Diglloyd tests the P645Z

[bjanes]

I had an opportunity a few days ago to witness my photographer friend  testing both Pentax 645Z and Leica S. Pentax with the tele 150mm and Leicas S with Macro 120mm f2.5, ha gave me couple of raw file to do the comparison and this is the result. Both shot at same EV, WB. The skin tone in Pentax looks flat and couldn't render red very well, not sure if this has anything to do with being CMOS sensor.

A 400 px wide screen capture hardly does justice to either image, but the main difference appears to be color balance. Certainly microcontrast and sharpness would not be faithfully reproduced in the screen capture. A simple MatchColors in Photoshop with the Pentax image ase the target removes many of the differences.

Bill

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Lloyd has now added a set of freehand portrait shots, in part with high ISO using the 90 macro.

Observations:

- Lens is sharp and has very good bokeh
- Autofocus works really well (normal phase detecting AF)
- Mirror is klunky, but no vibrations
- High ISO images very good, better than DSLRs

On the minus side:
- Exposure was not reliable (very odd in my view)
- The camera is heavy

So he likes the camera and the results.

Still some reservations about the lenses, but the ones he tested seem to be pretty good.

Best regards
Erik

[EricWHiss]

I had an opportunity a few days ago to witness my photographer friend  testing both Pentax 645Z and Leica S. Pentax with the tele 150mm and Leicas S with Macro 120mm f2.5, ha gave me couple of raw file to do the comparison and this is the result. Both shot at same EV, WB. The skin tone in Pentax looks flat and couldn't render red very well, not sure if this has anything to do with being CMOS sensor.

Interesting, and thanks for sharing the images. The Leica image has more appearance of depth to me plus the obvious color differences.  I guess the color can be sorted out by guys like Edmund with custom profiles etc, but what about the depth?  It's all an illusion so no doubt not all will see it the same way.   

You guys can debate about whether this is CCD vs CMOS or Leica lenses vs Pentax but it can't be about format size since they are similar sizes - both sort of 'tweeners."  I'm understand that CMOS should be the same but I have always seen the CMOS images as flatter and that's most probably due to different camera optimizations - most CMOS cameras seem to be set up for higher ISO work while most high end CCD cameras are optimized for best IQ at base.

Does anyone have any information on how the new Pentax does with tethering?  Max Sync speed?  Very curious to see some movie clips from this camera. 

[Hans Kruse]

The D800 has something like 1/8 of the vibrations compared to the A7r, as I recall, so it would not cause a visible degradation.

The D800 shooting in live view has the same movement of the shutter as the A7R, but the D800 has another option to avoid the double movement by choosing MUP. Using MUP in LV mode means that the first click of the shutter closes the shutter and the next click of the shutter will open the shutter to start the exposure. This means the shutter shock can be (almost) avoided. Clearly the EFC is a better solution and makes the use of MUP redundant.

[eronald]

Eric,

 One can doubtless match *one* image; one won't (math proof etc) be able to color-match all images; whether the Leica (Kodak) or Pentax (Sony) CFA is "better" in practice will be up to the user, and subject matter. But skin, landscape etc depends a lot on texture rendering and this may well differ from camera to camera at least as much as the color; here the images are small so texture cannot be examined. One advantage of the Sony is that one can protect highlights by massive underexposure eg. 3 stops, and lift afterwards; this might become standard practice, and avoid issues with forehead, cheekbone, nose etc speculars ...

Edmund

Interesting, and thanks for sharing the images. The Leica image has more appearance of depth to me plus the obvious color differences.  I guess the color can be sorted out by guys like Edmund with custom profiles etc, but what about the depth?  It's all an illusion so no doubt not all will see it the same way.  

You guys can debate about whether this is CCD vs CMOS or Leica lenses vs Pentax but it can't be about format size since they are similar sizes - both sort of 'tweeners."  I'm understand that CMOS should be the same but I have always seen the CMOS images as flatter and that's most probably due to different camera optimizations - most CMOS cameras seem to be set up for higher ISO work while most high end CCD cameras are optimized for best IQ at base.

Does anyone have any information on how the new Pentax does with tethering?  Max Sync speed?  Very curious to see some movie clips from this camera.  

[gdanmitchell]

It's clear that in those pics something is very different. But that doesn't mean it's the camera's fault, nor does it mean it's just the profile. For all I know the lighting may have changed.

When two things are different, it is not always the case that one is objectively better and the other objectively worse. Sometimes two different things are just... different. Certainly in these sample images we have a difference in color rendition. But that could be attributed to a number of things other than the camera's intrinsic capabilities.

Also, it should almost be a rule that when people share photographs from some automatically highly regarded brand such as Hasselblad and some new kid on the block (sort of) like Pentax and the sample images should be offered without brand identification. That would help us see the images more objectively and help viewers avoid confirmation bias that is surely present for many when the Big H brand name is mentioned.

Dan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am not sure that the cocking of the shutter is the main cause of vibrations on the A7r. A smart engineer has actually measured the camera oscillation using a speaker coil as pickup and an oscilloscope. Clearly, most of the oscillation is coming from the acceleration and retardation of the shutter curtains themselves.

Therefore, I don't think a firmware solution is possible.

Adding the right weight reduces the problem significantly, it seems.

Best regard
Erik

The D800 shooting in live view has the same movement of the shutter as the A7R, but the D800 has another option to avoid the double movement by choosing MUP. Using MUP in LV mode means that the first click of the shutter closes the shutter and the next click of the shutter will open the shutter to start the exposure. This means the shutter shock can be (almost) avoided. Clearly the EFC is a better solution and makes the use of MUP redundant.

[LKaven]

Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to suggest an in-principle basis for any claimed benefit of CCD over CMOS.  All can play.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In continued testing Lloyd was shooting some freehand portraits using high ISO. Int this case the Pentax + 90 Macro really played to strength, so Lloyd says the results are better than what would be possible with  FF 135.

This is no great surprise, as the sensor is larger and the base technology is similar. Obviously the 90/2.8 ED Macro is a good lens, albeit a bit expensive, I guess.

Best regards
Erik

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

CCD sensors will despair into obscurity like vinyl records, tape cassettes, CDs and film.

I for one think CMOS sensors are fantastic for my type of work.

Cheers

Simon

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would suggest that the benefits of CCD over CMOS mostly belong to the placebo category. There are some things to keep in mind, though:

- CCD sensors come from Kodak (now TrueSense ?) and DALSA both companies may have different CGA designs
- CCD is mostly medium format nowdays and comes with a proprietary raw developer with optimised profiles
- My guess is that it is possible to have MFD like rendition from a DSLR once profiles are tweaked
- Some users have found that the IQ-250 profiles in Capture one work better than the Nikon profiles for the Nikon D800. Capture One spending less effort on optimising colour for competing products?

When I am shooting my P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 I see very little difference after making all things equal. Using a grey card for white balance and adjusting white point, black point and midtones similarly.

The difference I see is mainly in resolution, which is better on the P45+. Another difference is that the P45+ has excessive color aliasing when processed in Lightroom but much less when processed in C1 (Capture One). So that round goes to capture one.

Of course, I do realise that my Sony Alpha 99 is vintage 2013 and the P45+ is vintage 2007, but I am also shooting a vintage 2009 Sony Alpha 900. And you can still buy 3-5 brand new Sony Alpha 99s for the price of a used P45+.

But, the resolution advantage of the P45+ is there, and 3-5 Alphas don't take better pictures than a single one.

Best regards
Erik

Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to suggest an in-principle basis for any claimed benefit of CCD over CMOS.  All can play.

[eronald]

Hello,

CCD sensors will despair into obscurity like vinyl records, tape cassettes, CDs and film.

I for one think CMOS sensors are fantastic for my type of work.

Cheers

Simon

Yo Simon! Nice card - if you say no Moiré, then I'll believe you
 
Edmund

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Eronald,

Take my word no Moiré out of 658 images shot on the day. But then again it was shot on a crappy Nikon D800.

Well its Friday afternoon here in NZ so I’m off to have a beer or two enjoy your weekend.

Cheers

Simon

[EricWHiss]

Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to suggest an in-principle basis for any claimed benefit of CCD over CMOS.  All can play.

There isn't really, but its just that CMOS can jump through the high ISO hoop and CCD can't, so all the designers and marketers tune the CMOS cameras to go even  higher in ISO at the expense of IQ at base.  Mostly this is CFA differences, but probably also electronics and well lot's of other stuff.   So while in theory they should be the same, in practice they aren't …. at least that's what my eyes tell me.  YMMV.     

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

With regard to the CFA differences I think they may be a myth, too.

But, if we look at CFA characteristics, most CFA-s have very steep gradient in the 590 nm range. Differences in steepness here may affect rendition of red/yellow/green. It could be that red sensivity in this area may be optimized for skin tones or chlorophyl. Steep curves may give excessive color separation. It seems that melatonin also has a steep gradient in that area, by the way.

There is a measure of the ability of a sensor to reproduce colour, called SMI. A perfect sensor has high SMI. DxO measures this. There is a tendency of SMI going down but with latest generation sensors it is generally higher with DSLRs than with MFD. Latest generation Phase One backs are pretty high but still below Sony Alphas.

I did measure deviations on an It-8 card. I wouldn't call it a scientific test exactly, but still pretty interesting. Both my Alpha 99 and my P45+ reproduced the IT-8 well. The Alpha 99 with Lightroom was closest, but P45+ with Capture One was quite close. The 131225 profile mentioned is a DCP profile genarated by Adobe DNG Profile Editor based on a color checker exposure.

More reading:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=3

This can of course be called pseudo science…
Best regards
Erik

Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to suggest an in-principle basis for any claimed benefit of CCD over CMOS.  All can play.

[DandA]

A 400 px wide screen capture hardly does justice to either image, but the main difference appears to be color balance. Certainly microcontrast and sharpness would not be faithfully reproduced in the screen capture. A simple MatchColors in Photoshop with the Pentax image ase the target removes many of the differences.

Bill

About the time the newer Leica S body was introduced, I did a shootout/comparison between the Pentax 645D, Leica S and Leica S2 body.  All were at base ISO, shot Raw and the pair of lenses I selected were the two manufacturers 120 macro's.  Both focal length were matched and both were considered at the time, the best or near best lens each manufacturer offered.  Shots were taken under studio lighting at fairly close range and some additional comparitive shots outdoors at infinity.  It was obvious the Pentax lens was optimized for closer distances and did go down to 1:1, whereas the 1:2 Leica macro faired better as a general purpose lens. It not going beyond 1:2 may have something to do with this.

I'm in the process of moving and the hard drives with all the images are currently packed away, otherwise I'd post some matched pairs.  My general feeling was at closer range, the performance of these three cameras was extremely close and output response in terms of color and perceived detail was neck and neck. The similarities of color/depth may be in part due to all three being CCD based.  Of course this is debatable.

At infinity distance, the Pentax macro was weak(er) along the sides and corners of the frame and this was obvious, although again under nature lighting, color response was remarkably similar.

One very noticeable issue with both Leica bodies was constant AF hunting at close range and lock-on was hard to achieve.  The Pentax is this test performed admirably and locked-on focus with relative ease.

I mention all this in light of the posted pair of images posted in this thread.  Thanks!

Dave

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for your observations and effort.

The cameras you mention all use same generation Kodak sensors, so the sensors are extremely closely related.

Leica is know to have very good lenses, and the Leica S lenses are the reference Lloyd Chamers compares to.


Best regards
Erik

About the time the newer Leica S body was introduced, I did a shootout/comparison between the Pentax 645D, Leica S and Leica S2 body.  All were at base ISO, shot Raw and the pair of lenses I selected were the two manufacturers 120 macro's.  Both focal length were matched and both were considered at the time, the best or near best lens each manufacturer offered.  Shots were taken under studio lighting at fairly close range and some additional comparitive shots outdoors at infinity.  It was obvious the Pentax lens was optimized for closer distances and did go down to 1:1, whereas the 1:2 Leica macro faired better as a general purpose lens. It not going beyond 1:2 may have something to do with this.

I'm in the process of moving and the hard drives with all the images are currently packed away, otherwise I'd post some matched pairs.  My general feeling was at closer range, the performance of these three cameras was extremely close and output response in terms of color and perceived detail was neck and neck. The similarities of color/depth may be in part due to all three being CCD based.  Of course this is debatable.

At infinity distance, the Pentax macro was weak(er) along the sides and corners of the frame and this was obvious, although again under nature lighting, color response was remarkably similar.

One very noticeable issue with both Leica bodies was constant AF hunting at close range and lock-on was hard to achieve.  The Pentax is this test performed admirably and locked-on focus with relative ease.

I mention all this in light of the posted pair of images posted in this thread.  Thanks!

Dave

[eronald]

Hi Eronald,

Take my word no Moiré out of 658 images shot on the day. But then again it was shot on a crappy Nikon D800.

Well its Friday afternoon here in NZ so I’m off to have a beer or two enjoy your weekend.

Cheers

Simon

Simon,

 Nice job, good light, clean pics - don't get in too much weekend trouble

Edmund

[eronald]

Still waiting for someone -- anyone -- to suggest an in-principle basis for any claimed benefit of CCD over CMOS.  All can play.

I think we're all waiting for images, so we know what to explain away

Edmund

[bcooter]

Peeps should use what they want.

I think the Pentax file looks good and is kind of  muted pastel (from what I've seen)  but that doesn't mean much until you get into post work.

I just think people get too weirded out on this stuff.

 I was looking for an extra evf bomb for one of my RED's last week, did a search and the internet was full of equipment forums where people were just pissing and moaning about each other's opinion.

I'll bet you 99% of the responses were hearsay but they were all having a go at each other, or dissing some equipment company that they were sure had "done them wrong".

What does it matter as long as you use the equipment you want to use and the photograph is worthwhile.

Personally I love using my S2, but I've shot stuff I like with it which goes a long way to me liking a camera.

I never would expect anyone else to agree, but don't know why that matters.

What does matter to me is I want all equipment companies to do well.  I hope Pentax knocks it out of the park, same with Phase/leaf, Blad and Leica.

Good, profitable pro cameras are good for our industry and lately we have a lot of pretty cool choices

To me, I see a difference in all cameras, cmos or ccd, new to old, 35mm to 645 and some work to my style easier, some more difficult, but it's all good when you think about it.

IMO

BC