rumor: Pentax 645D Price: $6500 USD

[gwhitf]

http://bit.ly/cuF9EM

First image on that page -- really a nice image.

And a side question: when I look at an image like that, I think of Dynamic Range. In MF world, are backs rated in Dynamic Range indexes? Or are the chips inside them rated? Or is it dependent on the software that processes the RAWs?

If I was a landscape photographer I'd be looking at DR more than anything else. Who cares about the LCD as long as you know you didn't clip anything? Is there one camera/back or chip that's thought of as the largest Dynamic Range?

If I was a camera maker, I'd take my cameras to Japan to shoot test images -- the soft grey light extends out the DR to the absolute limit.

[Doug Peterson]

And a side question: when I look at an image like that, I think of Dynamic Range. In MF world, are backs rated in Dynamic Range indexes? Or are the chips inside them rated? Or is it dependent on the software that processes the RAWs?

If I was a landscape photographer I'd be looking at DR more than anything else. Who cares about the LCD as long as you know you didn't clip anything? Is there one camera/back or chip that's thought of as the largest Dynamic Range?

After hands on testing that is why many of our customers do elect for a Medium Format back.

(one non scientific but very practical definition) of DR is the ability to extract useful detail in highlights and shadows of the original scene. So every single part of the process matters. There are some resources out there (e.g. dXo) which attempt to create a single numerical rating for DR of different cameras. Every such resource I've found is lacking in several ways. In dXo's case they only test the sensor. They do not take into account anything else. They also only use a strict numerical evaluation of the noise level which is a problem because the type of noise is critical: the same signal-to-noise number can look very ugly (color noise in big wavy wonky blobs) or actually quite pleasant (a fine film-like grain).

I've detailed every part of the system before so I won't repeat that here, but as a summary:
lens-coating > lens elements > camera-interior-darkness > IR filter > pixel well type > pixel well size > read-out speed/method > black-frame-read-out > A/D converter > proprietary data (e.g. temperature) > debayer-math > noise reduction > sharpening

Each of these parts of the system can reduce Dynamic Range. Some of these are obvious, others are not. For instance if the inside of the camera is not matte-black enough or the lens coatings are not done well it can create a very low-level haze (like lens flare) which fills light into the shadows and makes it impossible to show detail in the shadows. This is obvious when the flare/fogging is severe but unless you are very careful you can miss it when it is subtle and would only be noticeable if you had a A/B of the scene.

This is the sort of area where the obsessive attention to detail and emphasis on image quality above all else that you find in medium format really shines. The proprietary dark-frame technology, the type of sensor, the read out type, the extent to which the math of Capture One is catered to the sensor, etc etc etc.

The only real way to test is to shoot the same scene with both at a variety of exposures (to allow for the fact that some cameras do better slightly over or underexposed) and then process them in a variety of software. Then make prints, or place on the web, or whatever your normal end-usage is, and see what you think. Take a look at the the gradients from deep shadow to mid-tones, take a look at the color accuracy of objects in shadows, look at harsh light-to-shadow skin transitions (are there ugly orange bands or is smooth and organic), look at recovered cloud details and texture in shadows. Decide for yourself. Many on this board have done this and only one comes to mind (bernard) that doesn't think that MF has a significant lead in this area.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

[gwhitf]

The only real way to test is to shoot the same scene with both at a variety of exposures

Imagine in this test image from Pentax 645D:

http://photo1.ganref.jp/impression/0/366/645d_smp_01_l.jpg

If harsh sunlight had been hitting those blossoms or blooms in the foreground that are light green. I'd be curious about, without doing any HocusPocus/HDR or LayerBlending, if you just processed out the one raw, with everything set to zero in the software, would you still hold detail deep into that forest? I guess I know the answer would be: No you wouldn't, but I'd like to know how bad would it look? And would there be a real difference between Hassie and Phase, and or a difference between MF and 5DMII? Would there be a huge difference or just a small difference? Thanks.

[BernardLanguillier]

The only real way to test is to shoot the same scene with both at a variety of exposures (to allow for the fact that some cameras do better slightly over or underexposed) and then process them in a variety of software. Then make prints, or place on the web, or whatever your normal end-usage is, and see what you think. Take a look at the the gradients from deep shadow to mid-tones, take a look at the color accuracy of objects in shadows, look at harsh light-to-shadow skin transitions (are there ugly orange bands or is smooth and organic), look at recovered cloud details and texture in shadows. Decide for yourself. Many on this board have done this and only one comes to mind (bernard) that doesn't think that MF has a significant lead in this area.

Doug,

Four things:

1. Have we been using the same DSLRs as a base for our comparision? Having recently played with 5DII files I think I understand the gap if you have been basing your opinion on these,
2. I have never claimed to have done detailed comparisions with a phase back.
3. I am not denying that there is probably some advantage in favor of the back (although I don't see any compared to my ZD), just that it is very far from being as huge as some have claimed on this very site.
4. A system being calibrated for slight under-exposure gives the impression to have more DR because it makes highlight recovery easier. This isn't DR.

As far as the 645D there are no reasons to think it will not be as good or better than the other backs using a similar sensor. Pentax has just as much experience as any other player in the industry, and probably more than some back manufacturers.

Looking at these new samples I still see some of the painterly look I dislike on details near the cut off frequency (the distant small leaves) and I prefer the way my D3x handles such details, but the effect is well controlled IMHO.

Regards,
Bernard

[Doug Peterson]

If harsh sunlight had been hitting those blossoms or blooms in the foreground that are light green. I'd be curious about, without doing any HocusPocus/HDR or LayerBlending, if you just processed out the one raw, with everything set to zero in the software, would you still hold detail deep into that forest? I guess I know the answer would be: No you wouldn't, but I'd like to know how bad would it look? And would there be a real difference between Hassie and Phase, and or a difference between MF and 5DMII? Would there be a huge difference or just a small difference? Thanks.

With software set to zero there would be very little difference (except perhaps in the transitions between blown out and held highlights).

For very good reason: if C1's default setting showed the entire tone range captured by a modern digital back it most images would look very very flat (meaning lacking in contrast). The default settings in the software are very little more than a marketing decision (when people open a file for the first time ever what will it look like).

The dynamic range would become apparent when you used exposure, contrast, highlight/shadow recovery, curves or other tools to ask the program to show you more detail in the highlights and shadows.

Interestingly dynamic range also plays a large role in performance under mixed light with an unfiltered lens. When you shoot in tungsten for instance you are underexposing-at-capture the blue channel and then pushing-at-process the blue channels when you neutralize the WB. So if your camera has less DR it will not be able to push the blue channel data with pleasing results and you'll end up with shadow noise, bad shadow color accuracy, blotchy tonal transitions in the shadow, and poor detail/texture in the shadows (i.e. poor DR).

DR is also the quality feature you are drawing on when you accidentally over expose or under expose an image and need to push/pull the overall exposure. Not that any photographer ever does that! :-)

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

[Doug Peterson]

1. Have we been using the same DSLRs as a base for our comparision? Having recently played with 5DII files I think I understand the gap if you have been basing your opinion on these,
2. I have never claimed to have done detailed comparisions with a phase back.
3. I am not denying that there is probably some advantage in favor of the back (although I don't see any compared to my ZD), just that it is very far from being as huge as some have claimed on this very site.
4. A system being calibrated for slight under-exposure gives the impression to have more DR because it makes highlight recovery easier. This isn't DR.

Bernard, my inclusion of your name was not meant as any type of slant. Having read your posts for a good while now I know you are a very intelligent photographer who carefully asses his gear and workflow to make sure they are the best tools for the style of photography you are after.

I would agree the difference is not as large as some here have stated it. I would also say its larger than some have stated it :-). As always the truth lies somewhere in between.

We are not using the same gear. I have significantly more experience with Canon than Nikon (we only recently became a Nikon dealer). While the ZD is no slouch if you had the chance to test it against, for instance, a Phase One P+ back you might find that the ZD does not represent the quality possible from other digital backs. Interestingly a ZD body is a bit less expensive than a D3X.

If you ever want to bring a D3X to Miami I would love to have a couple beers with you and maybe we can also do some testing :-).

I thought I had read you having done testing (for your own purposes) with a phase back, but come to think of it, maybe it was with a ZD. It's possible I'm also confusing someone else's post for yours as reading forums tends to blur together.

Fully agreed that people trick themselves into feeling that under exposing means more DR. As I stated before when testing you would take a variety of exposures and then see what the best result you could get out of each was (paying attention to both the shadows and highlights).

Hope you didn't take any offense. I have deep respect for you as a photographer who has figured out exactly how to accomplish his artist goals and your imagery is fantastic.

Pentax has just as much experience as any other player in the industry, and probably more than most back manufacturers.

Phase released its first digital system (scan back) in 1996 and it's first modern CCD sensor digital back in 1998. Leaf released its first digital system in 1992. Just saying :-) [this is NOT a slant against Pentax, just some perspective on how long the current back manufacturers have been making and refining the support parts, construction techniques, heatsinks, firmware, and raw processing]

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

[mhecker*]

Hi All,

More 645D full resolution images, including a full resolution DNG

See http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=ja&tl=en

Enjoy...    

[aaron]

Hi All,

More 645D full resolution images, including a full resolution DNG

See http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=ja&tl=en

Enjoy...    

Thanks for the link!

The DNG of the village looks very promising.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi All,

More 645D full resolution images, including a full resolution DNG

See http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=ja&tl=en

That sounds pretty good to me.

The gap between the jpg and DNG conversion is obviously pretty large in terms of micro details. The ACR file shows little artifacts.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ziocan]

Looks quite good to me as well.

Silly question...., since it may have been debated elsewhere in the forum, but I cannot find it:
If I understood well, the pentax does not even have a usb port, therefore tethered shooting is not even an option for this model?

[LKaven]

Looks quite good to me as well.

Silly question...., since it may have been debated elsewhere in the forum, but I cannot find it:
If I understood well, the pentax does not even have a usb port, therefore tethered shooting is not even an option for this model?

I don't know about tethered shooting with the 645D, but the specifications published seem to include both USB2.0 and HDMI.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002...x645d.asp#specs

[mhecker*]

The plot thickens    

Image comparison 5Dmk2  vs 645D    

See  http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=ja&tl=en

[ziocan]

I don't know about tethered shooting with the 645D, but the specifications published seem to include both USB2.0 and HDMI.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002...x645d.asp#specs

Thank you.
On that case, there is hope of tethered shooting in the future, even with this model.
HDMI port, could also be a decent interim solution.

[DanielStone]

The plot thickens    

Image comparison 5Dmk2  vs 645D    

See  http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=ja&tl=en

when looking at the comparison shots of the purple flowers, I noticed a lack of tonal range(is that the right term for it) around the edges of the flowers. Transitions on the 645d file were smooth, but on the 5dII file, there were distinctive lines that I noticed. But since I don't have a fancy whizbang $5k monitor to view these on, only my prev. gen MBP 15", maybe my screen isn't "up to par".

and fine details(wherever its sharp in either file) is MUCH smoother IMO on the 645d file vs. the 5dII file.

just my $.02

-Dan

[Chockstone]

Compare their 645D landscape:
http://ganref.jp/magazine/dcm/mag/10_06/645d/100607703.jpg

With their 5DII landscape:
http://ganref.jp/magazine/dcm/mag/10_06/645d/100607706.jpg

Firstly the 5DII image is terrible (very soft, low contrast etc). The camera is capable of much better. Possibly a poor choice of lens, camera shake (though 1/800 should have been enough) or focused too far forward. The mid to distant detail is really soft.

In comparison the Pentax file looks mind bogglingly superior, but to me there is still something off about it. It’s like it’s showing the effects of over sharpening but at the same time lacking those really fine details I would have expected from a medium format without an AA filter. Maybe again, the shooting conditions were not ideal, or this is a JPG straight from the camera without the benefit of later, more suitable RAW conversion?

If we look at width only (5616 Canon, 7264 Pentax) you’re not gaining that much, maybe 30%. Certainly stitching a couple of 5DII frames together with a generous overlap would yield much more resolution. I loathe stitching however, that’s why I’m trying to get excited about this Pentax. As a landscape photographer I’m intrigued by the it (given the price), but not overwhelmed with camera lust as I thought I might be.

I know nothing about their lens range. Do they have something with sharp corners in 16-35 (35mm equiv) range?

[eronald]

The problem with MF is not the backs, it's the cameras and sometimes the lenses.

Maybe Pentax will change that. At least they have a decent LCD.

My poor man's way of getting a Pentax might be to swap my Mamiya P45+ for a Contax mount



Edmund

[rainer_v]

Many on this board have done this and only one comes to mind (bernard) that doesn't think that MF has a significant lead in this area.


Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

doug you can add me to the bernard list .
after some years of working ( and sometimnes testing )  with many types of cameras, backs and softwares i think the differences in DR between mf and e.g. a 5dmk2 are very small. so small that the sample variation between several backs is larger than the difference between the systems per se.
ofcourse you are 100% right that the type of noise is what makes the shadows look good or bad ( and what makes the 5dmk2 looking as good as it does ... ).
same about the clipping of highlights. if there are casts to magenta or cyan in this clipped areas its way less usable than if the regions stay grey, if one or two channels are blown out.

[bcooter]

......snip..................
after some years of working ( and sometimnes testing )  with many types of cameras, backs and softwares i think the differences in DR between mf and e.g. a 5dmk2 are very small. so small that the sample variation between several backs is larger than the difference between the systems per se.
ofcourse you are 100% right that the type of noise is what makes the shadows look good or bad ( and what makes the 5dmk2 looking as good as it does ... ).
same about the clipping of highlights. if there are casts to magenta or cyan in this clipped areas its way less usable than if the regions stay grey, if one or two channels are blown out.

If I'm working in studio, with flash, I find the digital backs (at least the phase backs I own) to have a lot more detail and a much deeper file to work in post.

But for me it starts and stops with flash in studio, maybe location if there is no continuous ambient light.

Now if I work with any continuous light, especially mixed lighting, I find the exact opposite and having shot the 5d2, next to my phase backs, in these conditions the Canon has at least as much dr or whatever anyone wants to call it and overall is a much easier file to work.  The detail I find even between the Canon and the Phase with continuous light.

At 400 iso I find the shadow noise with my backs to be much more pronounced (and not near as pretty) as the Canon, but the biggest killer for me working with continuous and ambient light and the phase backs is the color proliferation.  They seem to be tuned to pick up every single color in the room and we are always painting out blotches in skin, or contamination from some ambient light, even backlight.

Shooting outside, in ambient light, let's say shade under a tree, the green of the grass just illuminates the subject in yellow/green where with the Canons the skintones actually have skin color.

This isn't a knock on phase or a rave on about Canon, I just believe that different makers tune their systems for different applications and if I was only shooting flash in blacked  out studios  or non people based images like food I'd be fine with the Phase backs for about everything, though I don't work in just one genre or set of circumstances and rarely shoot anything that's not breathing.

Regardless of my experience with multiple cameras, a lot of this comes down to personal taste, or lighting styles, though given all of that, I find it amazing that Pentax and every maker always compares their files to the 5d2 which even at the lowest price medium format system is still 1/3 of the costs.

BC

[mhecker*]

The best test yet of the 645D with lots of samples.

See http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y...sl=ja&tl=en

I'm amazed at the lack of moire in some of the shots.
I don't know how Pentax pulls this off, or maybe I'm missing something.

The naturalness of the color also is impressive.
I don't shoot people so I can't comment on skin tones.

[fredjeang]

Sorry if you find this post tech useless, but
What I still do not understand is: why can't we finally have now in 2010 a CMOS MF sensor??
What's wrong with that?