How are the Pentax Z645 owners feeling?

[Joe Towner]

Hey Slobodan,

Here's a full res jpeg, and it's really unfair to the model.  It's freaking crazy how much texture and detail you can get.  There are looks to specific formats - but when it comes down to is that 2-4x the number of pixels means that details that would otherwise be ignored are now being picked up.

https://copy.com/wTX2kND4eBcwYtlm

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... It's freaking crazy how much texture and detail you can get...

Yes, and that is what I see in those wedding shots as well, as I said. The trouble I have is with the term "texture" - for me, there is detail and there is noise. Apparently, some people call detail "texture," right?

Or is it that texture refers to a specific combination of detail+noise? In other words, low noise+high detail =good texture (or perhaps: acceptable noise+high detail=good texture). Or, if noise reduction results in a loss of detail: low noise+less detail=bad texture?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Slobodan,

My take when looking at those images is a bit mixed. I have little experience of skin tones as I am a landscape shooter. Looking at an image as this I ask quite a few questions:

• What white balance should be used? Including a grey card in a shot is always a good idea, specially on an overcast day.
• Was proper focus achieved
• Was the camera platform stable

I include my processing of one Joe's raw images.

Lloyd Chambers has some portrait shots using the P645Z with impressive skin texture, but he doesn't allow sharing content.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, and that is what I see in those wedding shots as well, as I said. The trouble I have is with the term "texture" - for me, there is detail and there is noise. Apparently, some people call detail "texture," right?

Or is it that texture refers to a specific combination of detail+noise? In other words, low noise+high detail =good texture (or perhaps: acceptable noise+high detail=good texture). Or, if noise reduction results in a loss of detail: low noise+less detail=bad texture?

[Joe Towner]

Yes, and that is what I see in those wedding shots as well, as I said. The trouble I have is with the term "texture" - for me, there is detail and there is noise. Apparently, some people call detail "texture," right?

Or is it that texture refers to a specific combination of detail+noise? In other words, low noise+high detail =good texture (or perhaps: acceptable noise+high detail=good texture). Or, if noise reduction results in a loss of detail: low noise+less detail=bad texture?

I seem to use detail as a very specific item - like a hair, or a nose ring or such, while I use texture to cover an area like a cheek or eyebrow.  I can see noise as having an effect on texture, and a lack of detail due to noise.  Freaking English language - so many little differences in it's use, even within the same area/postal code.

I've got a lot of random shots with the Z, what would folks like to see?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Joe,

I would say that the problem is not the english language, but the way it is used by photographers. It is very hard to find a good definition of texture in on line media, for instance.

I would say that texture may mean low contrast and medium frequency detail. Think brush strokes of a painting, or structures on a wall.

Much of the discussion is about skin tones and skin texture. What I would guess we would need is a medium distance portrait shot at base ISO with good focus on eyes shot with studio flash and including a grey card.

• The grey card is needed to find the right white balance
• Base ISO shows what the system is capable of, and can be used with very little noise reduction
• Electronic flash eliminates camera vibration
• Good focus on eyes gives a good point of reference for a sharp plane

On the other hand, it could be argued that even better information can be extracted from test charts, but artists prefer lovely ladies with proper makeup to judge skin tones, while engineers prefer ColorCheckers with well defined characteristics.

Best regards
Erik

I seem to use detail as a very specific item - like a hair, or a nose ring or such, while I use texture to cover an area like a cheek or eyebrow.  I can see noise as having an effect on texture, and a lack of detail due to noise.  Freaking English language - so many little differences in it's use, even within the same area/postal code.

I've got a lot of random shots with the Z, what would folks like to see?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The trouble I have is with the term "texture" - for me, there is detail and there is noise. Apparently, some people call detail "texture," right?

Or is it that texture refers to a specific combination of detail+noise? In other words, low noise+high detail =good texture (or perhaps: acceptable noise+high detail=good texture). Or, if noise reduction results in a loss of detail: low noise+less detail=bad texture?

Hi Slobodan,

The concept of 'texture' is being used by various disciplines in visual arts/technology (check out concepts like bump-mapping and displacement mapping if you are interested). IMHO, the most common understanding is that texture refers to the interaction between lightsources and a surface, which causes differences in observed brightness due to reflection towards an observer, and not due to differences in color/absorption. Detail is caused by differences in color/absorption, but can of course be augmented by texture.

The reflection differences are caused by surface properties which cause reflection in more or less random directions. The reflection angle between lightsource(s), observer, and surface normal, determines part of the perceived brightness differences, because the illumination of the subject it reflected more or less in the direction of the observer.

Cheers,
Bart

[Lacunapratum]

Late reply to Thomas Janik:

Definitely improvement in shutter vibration.  Shutter vibration is very little noticeable when using the Z.  Don't know how they did it, but definitely better. 

Tom

[tsjanik]

Thanks for the comments Tom; higher usable ISO and less shutter vibration.  You do realize you're pushing me over the edge  

[Lacunapratum]

... the Z is calling you... 

[Joe Towner]

In all the fun of the Z I've got another rental being delivered in the morning.  Swapped a few lenses around, will have the 45-85 and 75 in addition to the 55 AW and the 150 I had last time.  I'm shooting all weekend - any specific requests for raws?  Hopefully I'll get the lenses adjusted and tuned all happy before anything special happens.

I also have the AF-540FGZ flash this time, so watch out - P-TTL here I come.  Yea, so evidently the Z actually can be used with speedlights, with TTL metering, and the 540FGZ can be used as a wireless (IR) master, plus do HSS.  So maybe the 1/125th sync isn't all bad, I mean, when you have HSS and a couple of speedlights you can do a lot - just not everything like with the leaf lenses.  You'd think they (Pentax) would actually say something about this feature - I mean the only other DMF system that can do it is the Leica S system right?  Then again, it seems like the entire accessory market forgot about Pentax - no TTL Pocket Wizards or such.  If Phottix would do up an Odin set and a Indra500 (TTL strobe), they'd sell a bunch of them.

[synn]

You know my request, Joe. As always, some skintones under flash please!