoids. And for the special lenses, you could also have a rigid adapter built. I have all three versions.
In terms of lens coverage, Pentax might have initially tried to maintain backward compatibility for 645 film users. Remember - there was a huge Pentax 645 following in Japan. Hence the original D FA design for the 55mm and the 25mm. I seems that thereafter Pentax felt that especially the D FA 25mm did not perform to their expectation on the 645D and as the result limited the coverage to the smaller 44x33mm sensor format, choosing the DA designation for a revised DA 25mm, while keeping the D FA 25mm available in Japan for film users. At that point they may have already decided that future models would rely on the smaller 44x33 medium format sensor, even though their third new lens (the D FA 90mm) once more appears to allow for full coverage.
It seems that in their medium format program, Pentax largely depends on sensor manufacturers (e.g. Kodak, Sony) to guide their format choice. Perhaps initially they were hoping to contract the production of large 54x40 sensors, but as it turned out, Sony's 44x33 CCD sensor gave them enough of a quantum leap to manufacture a new model. Thus, they opted for the smaller sensor size, even though it doesn't take advantage of the full coverage of some of their wonderful lenses. For Pentax, the bigger sensor would make sense, if it was offered, especially because of the nice adaptibility of matching P67 lenses. But for right now, it seems, Ricoh/Pentax is betting on their new 44x33 645Z. I don't believe that a larger sensor in the future is out of question, especially if the 645Z turns into a huge success and if there was a manufacturer to be had that would supply such a sensor at a reasonable cost to Pentax. At present, the only limiting lens in terms of coverage is the DA 25mm, and I presume Pentax could re-tool for the manufacturing of the D FA version if necessary. Some owners of the DA version might not be too excited about having to fork out another $4-5K for a D FA in addition to their DA, but they might have gotten sufficient usage out of the 645D and the 645Z to be willing to gain additional coverage on a larger sensor.
-
Has it been done any test to compare the IQ from the last Pentax 645d to Hasselblad and Phase at similar
type sensor?
-
Yes, and if you recall we made a five-year bet two years ago about MF sensor prices; I'm not sure who's winning.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65392.msg520976#msg520976
My prediction there for the successor of the 645D was:
I will go for the same 44x33mm format and a price about the same or modestly lower ...
That still sounds about right, with the 645Z being priced at about current 646D pricing and 15% less than the original 645D pricing. What I completely missed was the change to Sony CMOS sensors, which might bring Sony's economies of scale to bear and bring MF sensor costs down a bit; on the other hand, the new Phase One and Hasselblad models with that sensor are priced _higher_ than the previous CCD models with the same sensor size!?
-
Adapters to the Rolleiflex SL66 system with helicoid are available, but will set you back $800. They work pretty well. Alternatively, you can have a skilled mechanic rework those 645 helicoids. And for the special lenses, you could also have a rigid adapter built. I have all three versions.
May you provide a link? Do they make adapters for Contax or Mamyia too, or are they just for Pentax?
-
Has it been done any test to compare the IQ from the last Pentax 645d to Hasselblad and Phase at similar
type sensor?
Yup. We did.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml
Indistinguishable.
- N.
-
If Pentax start selling large numbers of MF, they will be calling the shots on the sensor format - Because Sony doesn't care about Phase One's fabulous margins and elevated price point, Sony cares about Sony's sensor sales which only depend on unit numbers.
Edmund
It seems that in their medium format program, Pentax largely depends on sensor manufacturers (e.g. Kodak, Sony) to guide their format choice. Perhaps initially they were hoping to contract the production of large 54x40 sensors, but as it turned out, Sony's 44x33 CCD sensor gave them enough of a quantum leap to manufacture a new model. Thus, they opted for the smaller sensor size, even though it doesn't take advantage of the full coverage of some of their wonderful lenses. For Pentax, the bigger sensor would make sense, if it was offered, especially because of the nice adaptibility of matching P67 lenses. But for right now, it seems, Ricoh/Pentax is betting on their new 44x33 645Z. I don't believe that a larger sensor in the future is out of question, especially if the 645Z turns into a huge success and if there was a manufacturer to be had that would supply such a sensor at a reasonable cost to Pentax. At present, the only limiting lens in terms of coverage is the DA 25mm, and I presume Pentax could re-tool for the manufacturing of the D FA version if necessary. Some owners of the DA version might not be too excited about having to fork out another $4-5K for a D FA in addition to their DA, but they might have gotten sufficient usage out of the 645D and the 645Z to be willing to gain additional coverage on a larger sensor.
-
I think too that if Pentax sells a significant amount of Z's, the chances will increase exponentially to demand from Sony bigger cmos sensors.
Under this belief, I feel inclined to buy one to help for this quest. lol! Not determinant of course but just another incentive to buy a Z.
Eduardo
If Pentax start selling large numbers of MF, they will be calling the shots on the sensor format - Because Sony doesn't care about Phase One's fabulous margins and elevated price point, Sony cares about Sony's sensor sales which only depend on unit numbers.
Edmund
-
If Pentax start selling large numbers of MF, they will be calling the shots on the sensor format - Because Sony doesn't care about Phase One's fabulous margins and elevated price point, Sony cares about Sony's sensor sales which only depend on unit numbers.
Indeed, there is just no way the kind of volumes projected by P1 and Hassy could have convinced Sony semi-conductor to do the 645Z sensor.
Odds are therefore that P1 and Hassy have access to a - vaguely - MF CMOS sensor thanks to the business model of Pentax. The earlier release of the IQ250 probably only just gave the illusion that P1 was in the driving seat.
Overall, I wouldn't want to be in their shoes at this point in time, but their choice of business model had been leading to this situation for years. Most of us knew it, they knew it.
Most Japanese companies see the emergence of China as an opportunity to reposition themselves as high value items providers. Nikon has made it clear for years that they want to deliver the best 35mm equipment on the market, Ricoh-Pentax is trying to focus on the niche of the niche on top of that.
There was already little factual differentiation between a D800E and the Scandinavian backs, the 645Z is multiplying the threat by a factor of 10 by stealing the show where it hurts most, at the level of the imaging chip itself.
P1 and Hassy don't seem to be worried about it, so I guess we shouldn't be worried either. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would very surprised if the chip is not the same between all three, the fab cost of making 2 or 3 different chips, to me would take the cost model/advantage away. From what I have read on the CMOS vs CCD post, it seems to me that the CMOS design is much more of a drop in component, and not as much tweaking is needed.
However I am not sure who's processors are being used in each. Nikon used their Expeed chip on the the D800 family, and D610/600. Sony I am sure used one of the processors on the A99, which supposedly is the same chip as the Nikon 610/600.
To your point of the Z bring down P1 or Hassi or both, only time will tell. As a company, I would be more concerned about advances in mirror-less and phones as these products cost base is exponentially below the Pentax Z. All three players better be watching Sony to see what they have coming next.
To me Pentax still has a ways to go at least here in the US
1. They need to establish a better dealer channel and warranty repair center in the US--I wonder what their tech support process will be, call center off shore? or dedicated in the US?
2. Current lenses are older and seem to just have been re-released to the U.S. market The 35FA goes back to around 2004 as I purchased one then
3. They have no solution for tech lenses or the Alpa FPS as they won't have a removable back at ship and none seems planned
4. They have no tilt/shift lenses in the 645 line that I am aware of, and the older 67 lenses that had shift like the 75mm I don't feel will do very well on this 50MP chip
5. I am not aware of any 645 leaf shutter lenses, but they did have some in the 67 lineup, that may work with the 67/645 adapter
6. Pentax still has not shipped anything, and I have not seen any pre-ship reviews by anyone, and June is just around the corner
7. The verdict is still out on how they will tether and what software will support it. I can't see the wifi solution being much better than the Phase One Capture Pilot which IMO is current not very leading edge
8. It's still a cropped sensor so the photographers that shoot wide, may or may not wait for a full frame sensor
9. Just because all three players are using the same chip, the end results may or may not be equivalent. As a C1 user since 2007 I am aware of what Phase One can deliver from their implementation of this Sony chip. Pentax so far is not well known for raw software
Right now I don't see it being the beginning of the end for P1 or Hassi,
Paul
-
Right now I don't see it being the beginning of the end for P1 or Hassi,
Paul
i don't think anyone believes that this camera will bring about the demise of phase one or hasselblad. i think people are thinking that if, and if is a mighty big word, if the pentax delievers on image quality very near to the other two, a reshuffling a prices may be in order. and then again rolls royce prices haven't lower because of lower priced luxury cars. there is a status at this point in shooting with a phase one product which is considered the rolls royce of medium format digital and as long as that mindset continues i don't see their prices dropping unless the pentax really delivers. and as paul just said, there are other issues, lenses, support, etc. that play into the equations. are these other issues worth the extra $20k? that is up to the photographer.
-
i don't think anyone believes that this camera will bring about the demise of phase one or hasselblad. i think people are thinking that if, and if is a mighty big word, if the pentax delievers on image quality very near to the other two, a reshuffling a prices may be in order. and then again rolls royce prices haven't lower because of lower priced luxury cars. there is a status at this point in shooting with a phase one product which is considered the rolls royce of medium format digital and as long as that mindset continues i don't see their prices dropping unless the pentax really delivers. and as paul just said, there are other issues, lenses, support, etc. that play into the equations. are these other issues worth the extra $20k? that is up to the photographer.
Yeah, maybe there will be a first class VIP forum where Doug and Steve dealers hang out with the "real" customers, and we'll be free to swap images of cats right here :)
Edmund
-
Yeah, maybe there will be a first class VIP forum where Doug and Steve dealers hang out with the "real" customers, and we'll be free to swap images of cats right here :)
Edmund
I haven't logged in in a long time, but that was too funny not to make note of.
-
While Pentax's plans/possible sales volumes in NA and likely more so outside NA, will have be of far greater concern to Sony re: the new sensor's business case, having P1 and Hassy using it also has a nice endorsement to it.
That said, I think of equal or greater concern to P1 or Hassy, assuming they chose to continue go it alone (I'd not be surprised to see a Hassy+Sony link-up), should be what SONY has planned for that sensor.
-
While Pentax's plans/possible sales volumes in NA and likely more so outside NA, will have be of far greater concern to Sony re: the new sensor's business case, having P1 and Hassy using it also has a nice endorsement to it.
That said, I think of equal or greater concern to P1 or Hassy, assuming they chose to continue go it alone (I'd not be surprised to see a Hassy+Sony link-up), should be what SONY has planned for that sensor.
I think you got the tenses wrong - the question is what people are thinking of doing with the new sensor which Sony is now shopping around. Imagery from the current Phase/Hassy/Pentax MF sensor is a couple of years old, meaning that was the point when it was finalized for production, and the followup has doubtless already been prototyped at this point.
Edmund
-
Imagery from the current Phase/Hassy/Pentax MF sensor is a couple of years old, meaning that was the point when it was finalized for production, and the followup has doubtless already been prototyped at this point.
Edmund, it sounds like you know a lot about the sensor development cycles, and, surprisingly to me, it seems like they're as long as microprocessor development cycles. Can you answer a few questions for me?
Do new sensor designs typically proceed in lockstep with new process design and feature-size changes, or are sensors usually designed for an already-debugged process?
I know we refer to the dominant image capture technology as CMOS, but, since there are on-chip ADCs, is it really not pure CMOS, but a variation on BiCMOS?
What is the process-limited feature size of state-of-the-art sensors? Yes, I know that, these days, there's a lot of debate about feature size metrics that seemed so clear at a couple of hundred nanometers, but an approximate answer would be useful.
Are the current advances in performance that we're seeing from Sony coming mostly from new processes, or from innovative circuit design? Yes, the question is too broad, but any insight would be useful.
Where do the sensor design engineers usually publish? I see some papers at ISSCC, which used to be, and may still be, the go to conference for microprocessors and memory. Is tehre a better place to look?
In your answer, you might consider the following. I am not a semiconductor designer, but started using ICs in 1963 with tricky-to-use DCTL. I have managed groups that designed a couple of dozen ASICs, though, so I know enough about semiconductor design to get me in trouble.
Thanks for any help you can give.
Jim
-
Edmond:
Given your often expressed opinions of P1/H pricing, you may find the following entertaining. Taken from the engineers' comments on Ricoh's 645Z Special Page:
"Thus, we decided to release PENTAX 645Z as a new flagship model in 2014 to call attention to its superiority in image quality overwhelming 35-mm full frame cameras. As for the price, the price range of medium format digital cameras was 3 to 4 million yen, which is hardly payable, but PENTAX 645D was put on sale at the barely reasonable price of 800,000 yen, making an impossible dream come true."
The whole site is worth a look. It's an obvious translation of the original Japanese text. Somewhat refreshing in its lack of the typical advertising smoothness.
http://www.camera-pentax.jp/645z/en/
Tom
-
Thanks for any help you can give.
@ dpreview you can ask Eric Fossum = http://www.dpreview.com/members/9381744517/forums/posts
-
Jim,
Like any non-practising engineer, I am hopelessly out of date.
However there is a very nice site, ImageSensorsWorld (http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.fr/), where you can find news and links and anonymized rumors. I read the stuff from my own perspective ... yours will vary through your own experience :)
Edmund
PS. Yes, I have been told that Eric Fossum is very helpful.
Edmund, it sounds like you know a lot about the sensor development cycles, and, surprisingly to me, it seems like they're as long as microprocessor development cycles. Can you answer a few questions for me?
Do new sensor designs typically proceed in lockstep with new process design and feature-size changes, or are sensors usually designed for an already-debugged process?
I know we refer to the dominant image capture technology as CMOS, but, since there are on-chip ADCs, is it really not pure CMOS, but a variation on BiCMOS?
What is the process-limited feature size of state-of-the-art sensors? Yes, I know that, these days, there's a lot of debate about feature size metrics that seemed so clear at a couple of hundred nanometers, but an approximate answer would be useful.
Are the current advances in performance that we're seeing from Sony coming mostly from new processes, or from innovative circuit design? Yes, the question is too broad, but any insight would be useful.
Where do the sensor design engineers usually publish? I see some papers at ISSCC, which used to be, and may still be, the go to conference for microprocessors and memory. Is tehre a better place to look?
In your answer, you might consider the following. I am not a semiconductor designer, but started using ICs in 1963 with tricky-to-use DCTL. I have managed groups that designed a couple of dozen ASICs, though, so I know enough about semiconductor design to get me in trouble.
Thanks for any help you can give.
Jim
-
However there is a very nice site, ImageSensorsWorld (http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.fr/), where you can find news and links and anonymized rumors. I read the stuff from my own perspective ... yours will vary through your own experience :)
Thanks, Edmund. That's a good site for what I'm looking for.
Jim
-
Thanks, Edmund. That's a good site for what I'm looking for.
and you for sure know this blog = http://harvestimaging.com/blog/
-
but, imo the main issue is pretty long synchro time 1/125s
-
but, imo the main issue is pretty long synchro time 1/125s
Maybe they made a trade-off between high synchronization speed with shutter-vibration at all shutter-speeds, versus higher ISO ...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
and you for sure know this blog = http://harvestimaging.com/blog/
I did not. Thanks!
Jim
-
Tom,
Yes, indeed, thank you for the entertainment. There is an endearing earnestness in this text, very different from the usual "we are the best" shout of Phase and Hassy advertising.
"Barely affordable" would be a good pricing description, and in fact that is the way I think most people felt about the pre-digital Hasselblad.
Edmund
Edmond:
Given your often expressed opinions of P1/H pricing, you may find the following entertaining. Taken from the engineers' comments on Ricoh's 645Z Special Page:
"Thus, we decided to release PENTAX 645Z as a new flagship model in 2014 to call attention to its superiority in image quality overwhelming 35-mm full frame cameras. As for the price, the price range of medium format digital cameras was 3 to 4 million yen, which is hardly payable, but PENTAX 645D was put on sale at the barely reasonable price of 800,000 yen, making an impossible dream come true."
The whole site is worth a look. It's an obvious translation of the original Japanese text. Somewhat refreshing in its lack of the typical advertising smoothness.
http://www.camera-pentax.jp/645z/en/
Tom
-
Yes, indeed, thank you for the entertainment. There is an endearing earnestness in this text, very different from the usual "we are the best" shout of Phase and Hassy advertising.
"Barely affordable" would be a good pricing description, and in fact that is the way I think most people felt about the pre-digital Hasselblad.
There's always translation nuance to consider. "Barely affordable" could as easily be translated as "just affordable," which conveys the same information but with a more positive tone. ;)
-Dave-
-
There's always translation nuance to consider. "Barely affordable" could as easily be translated as "just affordable," which conveys the same information but with a more positive tone. ;)
-Dave-
Dave,
My japanese ability, actually my western brain, is not capable of understanding the subtext and nuance that could be conveyed in that language.
Their japanese sentence is different - I did look at it. However, their english version sentence is "As for the price, the price range of medium format digital cameras was 3 to 4 million yen, which is hardly payable, but PENTAX 645D was put on sale at the barely reasonable price of 800,000 yen, making an impossible dream come true. "
I think they stress that they had an unreasonably low aimpoint. Japanese are very strong on explaining that a job was undertaken after a long and careful discussion where consensus was reached on the difficult issues being difficult and it was resolved that each would do his part ... so the text here might convey that the project lead proposed and management accepted a low profit margin, and engineering a low BOM, whereby the company could create an innovative entry-level product for a class of consumer who had no access to MF at that point in time. What the subtext is and for whom it is intended, I have no way of imagining, with my western brain and no local knowledge.
Edmund
-
slightly on topic but i didn’t think worthy of it’s own thread.
what about Fuji? they make some of the H/blad body and the lenses and have their own expertise in MF would they throw their hat in the ring with a cheaper MFD option?
-
I'll let you in on a little secret.
Even in today's squeezed economy professional or photo loving enthusiast, regardless of what people write, cost isn't always the driving factor for using a certain camera.
Sometimes not even usability.
Not just in the still world, same with cinema, where mega (well use to be mega) budgets prevail. The Panasonic gh4 won't kill off or be used for anything big other than a rotocopter, RED didn't kill off Arri and the price difference of those machines runs, 4 grand to 40 grand to 80 large.
I know cats working on budget squeezed productions that will beg the underline producer to rent certain lenses at a trillion dollars a week because they love that look, even though the color will be performed by some guy that's pulling minimum wage on an Imac.
The Pentax is probably a good camera, the seeseedee version I wanted to buy, I liked it, but it had a small buffer and it wouldn't tether.
The New Pentax will probably fix some or most of this, other than it's seemos which isn't my brand of digital film, but don't think Phase, or Hasselblad, or Leica is going to put a closed sign on the window because Pentax announced something at a lower price.
For one The Pentax has no juice in the pro world. There is little if anything in rentals, no planned service outside of Japan and by the time you buy two of them so you have a backup, change out all of your lenses, your talking about 35k in costs and if your a phase, leica or blad owner and have a set of lenses and know the system, you can spend 25 to 35 for a seemos camera, not have to learn any new menus, or be forced to buy an English to Japanese App to get service.
Now I personally think any still camera that is over 15 large is too much, but hey, people are gonna buy the 35 gazillion dollar Phase because they like them, like their dealers and one thing about Phase and Blad and Leica is they'll last longer than the interior decoration of the dmv.
I also personally know that in the new world of the professional webographer 89.76% of every pro photograph is shot with a Nikon or Canon D something. Nothing wrong with that, other than their pretty generic in look though they do about anything up to the level of pretty good.
The crazy thing is Pentax has always made interesting stuff. Strange but interesting. I mean who would make a 645 film camera where the back wouldn't remove, or a super sized 35mm camera that took 220 roll film and had so much going for it other than the flash sync was measured by an abacas, it took a team of brain surgeons to load it fast and it had so much mirror slap you could use it to simulate 4.6 tremors for Los Angeles bridge integrity.
But you gotta hand it to them. They're building a 1/4 priced almost medium format camera in a world that has mobile phone in every pocket for the new "professional" thinks a big camera is a dee anything because the new definition of tumbler has gone from a glass that holds two fingers of 24 year old scotch to a way to show a portfolio to the world.
I wish Pentax well.
I wish all the camera makers well.
It's time for me to order another Leica S2.
IMO
BC
-
And this is true, it's 'almost' a medium format camera.
In fact anything with a 1.3x crop isn't a medium format camera imho. Call me out on that, but the big draw of Medium format is the size of the sensor.
I can see why Sony made these sensors first and can't wait to see the full frame offering in about 18 months.
-
Hilarious post on Pentax's idiosyncrasies, Brian.
... even though I liked the 645Nii for its removable inserts, durability, almost total lack of shutter and mirror vibration, and price, and did not feel limited by the lack of magazines. Always thought the 645 film system was written off by far too many for the lack of magazines. You could always either carry a second body (which I did and which was affordable) or if it was that important to change film, skip the rest of the film mid-roll and start with a new film. For me, the 67ii worked well for its ability to handle fast lenses and telephotos, but your descriptions of its shortcomings was to the point.
The 645Z seems to be the almost perfect camera, if you are willing to carry it around. I used the 645D with the new 90mm macro on the weekend. I was thinking if Pentax comes out with a few more killer lenses like the 25mm and the 90mm, it'll be a dream system. And now you have almost three types of lens options: those very new lenses (expensive), a return of the existing FA lenses, and inexpensive used lenses which are still available in good shape.
Haven't used Leica and Hasselblad though. Two medium format systems (Pentax and Rollei) are enough, especially with the 645Z around the corner and plenty of wonderful Schneider glass for the Hy6. The Leica would tempt me, because of its design and its lenses, if I wasn't too invested in the other two already. Phase never really interested me because of the Mamiya bodies it comes with, but they have made some nice lenses recently. A new body would be good for them. And for me, some Phase dealer interactions have been less than desirable, at best. And with all of those Sony rebadges, Hasselblad as a company certainly has lost much of its appeal for me. Happy Rollei (DHW) is still keeping things going and Pentax is going strong!
-
And this is true, it's 'almost' a medium format camera.
In fact anything with a 1.3x crop isn't a medium format camera imho. Call me out on that, but the big draw of Medium format is the size of the sensor.
I can see why Sony made these sensors first and can't wait to see the full frame offering in about 18 months.
C'mon, one can guess that upsized versions of this chip in backs from P1 and H will drop at Photokina. Especially aerial photography wants both resolution and ISO, desperately; repro wants liveview and resolution; both can be delivered by *large* CMOS chips, and there are a bunch of P&H buyers who just want the latest and greatest whatever it is ...
Edmund
-
Ah, I see you like'er :)
Well, at least guys who meet a new girl don't have to look for a twin of her before they can get married :)
Edmund
I'll let you in on a little secret.
It's time for me to order another Leica S2.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I am not sure about Sony making larger size sensor, time will show. Obviously, Sony can make the 1.3X crop chips at reasonable cost, else Pentax would not be able to make the 645Z at low price. So it is quite probable that they can make larger sensors at still reasonable cost. Bodes well for your MFD project!
Best regards
Erik
C'mon, one can guess that upsized versions of this chip in backs from P1 and H will drop at Photokina. Especially aerial photography wants both resolution and ISO, desperately; repro wants liveview and resolution; both can be delivered by *large* CMOS chips, and there are a bunch of P&H buyers who just want the latest and greatest whatever it is ...
Edmund
-
Hi,
I am not sure about Sony making larger size sensor, time will show. Obviously, Sony can make the 1.3X crop chips at reasonable cost, else Pentax would not be able to make the 645Z at low price. So it is quite probable that they can make larger sensors at still reasonable cost. Bodes well for your MFD project!
Best regards
Erik
I somehow think that won't be for tomorrow :)
Guess I'll be starting to look at the electronics around august/september, but very possibly I will just play around with small sensors.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I am not sure about Sony making larger size sensor, time will show. Obviously, Sony can make the 1.3X crop chips at reasonable cost, else Pentax would not be able to make the 645Z at low price. So it is quite probable that they can make larger sensors at still reasonable cost. Bodes well for your MFD project!
Best regards
Erik
It will be interesting to see if Sony does come out with a "full" frame 645 CMOS Chip, to me full frame is the size of the Current Dalsa chips in the IQ 60 and 80MP backs. I realize that this is still not full frame 645.
Dalsa has been quiet on this for a while but has been a partner with Phase One and others with CCD. I was not able to find any CMOS technology by Dalsa for cameras, however considering their company size, I feel it's safe to assume they do make CMOS.
Sony currently seems to have the magic for creating a high DR/high ISO chip set. Seen first with the D800, and now in the 50MP sensor. The reported capabilities of the Live View of the Sony chip is impressive and it seems so far that Phase One has done a good job in their Live View implementation. Nikon did not do so well with theirs with the 36MP chips:
1. Way too much noise in low light which makes low light focus very difficult
2. Confusion on where the correct setting spot is for 100% view for focus as you can zoom past 100%
If the full frame CMOS MF chip comes from Dalsa, instead of Sony I will curious to see if all the same Dynamic range capabilities will be there along with the same amount of iso range.
I am also curious if the current 50MP chip from Sony has the same apparent segmentation, the lines for the read outs, that tend to cause centerfolding/tiling with the Dalsa full frame chips.
Paul
-
Hi,
According to DALSA they are making both CMOS and CCD.
It would be nice if someone developed an economical alternative to Phase backs. Edmund has some ambitions to try, I wish him good luck.
Best regards
Erik
It will be interesting to see if Sony does come out with a "full" frame 645 CMOS Chip, to me full frame is the size of the Current Dalsa chips in the IQ 60 and 80MP backs. I realize that this is still not full frame 645.
Dalsa has been quiet on this for a while but has been a partner with Phase One and others with CCD. I was not able to find any CMOS technology by Dalsa for cameras, however considering their company size, I feel it's safe to assume they do make CMOS.
Sony currently seems to have the magic for creating a high DR/high ISO chip set. Seen first with the D800, and now in the 50MP sensor. The reported capabilities of the Live View of the Sony chip is impressive and it seems so far that Phase One has done a good job in their Live View implementation. Nikon did not do so well with theirs with the 36MP chips:
1. Way too much noise in low light which makes low light focus very difficult
2. Confusion on where the correct setting spot is for 100% view for focus as you can zoom past 100%
If the full frame CMOS MF chip comes from Dalsa, instead of Sony I will curious to see if all the same Dynamic range capabilities will be there along with the same amount of iso range.
I am also curious if the current 50MP chip from Sony has the same apparent segmentation, the lines for the read outs, that tend to cause centerfolding/tiling with the Dalsa full frame chips.
Paul
-
Hi,
According to DALSA they are making both CMOS and CCD.
It would be nice if someone developed an economical alternative to Phase backs. Edmund has some ambitions to try, I wish him good luck.
Best regards
Erik
My ambitions are at the usual dead stop. In August, I think I will start looking at interfacing a small CMOS sensor to see what the issues are.
Edmund
-
According to DALSA they are making both CMOS and CCD.
Yes, but apparently the CMOS sensors are only custom designs, and the site mentions no specific models while hinting at niches like "radiation hardened" and "wafer scale": this product list is all CCD despite the heading: http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/sensors/selector/
Also, note the name Teledyne-Dalsa and look at what Teledyne's overall business is, and ditto for ON Semiconductor, new owner of the former Kodak sensor division. Now more than ever, sensors for medium format cameras are a tiny part of what those sensor making operations are aimed at, not a driving force in their sensor development.
Ironically, Sony now seems far more focused on sensors for "normal photography" as opposed to technical and scientific imaging, if only because Sony provides such a large proportion of sensors for "normal photography" in everything from phones to SLRs, and digital photography innovation seems to be mostly "trickle up" from the higher volume, larger revenue mass market to the larger "niche formats", meaning 1" and up. Sony has already worked with Phase One on the design of its 44x33mm 50MP CMOS sensor, and is even happy to work with a competitor like Olympus, designing and providing 4/3" format sensors that Sony has no use for in its own products.
-
Yes, but apparently the CMOS sensors are only custom designs, and the site mentions no specific models while hinting at niches like "radiation hardened" and "wafer scale": this product list is all CCD despite the heading: http://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/sensors/selector/
Also, note the name Teledyne-Dalsa and look at what Teledyne's overall business is, and ditto for ON Semiconductor, new owner of the former Kodak sensor division. Now more than ever, sensors for medium format cameras are a tiny part of what those sensor making operations are aimed at, not a driving force in their sensor development.
Ironically, Sony now seems far more focused on sensors for "normal photography" as opposed to technical and scientific imaging, if only because Sony provides such a large proportion of sensors for "normal photography" in everything from phones to SLRs, and digital photography innovation seems to be mostly "trickle up" from the higher volume, larger revenue mass market to the larger "niche formats", meaning 1" and up. Sony has already worked with Phase One on the design of its 44x33mm 50MP CMOS sensor, and is even happy to work with a competitor like Olympus, designing and providing 4/3" format sensors that Sony has no use for in its own products.
Sony is now the main supplier of sensors to the photographic industry, and makes a tidy profit from this component business.
Edmund
-
Just received the camera, it's wonderful!!
-
Sony has already worked with Phase One on the design of its 44x33mm 50MP CMOS sensor.
Do we know for a fact that they worked together on this design? What would Sony have needed from Phaseone that they didn't know already?
My guess remains that the 50mp "MF" sensor is being produced only because Pentax committed to a large purchase for the 645Z, which made the part available for smaller players such as Phaseone and Hassy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
shot with a 150mm 3.5 wide open at 3200 iso. I love this camera
-
The production sensor is, I guess more than 2 years old; the MF industry has been at a standstill that long. I think Sony needed it anyway for high resolution video as this is a good market for them, and equipment is needed by all industry players to generate experimental content. I wouldn't be surprised to see video cameras with this sensor appear under the Sony label in labs belonging to the japanese industry. Photography is not anymore what the high added value market is about,.
However, I guess there is a larger Sony sensor just round the corner, that will be announced at Photokina, probably at the same time as ... the Sony 50MP 35mm device :)
Edmund
-
I really don't think Sony sees this as a practical sensor for professional video work. It can't do a full-frame capture in real time. It's too big, requiring a new line of hyper-expensive cine optics. As implemented in still cameras, the sensor demands a dark frame subtraction to mitigate thermal noise.
I think Sony is showing us with the A7s that it favors a different technology (i.e., dual conversion gain) for its video sensors that is much less problematic, and is likely to stick with 35mm and super-35 as the medium of choice, for access to the big market.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oT-fnHHTFs
Very nice camera, badly in need of lenses (new, made for digital lenses, specially wide angles, also would be cool to have some with leaf shutters), but for some what is available might suffice.
-
Hi,
Chris really likes the Pentax 645Z…
Noteworthy, he made a similar comparison to Lloyd Chambers's comparing A7r and Pentax 645Z, and found the Pentax sharper. It could be that 25/4 Lloyd tested may have been a less good sample.
Best regards
Erik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oT-fnHHTFs
Very nice camera, badly in need of lenses (new, made for digital lenses, specially wide angles, also would be cool to have some with leaf shutters), but for some what is available might suffice.
-
Was in a pro dealer (mainly lighting and rental but some canon and phase1) today and they had just started stocking the 645z, 2 sold the first day they had stock and lots of orders, they are not able to do rental yet as the demand is high and supply of cameras tight so they will have to wait until they fulfil their backlog of orders before they can fill their own rental shelves. Seems they are very popular here in London.
-
Was in a pro dealer (mainly lighting and rental but some canon and phase1) today and they had just started stocking the 645z, 2 sold the first day they had stock and lots of orders, they are not able to do rental yet as the demand is high and supply of cameras tight so they will have to wait until they fulfil their backlog of orders before they can fill their own rental shelves. Seems they are very popular here in London.
I do wonder whether Phase and Hassy have the same problem of large unmet demand :)
Usually companies deliver slowly at the beginning, in case of teething issues that might need fixing.
Edmund
-
Do we know for a fact that they worked together on this design? What would Sony have needed from Phaseone that they didn't know already?
The article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_phase_one_iq250_cmos_fully_realized.shtml
suggests that Sonly consulted Phase One on CFA design, which seems to be the place where camera maker inpu tis most likely, and where brand-specific variants re most likely. (As an extreme example the Fujfilm X trans sensors seem to be standard Sony "silicon" with a custom CFA.)
My guess remains that the 50mp "MF" sensor is being produced only because Pentax committed to a large purchase for the 645Z, which made the part available for smaller players such as Phaseone and Hassy.
I sort of agree: it seems likely that Sony sought commitments to sufficient purchases from multiple customers including Pentax before going ahead with making this sensor. (This goes with my skepticism about the common claim that Sony just designs and produces sensors "on spec" and then offers them to customers, so that Nikon has to just choose from what Sony has on offer.)
-
I really don't think Sony sees this as a practical sensor for professional video work. It can't do a full-frame capture in real time. It's too big, requiring a new line of hyper-expensive cine optics. As implemented in still cameras, the sensor demands a dark frame subtraction to mitigate thermal noise.
I think Sony is showing us with the A7s that it favors a different technology (i.e., dual conversion gain) for its video sensors that is much less problematic, and is likely to stick with 35mm and super-35 as the medium of choice, for access to the big market.
Agreed! All that, plus the fact that 4:3 is no longer anyone's idea of a good shape for a video sensor.
-
I do wonder whether Phase and Hassy have the same problem of large unmet demand :)
Usually companies deliver slowly at the beginning, in case of teething issues that might need fixing.
No back log currently, but then again we've been shipping the iq250 for half a year :).
-
No back log currently, but then again we've been shipping the iq250 for half a year :).
Frankly, if money is no object and somebody already has Phase or Hassy, the follow-on products with their high ISO are no-brainers, at least as backup.
However, we don't seem to be seeing a deluge of IQ250 users or H5D50C here, although Pentax seems to be climbing steadily, starting from almost nowhere.
It's strange that price-sensitivity has set in on this forum among the historical customer base ...
Maybe too few of us here are billionaires to represent a true sample of the Phase customer base.
I wonder who the buyers are.
Edmund
-
Those with more sense than money?
You mean buyers have more dollars than sense ?
:P
Edmund
-- Summer is the silly season.
-
I wouldn't dream of commenting ...
Roll on Autumn ;D
I see you've got more sense than creative energy :)
Poor Phase, they're getting mucho money but so little respect - being rich is such a ***** ;)
Edmund
-- A hot summer is a very silly season.
-
So, is this 645Z a hit or a flop? Any indications yet, now when it has been out for a while? Is anyone buying it?
Maybe, rather than being considered as an alternative to the H5D-50c and IQ250 it's competing with cameras like the D810?
-
I got one early last month, very happy with everything about the camera. Con no tether yet
-
Have you heard what Pentax's direction is for tethering? It has a USB3 port if I remember and there was some mention at anno. that it would be able to tether to LR.
Paul
-
I got one of the first 645Z's to arrive in Calgary. There have been a couple of minor speed bumps but so far I'm very happy with everything about it. I've been overloaded with other stuff so haven't had the opportunity to write anything up yet, but I am shooting the camera and slowly getting some of the images developed. It's doing an amazing job for my type of work, and I can do things with it that I couldn't really do with the 645D before...
-
After doing my initial review, I purchased one for my own use. I will have a more comprehensive report in a few weeks.
In the meantime it is exceeding expectations.
Michael
-
[...] In the meantime it is exceeding expectations.
That's actually a good point. Are there still flaws with the 645Z? Sure, same with any camera. The question is whether the flaws are neutral or negative to the main purpose for which one uses the camera. The flaws with the Sony a7R, for example, are such that I don't really enjoy using it as much as I thought I would. I can get the job done with it, but it feels like I have to work at it much more consciously and I'm sometimes right on the edge of not getting the results I want. It's not the full, net-positive step up from my old Canon 35mm bodies (e.g. 5D Mk II) that I was quite thinking it would be.
After shooting the 645D heavily for over 3.5 years, I had what I thought were pretty solid but reasonable expectations for what the Z should or would be like. I would say the Z is exceeding my expectations as well. And it just feels really good to use. :)
-
The main concern for a lot of people remains the lenses.
Everybody knows that the Leica, Hy6, Hasselblad, Contax 645 and Phase One glass is excellent.
How many of the Pentax lenses are at that level?
-
That's actually a good point. Are there still flaws with the 645Z? Sure, same with any camera. The question is whether the flaws are neutral or negative to the main purpose for which one uses the camera. The flaws with the Sony a7R, for example, are such that I don't really enjoy using it as much as I thought I would. I can get the job done with it, but it feels like I have to work at it much more consciously and I'm sometimes right on the edge of not getting the results I want. It's not the full, net-positive step up from my old Canon 35mm bodies (e.g. 5D Mk II) that I was quite thinking it would be.
After shooting the 645D heavily for over 3.5 years, I had what I thought were pretty solid but reasonable expectations for what the Z should or would be like. I would say the Z is exceeding my expectations as well. And it just feels really good to use. :)
Royce:
Like you, I've had the 645D for almost 4 years and am still thrilled with the camera. I'm on the fence (but teetering) over the 645Z. I don't have the 25mm; the cost and weight have made me hesitant. The new zoom appears promising, but still has a weight and cost penalty. I have considered purchasing an A7r with a Zeiss 21mm, which would give me a small system, comparable images to the D and would cost considerably less than a Z, not to mention a Z and the 25mm. I would be appreciative if you would expand your comments on the Sony and why you're not comfortable with the camera.
After doing my initial review, I purchased one for my own use. I will have a more comprehensive report in a few weeks.
............................
Michael
Michael, I hope you will discuss the Z vs. A7r as well.
Best,
Tom
-
The main concern for a lot of people remains the lenses.
Everybody knows that the Leica, Hy6, Hasselblad, Contax 645 and Phase One glass is excellent.
How many of the Pentax lenses are at that level?
I had the 645D and a few lenses and the lenses are ok just as long as you do not use them wide open with the exception of the 55mm and the 90mm macro which are nice even wide open. So for landscape the lenses are acceptable. For portrait and commercial work with people I prefer the Hasselblad H or the Phase/SK leaf shutter lenses (specially for when working with flash).
In build quality and feel the Pentax lenses are good but a notch below the Leica S, Hy6, Hasselblad, Contax 645 and Phase One glass. I would say only the 90mm macro gets up to the level of those other brands optically speaking but I do not like the bokeh of that lens. The 55mm is about on par to some. The 25mm supposedly is also good but there is a good bit of sample variation (again from what has been said online). Most of the A and FA (Pentax 645) lenses are good at f8-f16 but much less so wide open or close to wide open. The 120mm macro is a really good lens optically (for its intended macro purpose) in A or FA version. So there are some good lens options for the Pentax if you do your research and understand their limitations.
My impression is that the Pentax body is generally better than the lenses, in performance and build quality / feel.
-
I had the 645D and a few lenses and the lenses are ok just as long as you do not use them wide open with the exception of the 55mm and the 90mm macro which are nice even wide open. So for landscape the lenses are acceptable. For portrait and commercial work with people I prefer the Hasselblad H or the Phase/SK leaf shutter lenses (specially for when working with flash).
In build quality and feel the Pentax lenses are good but a notch below the Leica S, Hy6, Hasselblad, Contax 645 and Phase One glass. I would say only the 90mm macro gets up to the level of those other brands optically speaking but I do not like the bokeh of that lens. The 55mm is about on par to some. The 25mm supposedly is also good but there is a good bit of sample variation (again from what has been said online). Most of the A and FA (Pentax 645) lenses are good at f8-f16 but much less so wide open or close to wide open. The 120mm macro is a really good lens optically (for its intended macro purpose) in A or FA version. So there are some good lens options for the Pentax if you do your research and understand their limitations.
My impression is that the Pentax body is generally better than the lenses, in performance and build quality / feel.
I fear for Pentax that the lenses indeed are going to be the challenge, It will be interesting to read what Michael has to say about that.
With the current prices of Phase One/Hasselblad/Pentax, if Leica priced their new body sensibly they really could take a much larger part of the MF market I feel.
Provided they want to...
-
I fear for Pentax that the lenses indeed are going to be the challenge, It will be interesting to read what Michael has to say about that.
With the current prices of Phase One/Hasselblad/Pentax, if Leica priced their new body sensibly they really could take a much larger part of the MF market I feel.
Provided they want to...
The problem with Leica is exponentially increasing pricing; I think they are now on their second price increase this year on the M240. They have boxed themselves into the luxury category even though their products are useful.
Edmund
-
The problem with Leica is exponentially increasing pricing; I think they are now on their second price increase this year on the M240. They have boxed themselves into the luxury category even though their products are useful.
Edmund
Yes, same for the Leica S lenses, the 30-90mm zoom went from $10,900 to $11,400 in January and 6 months later from $11,400 to $11,750…
If they are smart it would make sense though to keep the price of the body as low as possible…
Phase One and Hasselblad prices for CMOS are ridiculous IMO… the Hasselblad 200MS went from $44K to $50K...
-
With the 645D I don't feel the lenses are a weak point. I use 'em mostly well stopped down for deep DOF, with the camera on a tripod, and performance across the board is fine & dandy. (I own a 35/75/120/150/200mm set from film days along with the newer 55mm.) The 150 is a real nice portrait lens wide open too, not because it's "soft" at f/2.8 (though it is a bit) but because it delivers a pleasing look with faces. Are the Pentax FAs the sharpest MF lenses around at wider apertures? Nope. But given how I use 'em I have no reason to care.
-Dave-
-
I agree Dave. I have 20+ of the Pentax 645 and 67 lenses and a few are sharp wide open, but all improve on stopping down. I have no idea why these lenses are so underrated by some. A few years ago, it was very difficult to find a 645 35mm FA, in part because many were being used with a Zoerk adapter on Canon cameras. I know of few comparison tests of MF lenses, but here's an old one that explains why the 35mm was in demand:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html
-
I have six Pentax lenses, and not one disappoints. But as has benn said, it depends on ones use and expectations.
The stars in my collection are the 35mm and 120 macro. The 75mm f/2.8 is also very good, even wide open.
Tax,
The 300mm is excellent but one needs top technique to avoid vibration.
The two zoom, 45-85mm and 80-160mm again should be used stopped down at least two stops, but then are as good as anything I've used.
I have used Hasselblad V and H lenses, Contax, and Phase /Mamiya. In real world shooting (not pixel peeping test charts) I find little that makes me wish I was using any of the former. But is I wanted some Hassy V series glass then a simple adaptor is all that's needed and CF lenses are available for a song.
Leica S lenses? Who wouldn't want them? But a proper set of glass will cost about the same as a mid-range BMW, and out of my spending comfort zone.
Cost is a real world issue. Pentax 645 has remained very popular in Japan while it mostly disappeared in North America and Europe during the past decade. If you look at e-Bay you see many lenses available from Japanese dealers in Mint or A++ condition for very reasonable prices. I bought six Pentax 645 lenses last month for just over $6000. Together with my 645z body, the whole system cost about $15,000.
So far the system totally satisfies from the perspective of usability, image quality and price. Putting something comparable together from Leica, Phase or Hasselblad would cost many times more.
My report is still a few weeks away, but in my view the Pentax 645z system currently trumps anything else. Perfect...no. Good enough for me? Yes.
Michael
-
No doubt the 35FA was a great lens as mentioned on a 16mp or 20 Mp 35mm sensor with the Zork adapter. I was able to test mine on the 645D before I sold it (bad moved on my part) on the 35FA was very good on that camera also.
I am assuming Pentax has re-released the 35FA for US sales as it had been not available for quite a while.
Still feel the Pentax dealer presence needs more focus in the US.
Paul
-
......snip...... but in my view the Pentax 645z system currently trumps anything else. Perfect...no. Good enough for me? Yes.
Michael
Wow Michael,
That's great . . . actually amazing considering all the cameras you've tested.
Who would have thought we'd be offered a larger than 35mm camera with 35mm usability at 1/4 the price of traditional digital medium format.
Now if they just get it to tether and Pentax does a better job of getting their message out, past the borders of Japan.
IMO
BC
-
No doubt the 35FA was a great lens as mentioned on a 16mp or 20 Mp 35mm sensor with the Zork adapter. I was able to test mine on the 645D before I sold it (bad moved on my part) on the 35FA was very good on that camera also.
I am assuming Pentax has re-released the 35FA for US sales as it had been not available for quite a while.
Still feel the Pentax dealer presence needs more focus in the US.
Paul
I actually purchased both the 35mm A and the FA for use on my 645D and tested them thoroughly. Even at optimum apertures (around f11) the 35 A (manual focus) lens was the best no question. The 35mm FA (at least the one I had) never had sharp corners at any aperture. In the extreme corners it was extremely noticeable (the reduced sharpness). It was odd but at closer focus distances (10 feet) it performed much better but since I wanted it for landscapes the performance at infinity focus was very important to me so the 35mm A won easily. In fact I still have it here. I tried to sell it for a while but no one snatched it even at $400. I still have the 120mm A and the 45-85mm FA. (again, put em up for sale, ebay and FM and no one...). Both lenses are also really good at f11 which is basically my mostly used aperture for landscapes.
I have the Hasselblad H1 with the 80mm f2.8 lens and that lens is very good at any aperture. I mostly use it wide open for shooting people (with the PhaseOne IQ160). I had the 75mm f2.8 Pentax FA lens and it was pretty bad wide open. I have also tried the Hasselblad 210mm, 150mm, 120mm and 100mm H lenses and they performed great also. They can be used at any aperture without concern (except diffraction at f16 and beyond). They offer very very consistent performance. (they match very well as a set, color / contrast very similar). Again, if all you do is shoot at f11 (+- 1 stop) then all this is of no concern.
As a camera body the Pentax 645D (and I suspect the 645Z raises the bar even more) is the best Medium Format Camera ever made along with the Leica S/S2 (and the upcoming 50mp version). As a system, the answer is not so simple, it depends on each one's needs and wants.
-
I believe that the 645z cannot be considered as an MF alternative... It can be considered as a D800/e/810 alternative and then judged by price if it worths or not the extra cash required, but it being a DSLR without any modularity consideration on the system, it can't apply to the idea behind using an MFDB or give the solutions that an advanced photographer is after...
If Pentax would ever decide to make another version of the camera with modularity in mind that would permit to remove the back and/or the finders... then things could be different, but now, one can only expect to use such a camera as an alternative to what he would normally do with a Dslr only hoping to improve (?) on the IQ at some extra expense....
It's the same story with Hasselblad really when they decided to "close" the H system and even more after they decided against the CF "free to everyone" backs... They appeared to most photographers as an enemy into "providing solutions" as if creative photographer's needs where not of their concern... I just hope they'll rethink their decisions before its too late, because the more DSLRs improve, the less room will exist for the upper steps in the ladder and that is not my opinion... it is common sense!
-
It simply is what it is. The Leica S and Pentax 645 are all-in-one cameras. Some benefits, some downsides.
What till Photokina. There will be some interesting alternatives!. ;)
M
-
I have recently purchased the Pentax 645z camera and the 45-85mm zoom, 150-300mm zoom, still waiting for the 28-45 Zoom to be released. I am thrilled with the output of this camera and the cmos sensor. I have the Hasselblad H5D 50 and it actually exceeds the performance of that camera / lens combo for landscape work. I was going to upgrade to the H5D 50C (I need the higher iso capability) but the price for even an upgrade was so much higher than the 645Z with lenses, so that decision was easy. The main advantage of this camera over the D810 (I have a D800) is that with the 645Z I can make much larger prints - more pixels equals exponentially better enlargement ability. I regularly do prints 6 feet to 10 feet in size and need the MF resolution. This is not just my blind opinion but is from my 15 years of making art prints and pixel peeping every file and print. If you just shoot for web or smaller prints then why bother with the expense and hassle of MF bodies and lenses? This new Pentax 645z is a game changer for MF at this price point. Michael I am pleased to hear you are also getting one, I look forward to hearing more of your impressions on this system and your opinion on the lenses.
Elizabeth Carmel
www.ElizabethCarmel.com
-
This is becoming a landslide vote of approval for the Pentax.
Who knows, P and H might get the message and lower body prices; clearly the lens-lock in is not going to do it for them when you can get a full set of lenses with the Pentax for the price of a P or H body alone.
I think that the used resale value of the Hasselblad and Phase One low end solutions has effectively been halved.
Edmund
-
I actually purchased both the 35mm A and the FA for use on my 645D and tested them thoroughly. Even at optimum apertures (around f11) the 35 A (manual focus) lens was the best no question. The 35mm FA (at least the one I had) never had sharp corners at any aperture. In the extreme corners it was extremely noticeable (the reduced sharpness). It was odd but at closer focus distances (10 feet) it performed much better but since I wanted it for landscapes the performance at infinity focus was very important to me so the 35mm A won easily. In fact I still have it here. I tried to sell it for a while but no one snatched it even at $400. I still have the 120mm A and the 45-85mm FA. (again, put em up for sale, ebay and FM and no one...). Both lenses are also really good at f11 which is basically my mostly used aperture for landscapes.
Sadly the 35mm FA lenses made in Vietnam had a pretty wide sample variation. Mine was excellent as I was shifting it 18mm per side on the Zork. Not sure where the new ones will be made.
Paul
-
It simply is what it is. The Leica S and Pentax 645 are all-in-one cameras. Some benefits, some downsides.
What till Photokina. There will be some interesting alternatives!. ;)
M
Exactly.
Although The Leica S/S2 has factory adapters available to use Hasselblad V, Mamiya 645, Pentax 67, Hasselblad H and Contax 645 lenses that makes it very versatile in regards to lens selection. Gotta give it to Leica for making the adapters.
Can't wait for photokina.
-
Aloha,
Michael I am more than pleased with your review of the Pentax.
I had my concerns that you would find fault with the camera, and not take it seriously.
I have been using my 645D for three years and when thing go well, and they often do:
"Angels sing"
Pentax gets very little respect in the medium format arena now days
Now to hear you are purchasing a system really pleases me,
Not only because I know you will thoroughly enjoy it, but it really sends a positive message about the gear.
As many people, myself included, have a good deal of respect to what you say.
-
Expect the new Pentax software for tethering end of September.
Radu
-
Expect the new Pentax software for tethering end of September.
Source ?
-
Source ?
September 26th to be more precised!
Radu
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20140711_657504.html
-
Does anyone know when the 645Z will get into a "available" status on either Adorama or B&H Photo? It's beenj in a available for back order status since the announcement. Or when it will start to shop in volume?
Also to any US buyers, is there a US service center? Or do repairs still have to go to Japan.
Thanks
Paul
-
B&H showed the 645z as in stock a couple of weeks ago, but it would appear that they sold out.
I am told that demand is far exceeding supply in most world markets.
Michael
-
Michael
Thanks looks like they definitely have a winner on their hands.
Paul
-
B&H showed the 645z as in stock a couple of weeks ago, but it would appear that they sold out.
I am told that demand is far exceeding supply in most world markets.
Michael
That's very good news. Pentax will doubtless start cranking out lenses if they are selling bodies.
Hopefully Phase and Hasselblad will now also review their pricing; their policies had starved and all but killed this market segment.
Edmund
-
Michael
Thanks looks like they definitely have a winner on their hands.
Paul
How can it fail? ...If one wants a comparable image sensor and only does DSLR use of his/hers camera, he has to pay much more... If he wants to be "deferent" from other DSLR users... its the cheapest thing around... There is no competition available (yet)... is there? :-X Hear, hear... Doug will be shooting weddings with an ...IQ250! ;D
-
The main advantage of this camera over the D810 (I have a D800) is that with the 645Z I can make much larger prints - more pixels equals exponentially better enlargement ability. I regularly do prints 6 feet to 10 feet in size and need the MF resolution. This is not just my blind opinion but is from my 15 years of making art prints and pixel peeping every file and print.
Elisabeth,
I find the 645Z to be a remarkable camera and it is great to read that you are pleased with the outcome.
Now, I am a bit doubtful about the exponentially better enlargement ability part of your statement. Considering that the pixel quality/sharpness of the 645Z and D810 are similar (which is reasonable), what you get is the ability to move up from a 20x24 inch print to a 23x28 inch print, everything else being equal. It is for sure a relevant difference if you don't stitch, but I don't see this as exponentially better.
Now, one of the concern I have with the 645Z is the quality of the lenses compared to the best 35mm offerings, today and in the future. I am wondering whether this theoretical advantage resulting from higher pixel counter will really show in terms of actual detail once lens quality is factored in. The Pentax 90mm seems to be the only truly outstanding lens in the Pentax line up as we speak compared to a wide variety of choices in Nikon mount. Since Sigma and Zeiss will not be developing lenses for this size of sensors so I don't see the gap reducing, on the contrary.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, indeed,
But the story was the same with the P645D. I don't think it was a failure, but it didn't afffect Phase and Hassy sales either.
Best regards
Erik
How can it fail? ...If one wants a comparable image sensor and only does DSLR use of his/hers camera, he has to pay much more... If he wants to be "deferent" from other DSLR users... its the cheapest thing around... There is no competition available (yet)... is there? :-X Hear, hear... Doug will be shooting weddings with an ...IQ250! ;D
-
Now, one of the concern I have with the 645Z is the quality of the lenses compared to the best 35mm offerings, today and in the future. I am wondering whether this theoretical advantage resulting from higher pixel counter will really show in terms of actual detail once lens quality is factored in. The Pentax 90mm seems to be the only truly outstanding lens in the Pentax line up as we speak compared to a wide variety of choices in Nikon mount. Since Sigma and Zeiss will not be developing lenses for this size of sensors so I don't see the gap reducing, on the contrary.
The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.
The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.
-
But the story was the same with the P645D. I don't think it was a failure, but it didn't afffect Phase and Hassy sales either.
Yes I could be the same this time around too, but I think it's a bit different now as the camera landscape look different. The 645D was released 2010, two years before the D800. Now with very capable 135 cameras like the D800/D810 and A7r people has got used to that high resolution can be had cheap and more starting to question the pricing of MF. Then three cameras come out with the exact same Sony sensor which is the same type of technology as in D800/A7r. Similar results can be had from all, yet pricing is very different. Hasselblad has also launched a luxury consumer line of rebranded Sony products and Leica has moved further into being just a luxury brand.
I think customers today are much more aware of that if you get Hassy, Leica or Phase you pay a lot just for their business model rather than getting actual product value. This means that the 645Z may make a larger impact than 645D did. We'll see.
-
The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.
The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.
135 systems have not previously been optimized for "MF applications", ie high resolution photography in good light. It has not really been meaningful to do so as high resolution sensors has not existed. It's different now, and the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lens lines are the first(?) products that aim for high resolving power. Still it's easier to resolve more with a larger format, but maybe modern optics manufacturing will make the size factor less meaningful.
It's quite early though, and it's still true that for 135 systems most lenses are not designed for very high resolving power. Personally I don't find Zeiss Otus to be a real alternative, as for this type of camera I want autofocus.
-
Hi,
Lloyd has been looking into this, comparing the Pentax 24 mm with the Zeiss 21 on A7r, and also Pentax 90 mm with Otus, i think. I am not sure about the outcome, but I felt he preferred the smaller formats.
The other side of the equation is that the weakness of 135 lenses you mention seems to be mostly in the corners and corners are mostly not the most important part of the image. Also, new lenses are coming from Sigma and Zeiss offering much improved performance across the field.
The third part is that there is a need of stopping for aperture on MFD, if I can shoot with DSLR at 5.6 and need to stop down an MFD to f/11, diffraction will affect the MFD while the DSLR is still in the optimal region.
I would also say, that all these may be pixel peeping differences, quite visible at actual pixels on screen, but this not the way pictures are normally presented. Pictures are either shown on screen. Which has two megapixels, or in prints.
Either way, low frequency detail will dominate over microcontrast.
Best regards
Erik
The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.
The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.
-
Lloyd has been looking into this, comparing the Pentax 24 mm with the Zeiss 21 on A7r, and also Pentax 90 mm with Otus, i think. I am not sure about the outcome, but I felt he preferred the smaller formats.
The details are interesting and I recommend anyone interested in this comparison to subscribe to DAP at diglloyd.com, but in short he finds that the 90mm Pentax is the only lens thanks to which the 645Z isn't inferior to a D810 + a good 35 mm equivalent lens. Now he didn't test multiple samples,... so this must be taken with a grain of salt as all reviews are.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
135 systems have not previously been optimized for "MF applications", ie high resolution photography in good light. It has not really been meaningful to do so as high resolution sensors has not existed. It's different now, and the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lens lines are the first(?) products that aim for high resolving power. Still it's easier to resolve more with a larger format, but maybe modern optics manufacturing will make the size factor less meaningful.
It's quite early though, and it's still true that for 135 systems most lenses are not designed for very high resolving power. Personally I don't find Zeiss Otus to be a real alternative, as for this type of camera I want autofocus.
There is a fairly cheap and very good af 50mm for the Sony. If you want high quality and SLR convenience, but the 50 is your main lens then the whole system with 50 is probably cheaper than the huge non-af Otus.
Edmund
-
Obviously there has been a large unfilled demand for a larger than 35mm camera that comes it at under $10,000 and it seems the Pentax fills that niche.
Probably in the real world, 22, to 35 to 50mpx doesn't make that much difference in most applications given that photography style, concept, what's in front of the lens is more important than the actual capture device, as long as the camera doesn't inhibit you.
This forum is more tech oriented, mostly visited by advanced enthusiasts, less so by working for profit image makers, so the viewpoints are going to vary.
The pentax strikes a positive with the photographer that doesn't want to do the typical canon/nikon thing, but wants something a little different, a little more "special".
I assume when Pentax/Richoh decided on where to go next they could do a follow the herd full frame 35mm camera and fight it out for 4th or 5th place, or just continue to be a little bit different and go for the larger format group at a higher price point.
I hope it works for them, because being different is good.
IMO
BC
-
The conclusion that "the 90mm Pentax is the only lens thanks to which the 645Z isn't inferior to a D810 + a good 35 mm equivalent lens." seems rather quick. In addition to sample variation, if one also includes MF-lenses such as the Otus, as I have mentioned before, it would be natural to also consider MF-lenses for the Pentax. Ming Thein found that: (http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/) "In short, the Zeiss V glass [on the 645Z] outperforms the legacy FA Pentax lenses (75/2.8 vs 2.8/80; 200/4 vs 4/150) by a noticeable margin, wide open or stopped down. The Zeisses tend to start off a bit softer but improve more through f8-11". So if some of the legacy lenses are less than stellar, it seems some of the focal lenghts could be filled in by other brands. Others have also found lenses such as the P67 55-100mm to be sharper than the 645 version. I have personally used the old 120mm A macro (bought for $ 160 on ebay!) on a 15mpix APS-C Canon (with higher pixel density than the 645Z), and it was very sharp. I would be curious as to which lens Lloyd found that outperformed it and the 645Z on 35mm. With the new 28-45mm and rumored new 80-160mm, it seems Pentax will update its lens line to support the 645Z in any event.
Dag
-
Obviously there has been a large unfilled demand for a larger than 35mm camera that comes it at under $10,000 and it seems the Pentax fills that niche.
Probably in the real world, 22, to 35 to 50mpx doesn't make that much difference in most applications given that photography style, concept, what's in front of the lens is more important than the actual capture device, as long as the camera doesn't inhibit you.
This forum is more tech oriented, mostly visited by advanced enthusiasts, less so by working for profit image makers, so the viewpoints are going to vary.
The pentax strikes a positive with the photographer that doesn't want to do the typical canon/nikon thing, but wants something a little different, a little more "special".
I assume when Pentax/Richoh decided on where to go next they could do a follow the herd full frame 35mm camera and fight it out for 4th or 5th place, or just continue to be a little bit different and go for the larger format group at a higher price point.
I hope it works for them, because being different is good.
IMO
BC
I have tested a bunch of camera / sensor and lens combinations and to really get a significant improvement in image (system) resolution over a D800E and the BEST lenses on it you need to use the best tech camera lenses and the 60mp or 80mp CMOS sensor backs (given equally good technique and average light). The difference is really eye opening.
Obviously system resolution is not the only parameter to take into consideration when choosing a system (and honestly in a lot of cases it is far down the list) but that does not make my statement any less true.
When you use those same 60/80 mp backs with SLR lenses you loose a bit of resolution (again that is with the best SLR lenses) and the performance get closer to what you would get with the D800E and the 645D (again, using the very best lenses for each camera). It still ahead (again in terms of resolution) but the increased costs and versatility compromises get harder to justify, again, if you only use resolution as the measuring stick. (like a few here have done a LOT of times).
As a camera / sensor body the 645Z seems superb. As a system it is in the middle (not only in price), it has the convenience, functionality, ease of use, integration and ANY light Image Quality of a typical top end DSLR (35mm) camera body but without the HUGE lens selection available for the 35mm DSLR systems or the VERY high quality leaf shutter lens availability of a PhaseOne, Hasselblad H or Leica S system. The PhaseOne and Leaf backs offer the additional possibility of using Tech Camera lens setups (my choice) that offer LOTS of sensor / lens movements.
Regarding the 90mm Pentax 645 lens. It is a good one but IMHO it is priced WAY to high and the Bokeh is unattractive. It is however very sharp and has IS.
Again, it's great to have options.
BC you are spot on. It is tough to make recommendations since very few of us here seem to work in collaborative, client supervised photography jobs. I just always try to make clear where im coming from when making a recommendation and giving out info on gear.
-
I have tested a bunch of camera / sensor and lens combinations ....
Failed to see (or understand the results off) any "testing" whatsoever... ;) Sorry... :P
-
I assume when Pentax/Richoh decided on where to go next they could do a follow the herd full frame 35mm camera and fight it out for 4th or 5th place, or just continue to be a little bit different and go for the larger format group at a higher price point.
I hope it works for them, because being different is good.
IMO
BC
I assume they saw thePhase prices and decide to compete on price and integration.
Best of luck to them.
-
Edmund,
For years you've dissed medium format prices but hey, they got you once and you wrote the check and last time I looked all the medium format guys were still doing good business.
The Pentax is a good deal IF you don't have any lenses or hooked into the Phase system, but when it comes to professional tethering, long (very very long) lasting equipment with a strong dealer network
(the stuff the professionals need), Phase is at the very tippy top of the list and no offense to Pentax but they're new lenses aren't cheap, nobody knows about their software suite, or repair facilities.
I can dig it that you want prices to come down, understand that since your not a pro, you don't need to spend the cash, but no medium format salesman I know is getting rich, they're just making a living and I hope they're around for a long time.
Phase, Leaf, Leica, Blad are not huge companies like Canon and Nikon so it's not like they're leveraging their weight.
People buy their products because they want to. Phase doesn't have subpoena power, they just offer a product and hope people buy.
So far it's been working pretty well for such a small company.
Chill on the money man.
IMO
BC
-
Edmund,
last time I looked all the medium format guys were still doing good business.
IMO
BC
Well, that is technically true.
Sinar seems to have been acquired by Leica, but have stopped marketing Jenoptik's tech in the guise of untethered backs AFAIK. Rollei-based bodies are seen very very rarely. Mamiya had some digital products of their own, but have since been acquired by Phase. Kodak made some backs which still have fans in Russia, but this founding giant has ascended to Nirvana, while Leaf seems to have turned into a Phase sub-brand. Hassy has been rumored to have some financial issues, which I hope are not too severe, and to be a candidate for acquisition. And two minor but important players, Truesense and Dalsa appear to have stopped updating their medium format sensor line.
There is a technical term to describe people like me, it's something like argumentative a*****e, but there is also a technical term in Freudian analysis for describing the forgotten painful past, I think it is "repressed memory" :) .
Edmund
-
,... so this must be taken with a grain of salt as all reviews are.
A grain of salt and then maybe the whole shaker thrown in. ;)
Here in this thread you have some very good feedback on the system from actual owners and users …. why go pay money for a single sample review from a person not previously familiar with the product?
-
It sounds like the Pentax 645Z may be a winner. I'm very curious to try one myself.
The thing about comparing MFDB to DSLR is that it seems there is no convenient way to compare other facets of image quality and character than sharpness, and also just how much one can lift the shadows. To me that's just a tiny portion of what makes up an image. For that reason I do appreciate comments such as Dave's who reports that the lens is pleasing for portraits wide open even if it isn't sharp at that aperture.
-
The business of engineering MFD backs has traditionally required the arcane craft of designing analog front ends for maximum performance. The new Sony sensor delivers digital output, which simplifies the task considerably. I think it is apt to enquire as to why the IQ-250 costs $35000 in comparison to $8500 for the 645Z. No matter how the question of "professional value" is weighed, I think there has got to be some stress on PhaseOne's formula. And no criticism of DT and CI is implied in anything said so far. Their sales staff could sell MF equipment all day long at competitive prices.
-
Regarding the $35K of the Phase, without lens, here is a 100% crop from my Sigma DP3M. This is what consumers can now routinely expect from a $400 compact. Surely, Phase can be expected to do much better for $35K? Is tethering alone really worth that much, as the artist now called Cooter indicates? In that case, maybe there is money to be made from Nikon D810 tethering software ...
(click on the image a second time to enlarge).
Edmund
The business of engineering MFD backs has traditionally required the arcane craft of designing analog front ends for maximum performance. The new Sony sensor delivers digital output, which simplifies the task considerably. I think it is apt to enquire as to why the IQ-250 costs $35000 in comparison to $8500 for the 645Z. No matter how the question of "professional value" is weighed, I think there has got to be some stress on PhaseOne's formula. And no criticism of DT and CI is implied in anything said so far. Their sales staff could sell MF equipment all day long at competitive prices.
-
Regarding the $35K of the Phase, without lens, here is a 100% crop from my Sigma DP3M...
And another; Iridient Developer imported into Lightroom 5 - no pp.
Cooter, not quite like Edmund's; off-set 'talent' - can you match those skin tones ,, ?
-
And another; Iridient Developer imported into Lightroom 5 - no pp.
Cooter, not quite like Edmund's; off-set 'talent' - can you match those skin tones ,, ?
That looks so much more like a painting to me than a person, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was true.
-
Edmund + Manoli,
I tested the Sigma DP3 with their 1 week trial. I wasn't really impressed with the camera, skin tones, or colors, but then it's possible I didn't invest enough time to learn their software.
Here's an example of something you can't probably do with the sigma DP3: With a larger sensor of the AFi-ii 12, the DOF can be really small even with the normal focal length. 80mm Xenotar wide open. You can't even recognize the orange spots as flowers just behind him let alone the cars parked on the street behind. I know there are very fast lenses out there for DSLR's (I have several f/1.2 lenses for 35mm format) but I believe that this is an area where MF still has advantages.
-
Edmund + Manoli,
I tested the Sigma DP3 with their 1 week trial. I wasn't really impressed with the camera, skin tones, or colors, but then it's possible I didn't invest enough time to learn their software.
Here's an example of something you can't probably do with the sigma DP3: With a larger sensor of the AFi-ii 12, the DOF can be really small even with the normal focal length. 80mm Xenotar wide open. You can't even recognize the orange spots as flowers just behind him let alone the cars parked on the street behind. I know there are very fast lenses out there for DSLR's (I have several f/1.2 lenses for 35mm format) but I believe that this is an area where MF still has advantages.
Eric,
I'll be the first to say that MF has advantages. One of which is as you state achieving separation with a "normal" focal length.
As your criticism of the DP series skin tones goes, I vote with you too. Of course, legacy CCD MF had the very best skin tone, the jury is still out on the Sony sensor.
I just wish the MF crowd got its act together and made some cheaper and better cameras - oh, wait, that's what Pentax have started to do ...
Edmund
-
That looks so much more like a painting to me than a person, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it was true.
Eric,
Almost. Poolside decor !
But, yes, I would agree with your and Edmund's remarks. I don't think that the sensor even matches the A7r/D800 class of camera, certainly not with excellent lenses mounted. In limit DR / subdued lighting, the camera copes, but pushed, it's failed where even a Sony RX100 has coped. A curio 'cam' .
And now back to the 645...
M
-
Yes, I think for the price especially the 645Z may be really great. I am less excited about the CMOS than perhaps I should be because it seems always a give away of base ISO IQ for higher ISO performance, but hey maybe the Pentax lenses with design for much larger film coverage will be sharp to the edges of the sensor crop?
-
Edmund + Manoli,
I tested the Sigma DP3 with their 1 week trial. I wasn't really impressed with the camera, skin tones, or colors, but then it's possible I didn't invest enough time to learn their software.
Here's an example of something you can't probably do with the sigma DP3: With a larger sensor of the AFi-ii 12, the DOF can be really small even with the normal focal length. 80mm Xenotar wide open. You can't even recognize the orange spots as flowers just behind him let alone the cars parked on the street behind. I know there are very fast lenses out there for DSLR's (I have several f/1.2 lenses for 35mm format) but I believe that this is an area where MF still has advantages.
Hi Eric,
This is a nice rendering indeed, but there are quite a few lenses in 35mm that can delivery similar results.
Just speaking about the F mount that I know best, some lenses such as the Nikkor 58mm f1.4 have been specifically designed to offer nice bokeh and I think they are doing a good job at that. There are very nice samples over at fredmiranda.com: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369/29
Others such as the Otus have a more generic design but are still doing a pretty good job bokehwise, although the 58mm f1.4 is clearly superior on that metrics. That's first hand experience:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2884/13510444613_5d4533a6a3_h.jpg)
I do unfortunately not own one, but other lenses, such as the 200mm f2.0 do, IMHO, deliver an even nicer rendering, albeit at the cost of weight and size. There are wonderful examples in this thread over at fredmiranda.com too: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1172604
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am less excited about the CMOS than perhaps I should be because it seems always a give away of base ISO IQ for higher ISO performance ...
Isn't that the crux of the matter ?
No matter the CMOS advances, it seems to me that many still yearn for that CCD quality, whether real or imagined. At least for portraiture and controlled environments, base ISO CCD still rules, IMO. It's not just MF, even the M8/M9 v the newer Leica sensors have it. Now, my guess is that the market value of good, used Leica S's at €7,500 / $10,000 will prove to be a market bottom controlled not least by the price of the 645z. Take your pick.
-
... base ISO CCD still rules, ...
Hi,
At what does it rule?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
At what does it rule?
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
The market.
Skin tones, texture and IQ in portraiture and controlled lighting environments - studio. It is my personal (biased) opinion but also what I see from the 'market' - very few fashion / studio pros, that I've come across, have made a move away from CCD in favour of CMOS entirely.
Perhaps the new CMOS sensor and CFA's in MF will change that, but for the time being ... not yet!
M
Edit:
I've even heard that it's now becoming harder to source quality used M9's. Demand seems to be stronger there than expected. Leica UK have even launched a previously unheard of buy-back program for used Leica's in part exchange for the M (240). Sales aren't what they hoped - but I guess that that's not just due to CCD v CMOS ... [/surprise]
-
Sigma, brilliant or fatally flawed, brilliant or fatally flawed, brilliant or fatally flawed...
Brilliant and fatally flawed.
-
ccd, or the lens, or the time of day, don't care, I just know what I see and what it looks like when I work.
This was a p21+ on Contax
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/mustang_at_marios.jpg)
p30+ also on contax
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30_sports.jpg)
would they look different on cmos, to me yes, because in both instances I started with a 1ds3 shot a few frames and went to the phase.
I do know that I could sell my phase and contax in a heartbeat for a decent price because I turn down offers a few times a year and I've never advertised them for sale, just like m9's are also going for a premium over m240's.
Even my m8 still sees use
The best part is they're still viable, I still use them, probably always will.
IMO
BC
-
wondering how the stylist other half of R and R got on taking the jacket back? ::)
-
wondering how the stylist other half of R and R got on taking the jacket back? ::)
If it's used on set we generally don't return it and if we do it's under the studio rental agreements.
Obviously this could never be returned anyway, though we had it cleaned and keep it in our wardrobe room.
BC
-
nice to have the budget, unfortunately the £250k wristwatches i shoot come with a chaperone and have to be returned. :-[
-
Manoli,
There's always the CMOS 645D, sold at $5K now new, lurking at the market bottom.
Regarding the M9, they seem to have a sensor or cover glass issue, and Leica is running out of repair parts. (http://summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=64084)
Edmund
I've even heard that it's now becoming harder to source quality used M9's. Demand seems to be stronger there than expected. Leica UK have even launched a previously unheard of buy-back program for used Leica's in part exchange for the M (240). Sales aren't what they hoped - but I guess that that's not just due to CCD v CMOS ... [/surprise]
-
The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.
The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.
Lloyd has been looking into this, comparing the Pentax 24 mm with the Zeiss 21 on A7r, and also Pentax 90 mm with Otus, i think. I am not sure about the outcome, but I felt he preferred the smaller formats.
Lloyd is entitled to prefer what he does, but that does not change the facts and the laws of optics. And the facts are that it is simply easier to design slower and less compact lenses.
The third part is that there is a need of stopping for aperture on MFD, if I can shoot with DSLR at 5.6 and need to stop down an MFD to f/11, diffraction will affect the MFD while the DSLR is still in the optimal region.
If your subject implies large depth of field, indeed larger sensors are at a disadvantage. But this has nothing to do with the intrinsic quality of lenses. Besides, smaller sensors reach diffraction faster with their smaller pixels.
I would also say, that all these may be pixel peeping differences, quite visible at actual pixels on screen, but this not the way pictures are normally presented. Pictures are either shown on screen. Which has two megapixels, or in prints.
Obviously, a MF camera is rarely required if all output will be 2 mpix max. OTOH, fine art inkjet papers are available in 150 cm (60") wide versions. This allows slightly bigger prints than you seem to consider.
-
No matter the CMOS advances, it seems to me that many still yearn for that CCD quality, whether real or imagined.
I don't know what to tell those who yearn for imaginary quality.
Well that's just the thing. We still don't know if there /is/ such a quality in principle.
-
Just speaking about the F mount that I know best, some lenses such as the Nikkor 58mm f1.4 have been specifically designed to offer nice bokeh and I think they are doing a good job at that. There are very nice samples over at fredmiranda.com: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1253369/29
As the linked examples show, that lens suffers from swirly bokeh wide open, which means that the background appears to rotate around the subject. This is an artefact that results from the entrance of the lens designed too small for the maximum aperture, so that the side of the entrance of the lens vignette the sides of the diaphragm. Typically, the image of out of focus point lights will be round near the center and will have a cat eye shape near the sides.
This is an artefact that is typical of the combination of two factors: large aperture and physically small lens. Nikon engineers could have avoided the problem by making the lens twice as large. The effect also disappears when the aperture is closed down, typically to f/2.0-f/2.8 on this kind of lens. It is actually a good example of the artefacts that arise from the constraints of 24x36 lenses. MF lenses are typically slower and quite large and avoid that particular artefact as a consequence.
-
This is a nice rendering indeed, but there are quite a few lenses in 35mm that can delivery similar results.
Hi Bernard,
This is worthy of a separate topic probably, and some more investigation, but in your nice sample image you can still recognize all the things in the foreground and background. There is separation of the subject, but I think its just different with the larger sensor. The roll off into OOF is much faster and the blur more profound.
But that's only my feeling from casual shooting. Perhaps a more rigorous study would reveal the truth.
-
Manoli,
There's always the CMOS 645D, sold at $5K now new, lurking at the market bottom.
Regarding the M9, they seem to have a sensor or cover glass issue, and Leica is running out of repair parts. (http://summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=64084)
Edmund
The 645D is Kodak CCD. If you are referring to the Pentax 645D
Paul
-
in your nice sample image you can still recognize all the things in the foreground and background.
But this is what "bokeh" is about! Any lens fast enough can throw the background into an unrecognisable fog. The concept of "bokeh", for the Japanese, is about a subject that is visually out of focus, yet still recognisable.
-
The 645D is Kodak CCD. If you are referring to the Pentax 645D
Paul
Yes I meant the Pentax 645D (CCD) (http://summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=64084). I don't think this is quite dead yet, there is space for the price to go down, and the used ones will be at $2.5K soon ...
Edmund
-
Regarding the M9, they seem to have a sensor or cover glass issue, and Leica is running out of repair parts. (http://summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=64084)
Edmund,
Thanks for the heads-up. Surprising though, isn't the M9/M-E sensor made by TrueSense?
M
-
Lloyd is entitled to prefer what he does, but that does not change the facts and the laws of optics. And the facts are that it is simply easier to design slower and less compact lenses.
It may have occurred to you that both the Otus and the Sigma Art are big lenses. The Otus gets diffraction limited somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6. Both lenses use a generous amount SD glass and also aspherical elements. Obviously much smaller designs would be possible if near optimal sharpness at f/1.4 was not required.
The Sony 55/1.8 EF lens is a good example of a very sharp lens with slightly smaller maximum aperture. That is a relatively small lens.
If your subject implies large depth of field, indeed larger sensors are at a disadvantage. But this has nothing to do with the intrinsic quality of lenses. Besides, smaller sensors reach diffraction faster with their smaller pixels.
Obviously, a MF camera is rarely required if all output will be 2 mpix max. OTOH, fine art inkjet papers are available in 150 cm (60") wide versions. This allows slightly bigger prints than you seem to consider.
Well, the reason I discuss A2 size prints is that many folks have 17" wide printers and those produce about A2 size prints, and the reason I looked into it was pretty much because a poster asked about visible advantage with MFD. What I see here is that there is small, or possibly none difference in that size between 24 MP full frame using upper end zooms and Hasselblad V-series primes in A2-size prints viewed at 40-50cm distance with normal vision. With 36 MP and high end primes the difference would be less.
In larger sizes the differences are more visible. I do print larger, but not larger than 70x100 cm as I lack wall space. Anyway, it is a fact that screens dont't display more than around 2MP with present technology, 8MP with 4K and 36 MP with 8K. I would love to have an 4K projector, but the few that are around are very expensive. Of course, if you afford MFD you can also afford 4K projection, but it will still only use around 66% of the capability of a 24 MP DSLR. What I say is simply that pixel peeping at actual pixels doesn't have relevance for any normal way to present images. Unless you print very large images at 100 PPI (as computer screens normally have around 100PPI).
Also if you have a large image, you probably need to reposition the observer when comparing images. Small images can be compared with one image on he top of the other, much more demanding comparison. You can of course do that with small crops of large images.
Regardinf diffraction, as an engineer you should be aware that diffraction is not dependent of pixel size, it is just a function of aperture. Of course with a sharper lens or a more high resolving sensor you are going to loose more.
Very clearly, if you are shooting flat objects, use optimal apertures with perfect focusing and near perfect lenses a larger sensor will yield better results.
Also, larger sensors and truly excellent lenses like the HR lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider may offer more visual advantage.
Another point, quite relevant here, is that this discussion is not about MFD vs. DSLRs but about the 645Z. The 645Z is a small sensor MFD device, it is just 44x33mm. Also, very few of the Pentax lenses are modern designs. Lloyd has tested a dozen or so of them on the Pentax 645D.
These two videos may offer some insight in the relevant parameters, even if they are about motion pictures and not stills:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iBKDjLeNlsQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=v96yhEr-DWM
The message is quite clear, the low frequency MTF is mouch more relevant for perceived sharpness than high frequency detail, and the high frequency detail is what we see when we pixel peep. I am pretty sure this also applies to stills.
Best regards
Erik
-
Edmund,
Thanks for the heads-up. Surprising though, isn't the M9/M-E sensor made by TrueSense?
M
Yes, it was. I don't know how what the status of CCD fabs is these days, and whether it makes sense for Leica to order up a new batch. My impression is that CCD might soon become an obsolete technology, a bit like electronic valves.
The M8 also has repair spare issues, I was told by Leica about a year ago that instead of certain repairs (sensor?) they swapped them for an M9 for Euro 2K, a lot of money, I guess nowadays it would be an M240 ... However AFAIK, the M8 does not have the same degree of sensor failures as the M9/P which first had a bunch of cracked sensors and now the current spotting problem.
Edmund
-
The M8 also has repair spare issues, I was told by Leica about a year ago that instead of certain repairs (sensor?) they swapped them for an M9 for Euro 2K, a lot of money, I guess nowadays it would be an M240 ...
Which, it would seem, Leica UK are trying to encourage with their buy-back program. The M8 has got an end-of-life designation on it. No more rear LCD's. Something akin to facing the guillotine if you get a parking fine ...
Seems as though, soon, a sensor will be but a four-letter word - SONY.
M
-
Edmund + Manoli,
I tested the Sigma DP3 with their 1 week trial. I wasn't really impressed with the camera, skin tones, or colors, but then it's possible I didn't invest enough time to learn their software.
.........................................
I tested the Q as well Eric. The resolution of the sensor is remarkable, but I had some real difficulty with color; in particular color bleed. Here's an example comparing heavy crops of a 645D to DPQ. The marigolds are red with yellow as they appear in the 645D image. I had never used the Sigma software before so inexperience may play a part.
(http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/9/9/7/5/_igp3158_copy_thumb.jpg) (http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=26332&c=member&imageuser=9975)
(http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/9/9/7/5/_sdi0142_copy_thumb.jpg) (http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=26331&c=member&imageuser=9975)
-
I tested the Q as well Eric. The resolution of the sensor is remarkable, but I had some real difficulty with color; in particular color bleed. Here's an example comparing heavy crops of a 645D to DPQ. The marigolds are red with yellow as they appear in the 645D image. I had never used the Sigma software before so inexperience may play a part.
(http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/9/9/7/5/_igp3158_copy_thumb.jpg) (http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=26332&c=member&imageuser=9975)
(http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/files/9/9/7/5/_sdi0142_copy_thumb.jpg) (http://www.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=26331&c=member&imageuser=9975)
Yeah, I had a bunch of primary-color issues too on the Merrill, and have adopted the strategy of shooting it only at base ISO with at least 1 stop compensation, and spot metering, as soon as saturated primary colors eg. flowers are in the field. The autoexposure mechanism on all my dSLRs gets fooled too in this case, and the dSLR histogram (based on sRGB) is erroneous. On the positive side, CCD digital backs are usually overrated by 1 stop or so, show foolproof raw histograms (I think), and do not need the underexposure. The problem is that the Merrills do not really have the DR to deal with much more than one stop underex, at least in color.
The Sigma is pretty typical in all ways of an MF camera, as FredJean remarked a few years ago, it needs tight control on the part of the photographer in order to deliver superb quality. It looks like a compact but it isn't a compact. And if you don't shoot it and process it exactly right, your picture is a mess. Color reflections or mixed light will also wreck your shot. In my experience, dSLRs are much more "what you see on Day One is what you get"; set a dSLR camera at "P", Iso at 200 and the quality you get from Lightroom after unboxing the camera is representative of what you'll see for the next 3 years or so. The sensors are if not accurate at least forgiving, and Lightroom/ACR can save just about any shot.
Edmund
-
...that lens suffers from swirly bokeh wide open...
Suffers is just a declaration of taste. I like the swirly bokeh look. Pentax's 120/4 macro (645 version) has a similar (though not quite as intense) quality wide open, one reason why I personally prefer it over the new 90mm macro.
-Dave-
-
Lloyd is entitled to prefer what he does, but that does not change the facts and the laws of optics. And the facts are that it is simply easier to design slower and less compact lenses.
It may have occurred to you that both the Otus and the Sigma Art are big lenses. The Otus gets diffraction limited somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6. Both lenses use a generous amount SD glass and also aspherical elements. Obviously much smaller designs would be possible if near optimal sharpness at f/1.4 was not required.
The Sony 55/1.8 EF lens is a good example of a very sharp lens with slightly smaller maximum aperture. That is a relatively small lens.
So what? I did not say that it is not possible to manufacture good lenses for 24x36 cameras, but that the priorities of the two markets are different.
Obviously, a MF camera is rarely required if all output will be 2 mpix max. OTOH, fine art inkjet papers are available in 150 cm (60") wide versions. This allows slightly bigger prints than you seem to consider.
Well, the reason I discuss A2 size prints is that many folks have 17" wide printers and those produce about A2 size prints, and the reason I looked into it was pretty much because a poster asked about visible advantage with MFD. What I see here is that there is small, or possibly none difference in that size between 24 MP full frame using upper end zooms and Hasselblad V-series primes in A2-size prints viewed at 40-50cm distance with normal vision. With 36 MP and high end primes the difference would be less.
You should try to go to a museum exhibiting pictures by Andreas Gursky or Hiroshi Sugimoto.
This discussion is ridiculous. In effect, you are saying that people do not need any more than so many pixels because they only have A2 printers and when they have bigger printers the public should not be allowed to come close to the prints, etc... I have seen this argument many times.
Except that they are photographers who print huge pictures, hang them in museums and the public is allowed to come close. And the effect of these large prints is extraordinary. Size matters.
Now, let us suppose that I want to make wall-size pictures that will look as sharp as the real thing up close because I want to duplicate that overwhelming experience. What camera should I get?
-
...that lens suffers from swirly bokeh wide open...
Suffers is just a declaration of taste. I like the swirly bokeh look. Pentax's 120/4 macro (645 version) has a similar (though not quite as intense) quality wide open, one reason why I personally prefer it over the new 90mm macro.
Indeed it is. I find swirly bokeh downright repulsive. You are entitled to a different opinion, of course. Tastes differ.
-
...........................
..................... The Pentax 90mm seems to be the only truly outstanding lens in the Pentax line up as we speak ........................
The details are interesting and I recommend anyone interested in this comparison to subscribe to DAP at diglloyd.com, but in short he finds that the 90mm Pentax is the only lens thanks to which the 645Z isn't inferior to a D810 + a good 35 mm equivalent lens. Now he didn't test multiple samples,... so this must be taken with a grain of salt as all reviews are.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard:
I generally agree with your thoughts, but I must take exception to this one. Despite my interest in the Z, I have not subscribed to Lloyd's site. I did when he reviewed the 645D and I even supplied some of the lenses he tested. I like his writing style, although it is bit caustic at times, and he often has valuable insights, but I discovered his results and mine don't always agree even using the same lenses.
I have many of the Pentax 645 lenses and most are excellent unless you shoot wide open and even then the 600mm f/5.6, 300mm f/4 (I use the 67 version) and 120 macro are very good. The 120 macro (both the FA and older A version) out resolve the 645D sensor. This is just my experience, but it agrees with any number of posts from users of the camera and I find this collective consensus more reliable than one tester's report.
Best,
Tom
A wide open example using the 600:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/9541048443_5d23d460f9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fx7nie)_IGP8972 (https://flic.kr/p/fx7nie) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
-
Suffers is just a declaration of taste. I like the swirly bokeh look. Pentax's 120/4 macro (645 version) has a similar (though not quite as intense) quality wide open, one reason why I personally prefer it over the new 90mm macro.
-Dave-
I noticed that. I really do not like the new 90mm macro bokeh. Seems quite harsh to me even at middle distances when shooting portraits wide open. The 120mm (A) macro that I have is much nicer in that regard. The new 55mm f2.8 has decent bokeh though but its a shorter lens, works well wide open though.
Someone mentioned how the 645D have gone down in price. Its an excellent camera and just because the 645Z came out it does not mean the 645D stopped working or are all of the sudden garbage. :D If you watch your highlight exposures the 645D is awesome for a lot of photography. I still would rather have one of the Phase/Leaf fat pixel backs (more versatile, can mount it on a wide range of cameras) but the 645D is a great value nowadays.
-
A comment about 645D / 645Z service and reliability.
Check out these recent posts by users / owners:
"The joy of early adoption...
Spoken to Pentax tech support today and it seems I'm going to have to return my 645z. The rear wheel is not functioning at all. It stopped a few days ago and started again but now it's completely non functioning. Anyone else experienced this? I've tried every button combination to get it going plus resetting the camera but so far nothing.
Hugely disappointed with Pentax support. They've asked me to post the camera at my own expense and convenience back to them? No mention of replacement cameras. That is terribly poor customer service, especially considering the cost of the camera. They could take a leaf out of Fuji's book who arrange couriers and replacement cameras very quickly. I guess that is the price one pays for buying into a Pentax MF over a phase one or hassy.
Not a happy customer."
"Sorry bad choice of phrasing on my part, I didn't mean the actual financial price one pays but more the relative detrimental customer experience. It's a new and comparatively small venture for Pentax and perhaps they don't have the customer support expected by the photographers that are using their MF products that Hassy and Phase One have.
For example I've had issues with a Hassy H4D before on a shoot and their tech department arranged for a new body to be couriered the same day. Hasselblad and Phase One are used to dealing with professionals on jobs using their equipment whereas it seems Pentax are not.
I'm in the middle of shooting a reasonable sized jobby and to be told to post the camera back at my own expense and convenience with no replacement/loan in my opinion is not acceptable."
Another:
"When the 645D came out, there was a spate of control wheel failures in the first shipments, and I believe most of these cameras were exchanged. At least the ones I know about.
My first Pentax 645Z was dead on arrival -- phase detect autofocus through the lens was completely non-functional, on all lenses. I took it back to my dealer and they replaced it over the counter with their last remaining stock camera, no questions asked. I've owned the 645D for nearly 4 years, and had two shutters fail on the same body, a couple of years apart; once under warranty, once out of warranty. In both cases I took the camera to my dealer, and they made arrangements for the camera to go back to Japan for repair. I was without the camera for 10 weeks for the first warranty repair, and the 2nd time I've been without it for 7 weeks and counting. But in both cases Pentax (or possibly the dealer) took care of the packaging, shipping costs, etc."
another:
"There is no Pentax professional service in Canada, at least, and hasn't been since the time I bought my first 645D. When my shutter went down the first time I dug for any official way from Pentax to keep shooting the project I was doing in Arizona at the time, and there was nothing. I limped along to finish the shoot. When I got back to Calgary, I sent the camera in to be fixed under warranty (10 weeks) and bought a 2nd 645D so I would be less likely to be caught in that situation again. I guess that's what you could call the self-support program."
Yes, I am sure camera failures are rare with the Pentax bodies and like most here know most people post problems with gear on internet forums not positive experiences so you will se a LOT of issues with gear posted even though that probably represents the vast minority of actual user experiences BUT the dealings with Pentax service seems to be commonplace and if you do find yourself in the situation that you would require service you will have to deal with it. Something to consider when purchasing equipment.
I hope Pentax changes this.
-
Regarding the M9, they seem to have a sensor or cover glass issue, and Leica is running out of repair parts. (http://summilux.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=64084)
I hadn't heard that yet, too bad. I bought mine last year. Extremely pleased with the character and the look of the files.
Although CCD it cannot be compared with my P30+ or S2 IMO.
As a matter of fact I wished the S2 files looked a little bit more like the M9… :)
-
A comment about 645D / 645Z service and reliability.
Check out these recent posts by users / owners:
...
Doesn't sound good but I am sure you can find stories like these for any brand.
The Pentax 645Z is an amazing value proposition compared to Hasselblad and Phase and people are going to buy it despite stories like these.
I really hope this camera is successful and that it lights a fire under the combined asses of Phase and Hasselblad!
-
In the interests of balanced reporting :) I'm one of the ones quoted above about trouble with Pentax digital 645 cameras, from posts on another forum. Yes, my first 645Z was DOA and had to be exchanged right away. Yes, I've blown through two shutters in my first 645D body (nearly 4 years old), and which has yet to return from the shop after the 2nd shutter replacement. Yes, Pentax currently doesn't have much to offer by way of professional-level support (at least in Canada, I can't speak from direct knowledge elsewhere). Myself and numerous others have provided very clear feedback about this to our dealers & reps, and it sounds like Ricoh is working on coming out with something. But it's probably going to take some time yet before they launch whatever they come up with.
Having said all of that... resoundingly YES, the images I have been getting and will continue to get from these cameras satisfy me in every way. I've put 10's of thousands of frames through my Pentax 645D bodies, and already over 4K frames through the new 645Z while I test it out. I have zero regrets investing in this system starting 4 years ago, and have been progressively doubling down on it in anticipation that the Z would correct some of the things that I wished were improved about the D. That move was not a mistake, for me. I will keep on shooting this system for a long time, I expect. Right now I don't see who would come out with something with a significantly better enough bang-for-buck, along with other camera qualities that I value, to tempt me to switch to anything else.
The new Z in particular is really quite ideal for somebody like me, doing landscapes, travel, architecture, street and various other generalist work with an aim primarily at very well-printed fine art work.
So there's a positive note from somebody who probably is close to holding the world record for serious hardware trouble with the Pentax digital 645's. If I'm still bullish on the system, how bad can it be... :)
-
I should like to tell the story of my P45+ which I bought with a Valued Added warranty in Paris, bundled with a Mamiya AFDII. The Mamiya developed a synch fault which caused the bottom of some images to stripe magenta. My Phase dealer promptly informed me gleefully that in the buy only the back was warranteed for fast service, and the camera needed to be sent back to Japan, a matter of waiting a few months. I bought a used Mamiya from *another* dealer.
Moral of this story: When you buy Phase, your experience will be exactly as good as your dealer. If your dealer is good your life will be great, if your local dealer likes to sell in quantity to museums and institutions and not to individuals you are better off buying a dSLR, with the big japanese companies' repair service and different problems again. I have no doubt that if Doug or Steve sold Pentax, they would have loaner units, couriers and all the other services of a good dealer, including doubtless the services of a local repair technician for minor adjustments.
For a positive story, I blew two Canon 1Ds shutters, they were quickly replaced by Canon Paris, for free.
Edmund
In the interests of balanced reporting :) I'm one of the ones quoted above about trouble with Pentax digital 645 cameras, from posts on another forum. Yes, my first 645Z was DOA and had to be exchanged right away. Yes, I've blown through two shutters in my first 645D body (nearly 4 years old), and which has yet to return from the shop after the 2nd shutter replacement. Yes, Pentax currently doesn't have much to offer by way of professional-level support (at least in Canada, I can't speak from direct knowledge elsewhere). Myself and numerous others have provided very clear feedback about this to our dealers & reps, and it sounds like Ricoh is working on coming out with something. But it's probably going to take some time yet before they launch whatever they come up with.
Having said all of that... resoundingly YES, the images I have been getting and will continue to get from these cameras satisfy me in every way. I've put 10's of thousands of frames through my Pentax 645D bodies, and already over 4K frames through the new 645Z while I test it out. I have zero regrets investing in this system starting 4 years ago, and have been progressively doubling down on it in anticipation that the Z would correct some of the things that I wished were improved about the D. That move was not a mistake, for me. I will keep on shooting this system for a long time, I expect. Right now I don't see who would come out with something with a significantly better enough bang-for-buck, along with other camera qualities that I value, to tempt me to switch to anything else.
The new Z in particular is really quite ideal for somebody like me, doing landscapes, travel, architecture, street and various other generalist work with an aim primarily at very well-printed fine art work.
So there's a positive note from somebody who probably is close to holding the world record for serious hardware trouble with the Pentax digital 645's. If I'm still bullish on the system, how bad can it be... :)
-
No doubt both the 645D and Z are good cameras and are providing the owners with excellent results.
The comments from Royce, pretty much nail the issues on the head, mainly that if things go wrong, you are looking at the 10 weeks wait. It still seems that the bodes stll have to go back to Japan for repair. I had hoped to see Pentax create some form of a North American repair center, for Canada and US warranty work. I realize for the price of the other companies single product, you can purchase 2 of the Z's and have a backup. Not sure what the cost of shipping/insurance is for such a return, but I am sure it's not cheap.
Might not be a bad idea, as products do fail and the failures tend to happen at the most inopportune times.
I am battling with Nikon right now with a potentially lost brand new D810 that had to go back for the white dot issue and it's not going well so far. So I can fully understand the issues.
Hopefully Pentax address the service issue in the future.
Paul
-
I generally agree with your thoughts, but I must take exception to this one. Despite my interest in the Z, I have not subscribed to Lloyd's site. I did when he reviewed the 645D and I even supplied some of the lenses he tested. I like his writing style, although it is bit caustic at times, and he often has valuable insights, but I discovered his results and mine don't always agree even using the same lenses.
No worries Tom, I clearly have not used the 645Z myself and my overall view is that it is an amazing camera, the only MF camera I could seriously consider purchasing.
I just meant to say above that, for those interested in Lloyd's views - and I agree that some of his views may not be aligned with the views of actual long term users of the equipment - it would be fair to pay to get access to the details of the review and not just a quick summary by me. ;)
It is of course totally legitimate not to be interested and to prefer first hand experience. At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As the linked examples show, that lens suffers from swirly bokeh wide open, which means that the background appears to rotate around the subject. This is an artefact that results from the entrance of the lens designed too small for the maximum aperture, so that the side of the entrance of the lens vignette the sides of the diaphragm. Typically, the image of out of focus point lights will be round near the center and will have a cat eye shape near the sides.
This is an artefact that is typical of the combination of two factors: large aperture and physically small lens. Nikon engineers could have avoided the problem by making the lens twice as large. The effect also disappears when the aperture is closed down, typically to f/2.0-f/2.8 on this kind of lens. It is actually a good example of the artefacts that arise from the constraints of 24x36 lenses. MF lenses are typically slower and quite large and avoid that particular artefact as a consequence.
Jerome,
Perhaps, I guess that our bokeh taste differs. :) I personally find overall the bokeh generated by the 58mm f1.4 to be the most pleasing I have seen in a normal to short tele lense but I am sure there are many lenses I have never seen at work that may be even nicer though.
I also like the total blur generated by the Canon 85mm f1.2 @ 1.2, but that is closer to what you get with a 200mm f2.0. Very nice, but the background is pretty much reduced to large color spots. You would get the same with a PS blurred studio background image lit of correctly, so I am not sure it is most adequate for environmental portraiture, but that is again merely a matter of taste.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is no question that Pentax service is not what it once was (pre Hoya). I once had a long conversation with the tech working on my 67 lens in the Colorado repair center. I have also taken lenses to the Mississauga repair center in Canada and had face-to-face discussions with the techs. Those repair centers are now closed. Pentax USA had been using CRIS in Arizona. I had one repair from them; it was prompt and well done, but when I called I couldn't get past the receptionist. Pentax USA is moving repairs to Precision Cameras. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
On a more positive note: I've had the 645D since 2010 and it has required no repairs and no cleaning. The camera even maps out its bad pixels, of which there haven't been many.
-
.................... At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard:
I agree, but the hard part is determining which equipment achieves that.
Best,
Tom
-
I agree, but the hard part is determining which equipment achieves that.
It may be hard to determine which equipment is the very best at achieving that, but I think that finding something which is "good enough" is in fact easier than we (I) sometimes think.
Would the 645Z be superior to my D810 for the landscape part of what I like to do? I guess it probably would to some extend, but I clearly feel that the D810 is more than good enough and is in no way limiting me today.
As a jack of all trade camera, I find that it does extremely well at the different styles of photography below and is never far from the very best in each category.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14845060818_9c7e4a786c_b.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5584/14771262630_614d1ba0f3_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3900/14765333309_a3a0a74eca_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3853/14873693264_a7334609c0_b.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/14875805272_e8cdf82eaf_h.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
If you happen to have a set of fine Pentax 645 lenses and can afford it, the P645Z is a no brainer. It is the best camera you can put on those lenses. If the P645Z is too expensive, the P645D is now available at much lower price.
Little doubt that the P645Z will offer a small improvement of image quality in print over the P645D, peeping pixels may be another thing, as the images are viewed larger at actual pixels with the P645Z.
Some of the older Pentax 645 lenses were very, as far as I can recall, like all ED IF telephoto lenses.
On the other hand, if someone builds an equipment from scratch the it is not obvious that Pentax 645Z is the way to go.
Best regards
Erik
No worries Tom, I clearly have not used the 645Z myself and my overall view is that it is an amazing camera, the only MF camera I could seriously consider purchasing.
I just meant to say above that, for those interested in Lloyd's views - and I agree that some of his views may not be aligned with the views of actual long term users of the equipment - it would be fair to pay to get access to the details of the review and not just a quick summary by me. ;)
It is of course totally legitimate not to be interested and to prefer first hand experience. At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Just a few comments:
Lloyds review of the P645Z is still on going. It seems that he warms up to the camera, the more experience he gains the more he likes it. He is in the progress of going trough the results from shooting in the field for one or two weeks.
Reading reviews like Lloyd's is helpful if planning into buy a system. It may be that personal experience may be preferable, but it may also be that a short test is not giving a good insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a system.
Best regards
Erik
I just meant to say above that, for those interested in Lloyd's views - and I agree that some of his views may not be aligned with the views of actual long term users of the equipment - it would be fair to pay to get access to the details of the review and not just a quick summary by me. ;)
It is of course totally legitimate not to be interested and to prefer first hand experience. At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Either of those photographers use a 50 MP camera with a 44x33 mm sensor? It has 27% larger linear size than 24x36 (on the diagonal)
and (50/39)^0.5 * 100 -100 = 13% more linear pixels than a 39 MP DSLR.
Is that 13% advantage enough to make wall size prints that can be viewed really close?
For best sharpness from a single exposure, I would still guess that large format film drum scanned at high PPI (6000-10000) and expertly processed still is king, the next best is probably a high end digital back on a technical camera with Schneider or Rodenstock HR lenses using optimum aperture. With stitching, essentially any resolution can be achieved, but there are many cases where stitching is not practical.
Just to say, my experience is with 6x7 film (Pentax 67), Hasselblad V-series and P45+ (being trough eight different Zeiss lenses) and Sony 24MP cameras. I am not really happy about film, but I have seen some decent samples of drum scanned film.
If you check Hasselblad MTF curves, it is quite obvious that the new H-series lenses are better than the old Zeiss lenses, almost without exception, that may explain some of the differences between your experience and mine. I feel the Pentax my 67 lenses are a bit weaker than my Zeiss lenses for the "blad", that doesn't say anything about Pentax 645 lenses I don't have. This thread happens to be about the P645Z, I know.
Tim Parkin made some tests with large format film and also including both P45+ (which I happen to have) and a Phase One IQ 180, the difference between the P45+ and the IQ-180 was a bit larger than I would have expected.
Some examples here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
Best regards
Erik
....
You should try to go to a museum exhibiting pictures by Andreas Gursky or Hiroshi Sugimoto.
This discussion is ridiculous. In effect, you are saying that people do not need any more than so many pixels because they only have A2 printers and when they have bigger printers the public should not be allowed to come close to the prints, etc... I have seen this argument many times.
Except that they are photographers who print huge pictures, hang them in museums and the public is allowed to come close. And the effect of these large prints is extraordinary. Size matters.
Now, let us suppose that I want to make wall-size pictures that will look as sharp as the real thing up close because I want to duplicate that overwhelming experience. What camera should I get?
-
Hi,
Just to put things a little bit in perspective, we can discuss print sizes. Many sources, like the Bruce Faser/Jeff Schewe book on sharpening mentions 180 PPI needed for a good print. Epson's native resolution is either 360 PPI or 720 PPI, with Canon it is 300 PPI or 600PPI.
180 PPI corresponds to 50 (20") cm viewing distance with 20/20 vision, while 360 PPI corresponds to 25 cm (10") distance still with 20/20 vision.
Standing in front of an image at 'arms length' is something like 80 cm.
If we use the 180 PPI criterion, we would have the following figures:
80 MP digital back: 57.6" x 43.4" (1.46 x 1.10 m)
Pentax 645Z: 45.8" x 34.4" (1.16 x 0.87 m)
36MP DSLR: 41"x27.3" (1.04 x 0.69 m)
For the really critical viewer, looking at 25 cm the sizes would be divided by 2. So if someone is looking with 20/20 vision at 25 cm the maximum size would be 73 cm x 55 cm for the 80 MP back and 52 cm x 27 cm for the DSLR.
In reality we can print much larger. Reasons are:
Generally, large prints are viewed at longer distances than small prints. Also, most viewers say above 40 years of age have no perfect close vision, and very few viewers look at images at 25 cm with reading glasses, and not even reading glasses are optimized for 25 cm.
Another main reason we can print larger is that the eye is more sensitive to low frequency detail than high frequency detail.
Lenses obviously play a major role.
Best regards
Erik
-
for those photographers who dont print but send images to print any ‘print size’ discussion is moot.
it’s only really relevant for adshel or exhibition pull-ups where the viewer is close to the image but for billboard the dots are like golf balls so 12mp is fine.
it’s nice to have the crop ability and the 100% view on screen to appease clients but at the end of the day a clean 100meg tiff is more than most clients need.
-
From a professional standpoint, where the Pentax shines is the ability to have 50mpx in a 4:3 crop (if that's your cup o tea) and being a focal plane camera, the ability to build a very interesting lens set like tilt shifts, older pentax 6x7 lenses which have beautiful roll off along with more modern lenses for the "micro detail is everything crowd".
The other huge advantage is 645d's can be had on the cheap so an A cam and backup doesn't cost the price of a BMW 335.
The one thing Pentax must do is offer competent and robust tethering for the Z but make it backwards compatible for the older D model.
You see a lot of negativity about pricing traditional medium format cameras, but the one up Phase has on almost every camera maker is they continue to upgrade and support their older legacy backs/ That and they offer excellent professional dealer support.
Every professional camera should have a professional dealer network.
My p21+, p30+ are better today than when I purchased them, due to software and firmware upgrades. That made adding a Leica S2 a simple process knowing my phase backs with Contax lenses made the system virtually interchangable with the S2 because Leica made full featured convertors for my Zeiss Contax lenses.
Every maker should look at how well Phase supports their equipment and every maker should strongly think about making lens adapters that offered all functions, so moving to a new or different platform is a seamless process.
My Contax Zeiss as well as Hasselblad H lenses work as well on a S series Leica as they do in their native cameras.
If the Z did the same it would get my attention and I assume many Hasselblad owners as well.*
IMO
BC
*Well get attention, though I doubt if I'd buy, just because I'm really happy with the Leica and my older Phase backs and most of our equipment budget goes toward digital cinema cameras.
-
Either of those photographers use a 50 MP camera with a 44x33 mm sensor?
Andreas Gursky used sheet film for his earlier works and scanned it and now uses a Phase 1 back.
Hiroshi Sugimoto uses sheet film and enlarges it optically.
I think that I will close that discussion here, because nobody here has actually seen wall size fine art prints.
-
Nice image!
Erik
Hi Bernard:
I generally agree with your thoughts, but I must take exception to this one. Despite my interest in the Z, I have not subscribed to Lloyd's site. I did when he reviewed the 645D and I even supplied some of the lenses he tested. I like his writing style, although it is bit caustic at times, and he often has valuable insights, but I discovered his results and mine don't always agree even using the same lenses.
I have many of the Pentax 645 lenses and most are excellent unless you shoot wide open and even then the 600mm f/5.6, 300mm f/4 (I use the 67 version) and 120 macro are very good. The 120 macro (both the FA and older A version) out resolve the 645D sensor. This is just my experience, but it agrees with any number of posts from users of the camera and I find this collective consensus more reliable than one tester's report.
Best,
Tom
A wide open example using the 600:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3782/9541048443_5d23d460f9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fx7nie)_IGP8972 (https://flic.kr/p/fx7nie) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
-
Hi,
Either of those photographers use a 50 MP camera with a 44x33 mm sensor? It has 27% larger linear size than 24x36 (on the diagonal)
and (50/39)^0.5 * 100 -100 = 13% more linear pixels than a 39 MP DSLR.
Is that 13% advantage enough to make wall size prints that can be viewed really close?
For best sharpness from a single exposure, I would still guess that large format film drum scanned at high PPI (6000-10000) and expertly processed still is king, the next best is probably a high end digital back on a technical camera with Schneider or Rodenstock HR lenses using optimum aperture. With stitching, essentially any resolution can be achieved, but there are many cases where stitching is not practical.
Just to say, my experience is with 6x7 film (Pentax 67), Hasselblad V-series and P45+ (being trough eight different Zeiss lenses) and Sony 24MP cameras. I am not really happy about film, but I have seen some decent samples of drum scanned film.
If you check Hasselblad MTF curves, it is quite obvious that the new H-series lenses are better than the old Zeiss lenses, almost without exception, that may explain some of the differences between your experience and mine. I feel the Pentax my 67 lenses are a bit weaker than my Zeiss lenses for the "blad", that doesn't say anything about Pentax 645 lenses I don't have. This thread happens to be about the P645Z, I know.
Tim Parkin made some tests with large format film and also including both P45+ (which I happen to have) and a Phase One IQ 180, the difference between the P45+ and the IQ-180 was a bit larger than I would have expected.
Some examples here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html
Best regards
Erik
Hello Erik
Good points as always.
My goal has always been to capture images that will hold up to large scale printing. The largest single image I have made was a single image broken into (4) 36 x 72 panels. I have had prints made even larger, however I did not do the final uprez.
I also feel that the best printing solution is one done with the least amount of uprezing. As has been pointed out in Jeff"s Digital Print, and other publications, for an Epson inkjet the best output dpi is either 360 to 720. For say a 23 x 33 at 360 dpi, even a single shot from a 60MJP back will not print this without uprez. What tools are used is another topic.
Since 2003, I have worked to come up with ways to gain raw resolution, starting with a Zork adapter on a 1ds MKI and moving up to the current solution of MP back and Acra tech camera. Most often I still stitch a solution with the Acra working again to gain as much overall resolution as possible, thus keeping uprez work later on to a minimum. As anyone who uses this equipment knows this is a much more involved workflow involving multiple captures and LCC work. The results still impress me. So far none of the current 50MP Sony solutions really mean much to me since the current chip is not friendly with wides at all. My shooting environment the wides are most common, 28mm or 40mm max 60mm.
Do I feel that the difference between a single D810 and single P645Z frame is important, yes, sure there is more useable resolution in that single frame, however I could easily stitch my D810 for 3 frames have have more useable resolution. And sure someone could stitch 3 frames with a 645Z so question comes back to the knowledge base of the photographer. If you just had to use a single frame from a 645Z or D810 then I believe the 645Z would make a larger print with less effort. Good technique needs to be used on both of these platforms with wide lenses to allow you to use the full frame taken, and not crop due to corner softness.
Everyone has their own levels of what constitutes a good print, and I don't feel any two photographers will ever agree. I know what I like to see from a 30 x 40 print in details and I feel I have a solution that gets me there. Was it a cheap not in the least but I still prefer the output from the Schneider and Rodenstock glass, no matter what the workflow is. It does tend to make you a bit more focused on the shot at hand.
For me it's a balancing act of can I carry the weight all day to get a shot I know will hold up in larger print sizes. Many times I know that a 5 to 8 mile hike in 100% Arkansas humidity is not where I want to carry a Phase One solution all day, and thus I compromise with either Nikon or Fuji. Many tend to also forget it seems that all the current 50MP chips are 1:3 cropped and that's 30% less overall image. For a wide shooter that's a big deal. I still remember the issues I had with the 1:1 (10%) crop of the P45+.
I hope Pentax is successful for sure as I have always liked their medium format gear. However knowing what I have learned in the past 8 years of stitching, if I did not own the Phase One/Arca gear I know I could still get great results with the D810 and stitching.
Paul
-
Andreas Gursky used sheet film for his earlier works and scanned it and now uses a Phase 1 back.
Hiroshi Sugimoto uses sheet film and enlarges it optically.
I think that I will close that discussion here, because nobody here has actually seen wall size fine art prints.
I saw Edward Burtynsky's aerial landscapes in a NY gallery not long ago. They were done with a Hasselblad and 50MP back. The prints were about 4'x6' (adjust for correct aspect ratio). Amazing.
-
The comments from Royce, pretty much nail the issues on the head, mainly that if things go wrong, you are looking at the 10 weeks wait. It still seems that the bodes stll have to go back to Japan for repair.
That's true for core things, like shutter and mirror assembly replacements, or work on the sensor. Other matters can be handled by whomever in North America is being used on contract for less complicated work. But there's no Ricoh/Pentax internal service center here right now, so anything complicated has to go to Japan.
I had hoped to see Pentax create some form of a North American repair center, for Canada and US warranty work. I realize for the price of the other companies single product, you can purchase 2 of the Z's and have a backup. Not sure what the cost of shipping/insurance is for such a return, but I am sure it's not cheap.
Might not be a bad idea, as products do fail and the failures tend to happen at the most inopportune times.
That's what I called the self-support model. :) In the 35mm world I always maintained 2 bodies (at least) for this reason. Of course it's more expensive to do that with an $8500 body, but still far more realistic to run 2 of them than if they were north of $25K or $30K each.
So far I've paid nothing for shipping, insurance, etc. on warranty repair work. I take the downed kit to my local dealer and they handle the rest with Pentax. I don't know if that's exceptional service from my dealer or if Pentax is covering it, I haven't asked. Obviously somebody living away from a metro centre with a good local dealer would not have the same option.
Hopefully Pentax address the service issue in the future.
From what my local rep has said, it looks like Ricoh is going to do something about this. We'll see what they come up with. Hopefully it involves a full repair centre in North America somewhere and a professional-level support program.
-
Hello Paul,
Thanks for chiming in, interesting points.
Re stitching, I do it quite often, more for field of view than for print size. It works remarkably often.
When you say Schneider and Rodenstock lenses, are you meaning the HR lenses that are made for digital or Schneider and Rodenstock lenses in general?
The crop factor you mention is interesting. Personally I have found that I can live with the 1.1 crop factor on the P45+, to my great surprise. With 1.3X like on the Pentax 645 there is a need for very short lenses to get into really wide angles. It is clearly a factor needing consideration.
Best regards
Erik
Hello Erik
Good points as always.
My goal has always been to capture images that will hold up to large scale printing. The largest single image I have made was a single image broken into (4) 36 x 72 panels. I have had prints made even larger, however I did not do the final uprez.
I also feel that the best printing solution is one done with the least amount of uprezing. As has been pointed out in Jeff"s Digital Print, and other publications, for an Epson inkjet the best output dpi is either 360 to 720. For say a 23 x 33 at 360 dpi, even a single shot from a 60MJP back will not print this without uprez. What tools are used is another topic.
Since 2003, I have worked to come up with ways to gain raw resolution, starting with a Zork adapter on a 1ds MKI and moving up to the current solution of MP back and Acra tech camera. Most often I still stitch a solution with the Acra working again to gain as much overall resolution as possible, thus keeping uprez work later on to a minimum. As anyone who uses this equipment knows this is a much more involved workflow involving multiple captures and LCC work. The results still impress me. So far none of the current 50MP Sony solutions really mean much to me since the current chip is not friendly with wides at all. My shooting environment the wides are most common, 28mm or 40mm max 60mm.
Do I feel that the difference between a single D810 and single P645Z frame is important, yes, sure there is more useable resolution in that single frame, however I could easily stitch my D810 for 3 frames have have more useable resolution. And sure someone could stitch 3 frames with a 645Z so question comes back to the knowledge base of the photographer. If you just had to use a single frame from a 645Z or D810 then I believe the 645Z would make a larger print with less effort. Good technique needs to be used on both of these platforms with wide lenses to allow you to use the full frame taken, and not crop due to corner softness.
Everyone has their own levels of what constitutes a good print, and I don't feel any two photographers will ever agree. I know what I like to see from a 30 x 40 print in details and I feel I have a solution that gets me there. Was it a cheap not in the least but I still prefer the output from the Schneider and Rodenstock glass, no matter what the workflow is. It does tend to make you a bit more focused on the shot at hand.
For me it's a balancing act of can I carry the weight all day to get a shot I know will hold up in larger print sizes. Many times I know that a 5 to 8 mile hike in 100% Arkansas humidity is not where I want to carry a Phase One solution all day, and thus I compromise with either Nikon or Fuji. Many tend to also forget it seems that all the current 50MP chips are 1:3 cropped and that's 30% less overall image. For a wide shooter that's a big deal. I still remember the issues I had with the 1:1 (10%) crop of the P45+.
I hope Pentax is successful for sure as I have always liked their medium format gear. However knowing what I have learned in the past 8 years of stitching, if I did not own the Phase One/Arca gear I know I could still get great results with the D810 and stitching.
Paul
-
It may be hard to determine which equipment is the very best at achieving that, but I think that finding something which is "good enough" is in fact easier than we (I) sometimes think.
Would the 645Z be superior to my D810 for the landscape part of what I like to do? I guess it probably would to some extend, but I clearly feel that the D810 is more than good enough and is in no way limiting me today.
As a jack of all trade camera, I find that it does extremely well at the different styles of photography below and is never far from the very best in each category.
Cheers,
Bernard
Agreed on all points. Were I not so invested in 645 lenses, I would have seriously considered the 800/810 for its available lens options, versatility and the AF which has become increasingly important to me.
My point was that as much as I enjoy and admire Lloyd's reports, his opinion is not the final word.
Tom
Very nice images BTW, particularly the first.
-
Nice image!
Erik
Thanks Erik.
-
I saw Edward Burtynsky's aerial landscapes in a NY gallery not long ago. They were done with a Hasselblad and 50MP back. The prints were about 4'x6' (adjust for correct aspect ratio). Amazing.
I saw a Burtynsky exhibition last year in NYC at the Wolkowitz (I think) gallery consisting of photos from his latest book, Water. Lovely stuff indeed.
When it comes to immersive prints I often get the feeling that the photographer is just trying to overwhelm me with visual volume—sorry, but I know how the sausage is made…not impressed—but the Burtynskys get an exemption because they work well at smaller sizes too, like in the book (which is actually kinda large as far as books go).
-Dave-
-
I saw Edward Burtynsky's aerial landscapes in a NY gallery not long ago. They were done with a Hasselblad and 50MP back. The prints were about 4'x6' (adjust for correct aspect ratio). Amazing.
This is what I was thinking about. Thank you.
-
This is what I was thinking about. Thank you.
Hi Jerome... If one masters printing well and the capture parameters are perfect, there is no problem on printing fine art images as low as 72ppi (or 75ppi - depending on the printer) with brilliant detail. I wouldn't trust to scan (colour) neg film and print it at lower than 180ppi though...
-
Very nice images BTW, particularly the first.
Thanks Tom, forgot to comment on your flower sorry, very nice as well!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Tom, forgot to comment on your flower sorry, very nice as well!
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks Bernard.
I'm as much of a technophile as most, but I wish more posters would include images that illustrate their comments*.
Best,
Tom
* I don't mean brick walls.
-
Has anyone found a work a round for a tether solution in Capture One or Lightroom? I know when the Canon 5D Mark III came out there was no way to use CP but Capture Integration found a work around.
Is the Pentax to much competition for Phaseone that they won't include the 645Z in their list of compatible cameras for Capture One?
-
first of all
this IS a beautifull picture
BUT
as with all digital photo's
WHY does this looks like PLASTIC flowers
I fighting this some 15 years now
first with P20 and D200
now with P45 e.a.
If I compare with film
I tend to like the film version (PROVIA) better
although you have more noise, but higher exposure is possible without clipping colors
But digital is the way to go now
Film is declining
SNIF !
-
Texture loss.
Some sensors do better than others in this respect. The Sigma is spectacularly good.
Edmund
first of all
this IS a beautifull picture
BUT
as with all digital photo's
WHY does this looks like PLASTIC flowers
I fighting this some 15 years now
first with P20 and D200
now with P45 e.a.
If I compare with film
I tend to like the film version (PROVIA) better
although you have more noise, but higher exposure is possible without clipping colors
But digital is the way to go now
Film is declining
SNIF !