Got my hands on the new Pentax 654Z today...

[johnvr]

And wrote a quick impressions post on my blog: http://photographicwanderings.com/2014/06/19/hands-on-with-the-pentax-645z-medium-format-dslr/

Short version: I wish I had some extra cash lying around. Never before have I considered digital MF, but now it seems within reach.

[Joe Towner]

Tease!

[KirbyKrieger]

Appreciate the preview, and understand that you can't publish full pictures or crops, but that pretty much removes the reason for writing about it, no?  It's big.  It works.  It's got a lot of pixels.  It doesn't do great above ISO bliddity-blat.

What did you notice that you did not expect?  Did you see any prints made from 645Z files?

[eronald]

What did you notice that you did not expect?  Did you see any prints made from 645Z files?

I saw one in Paris. It's a huge kludgy camera, no fun to use IMHO, but probably perfectly good pictures as there wasn't anything wrong with the 645D. Focus was fast, but the focus points are all located in an APS size area in the center so you're not going to move focus to model's eyes in a portrait shot. I think Hasselbad's True Focus is probably the only way to get decent full-field focus ability in MF at the moment, and that is focus and recompose.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

If the model doesn't move, then I would think that manual focus is also a pretty decent solution?

I am getting a reasonnably high rate of reasonnably well focused images at f1.4 when using the Otus on my D800 (images looking very sharp on the eyes on an A4 print), I would think that getting a similar level of success with the f2.8 lenses of the 645Z should be pretty feasable thanks to its larger viewfinder?

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

If the model doesn't move, then I would think that manual focus is also a pretty decent solution?

I am getting a reasonnably high rate of reasonnably well focused images at f1.4 when using the Otus on my D800 (images looking very sharp on the eyes on an A4 print), I would think that getting a similar level of success with the f2.8 lenses of the 645Z should be pretty feasable thanks to its larger viewfinder?

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

 You are doubtless right concerning manual focus using a 50mm. We should all use manual focus, since it implicates the photographer so much more in the photographic process. Personally, I prefer the Leica manual focus system, and see no reason for viewing through the lens when using a 50. In fact a good rationale for using a 50 is that there is little rationale for viewing through the lens
  
 But the question is whether the AF on the 645Z is adequate for the uses people expect; my impression is that it is fast and accurate, even in low light, however not perfect for portrait use, because focus and recompose doesn't work that well in MF.

 Of course the argument can be made that Phase has now trained photographers to expect rudimentary focus from their MF systems and therefore expectations will certainly be met.

Edmund

[johnvr]

Appreciate the preview, and understand that you can't publish full pictures or crops, but that pretty much removes the reason for writing about it, no?  It's big.  It works.  It's got a lot of pixels.  It doesn't do great above ISO bliddity-blat.

What did you notice that you did not expect?  Did you see any prints made from 645Z files?

They had three life-size posters made with the camera. They were tack sharp and detailed. I think the real story will come from the lenses and a quick hands-on doesn't give the ability to test those.

[torger]

Is it possible to get my paws on a raw file? I like to add support to the open-source raw converter RawTherapee. I have a .DNG file already (that works of course), but I think that was some sort of conversion, as far as I understand the camera itself produces .PEF raw files. If you have one I can look at please let me know. I will only use it for format testing, ie not publish it somewhere.

[Go Go]

Hi john,
I tested the camera yesterday as well, I was surprised that there were not more people attending. Perhaps most attended later in the day?
My camera was also set to shoot DNG files and it makes me wonder if the color reproduction would not differ from the native PEF file format that Pentax uses?
Regardless, I think Ricoh has a big hit on their hands with the 645Z!
Working with the 645z files was very informative, I liked what I saw...

[johnvr]

I've added a link to some original files to my article.

[johnvr]

Hi john,
I tested the camera yesterday as well, I was surprised that there were not more people attending. Perhaps most attended later in the day?
My camera was also set to shoot DNG files and it makes me wonder if the color reproduction would not differ from the native PEF file format that Pentax uses?
Regardless, I think Ricoh has a big hit on their hands with the 645Z!
Working with the 645z files was very informative, I liked what I saw...

I think they were all set at DNG, a safe bet since it's ready for Adobe, which is why I didn't look any further. If I had known that Adobe was launching an update including support for the 645Z that same day, I might have acted differently.

I think their media invite list was pretty short for the event. They seemed to be ready for an onslaught of pro photographers after our session.

[johnvr]

Is it possible to get my paws on a raw file? I like to add support to the open-source raw converter RawTherapee. I have a .DNG file already (that works of course), but I think that was some sort of conversion, as far as I understand the camera itself produces .PEF raw files. If you have one I can look at please let me know. I will only use it for format testing, ie not publish it somewhere.

I only have DNG files. Sorry.

[torger]

I only have DNG files. Sorry.

Ok no problem.... we'll wait and see.

I've looked at the Pentax DNG file and it does not have any color profile embedded (just a color matrix), so it's likely that the color rendering will change a bit when color profile becomes available.

I've compared the color matrix from the Pentax with the one coming from a H5D-50c and it seems like Pentax has opted for a more saturated look, at least per default. The sensors are probably exactly the same, but properties of IR filter might differ a bit slightly affecting color rendition.

[eronald]

who cares - just use the IQ250 or H matrix - lenses probably account for at least as much divergence of colors from the naked sensor spectral response as a filter difference. Let's just hope that UV and IR filtration are adequate.

Edmund

Ok no problem.... we'll wait and see.

I've looked at the Pentax DNG file and it does not have any color profile embedded (just a color matrix), so it's likely that the color rendering will change a bit when color profile becomes available.

I've compared the color matrix from the Pentax with the one coming from a H5D-50c and it seems like Pentax has opted for a more saturated look, at least per default. The sensors are probably exactly the same, but properties of IR filter might differ a bit slightly affecting color rendition.

[jduncan]

Bernard,

 You are doubtless right concerning manual focus using a 50mm. We should all use manual focus, since it implicates the photographer so much more in the photographic process. Personally, I prefer the Leica manual focus system, and see no reason for viewing through the lens when using a 50. In fact a good rationale for using a 50 is that there is little rationale for viewing through the lens
  
 But the question is whether the AF on the 645Z is adequate for the uses people expect; my impression is that it is fast and accurate, even in low light, however not perfect for portrait use, because focus and recompose doesn't work that well in MF.

 Of course the argument can be made that Phase has now trained photographers to expect rudimentary focus from their MF systems and therefore expectations will certainly be met.

Edmund

I will like to add , that at the same focal length, composition, aperture and same pixel density, MF should be harder to MF on therms of precision (the photographer is closer to the subject).  

In the other Hand the view finder is bigger and more luminous. Edmund  I believe that you commented elsewhere that the 645Z viewfinder was dark.
Was it compared to Canon  (Nikon is dimmer) or the Hasselblad /Phase One?

Best regards,
J. Duncan

[eronald]

I will like to add , that at the same focal length, composition, aperture and same pixel density, MF should be harder to MF on therms of precision (the photographer is closer to the subject).  

In the other Hand the view finder is bigger and more luminous. Edmund  I believe that you commented elsewhere that the 645Z viewfinder was dark.
Was it compared to Canon  (Nikon is dimmer) or the Hasselblad /Phase One?

Best regards,
J. Duncan

I cannot remember exactly about brightness, but I was not wowed by the viewfinder. My 1Ds3 with 85/1.2 has a wonderful big and acceptably bright finder for a 35mm camera, the Mamiya AFDII was nothing special as I remember mine, but it was a biggish image as I had dash masks for the back's zone.The Pentax finder experience struck me as a bit *small* in a way, no fun.

The whole 645Z camera experience is probably very similar to the 645D, and neither good nor bad - it kind of feels generic, a  big box with buttons, a viewfinder to compose with, AF that actually works,a reasonably short shutter delay with no over-hard slap  etc. But the whole feeling is a bit distancing. Basically the 645Z screams "I'm a PC, I get the job done" !

In contrast, I have always felt that with the pro SLRs the shooting experience is addictive, the more you look at the world through the finder the more you like doing it.

Edmund

[Iluvmycam]

Here, you can compare 645D to a few other cameras...

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

The Z should beat the D, at least with res. It may not produce as pleasing of an image with the 'look,' but I don't know.

The D has a way of producing beautiful, painterly images. The only think I don't like about the D is the low ISO. Although, the low ISO is only a problem with street and doc work.

[Iluvmycam]

I saw one in Paris. It's a huge kludgy camera, no fun to use IMHO, but probably perfectly good pictures as there wasn't anything wrong with the 645D. Focus was fast, but the focus points are all located in an APS size area in the center so you're not going to move focus to model's eyes in a portrait shot. I think Hasselbad's True Focus is probably the only way to get decent full-field focus ability in MF at the moment, and that is focus and recompose.

Edmund

Well, they had to improve on the mp and ISO. You know how the pixel peepers are, always demanding more.

[Telecaster]

The D has a way of producing beautiful, painterly images. The only think I don't like about the D is the low ISO. Although, the low ISO is only a problem with street and doc work.

Mine lives on a tripod. The ISO could be fixed at 12 (like the first version of Kodachrome my dad used in the 1950s) and it wouldn't make much difference in how I use it.   

-Dave-

[eronald]

Mine lives on a tripod. The ISO could be fixed at 12 (like the first version of Kodachrome my dad used in the 1950s) and it wouldn't make much difference in how I use it.  

-Dave-

All my cameras seem to be permanently set to 200 Iso in the summer and 1600 the rest of the year.
Maybe because I don't own a tripod


Edmund

PS. The 645D was marketed from the start as a landscape camera. I don't think landscape cameras need to be light, fast or sexy. But then I wouldn't know, I don't do landscape. Michael, on the other hand does, and it will be interesting to read his review of the Z.