Pros & Cons - New Pentax 645Z or second hand Phase One P45+

[skimasks]

Just going to throw my opinion in here...but a Phase One P45+ with H4X/H5X makes a hell of a combo. You then have a modern SLR with the ability to switch backs to a tech camera. I purchased a used P45+ privately and the H1+80mm kit was basically thrown in for free.  I then found an H4X for a steal of a deal. Found a bunch of lenses for ridiculous deals as my current rental market is moving away from Hasselblad so they're discounting all the used stuff heavily. Couldn't be more happy with my decision...unless an iq260 was to fall into my lap I suppose.

I will say that the biggest downfall of the H system is their single claw, clasping/locking mechanism, but if you find a solid copy then you should be fine. I used a v mount back previously on a tech cam, but the 555eld was not for me in the end.

[Doug Peterson]

Against that, the Mamiya/Phase One has no counterpart to the following Pentax lenses:
* Wideangle zooms (choice of 2)

Phase One has a Schneider 40-80LS wide angle zoom. Very very good quality. Hefty lens, to be sure, but with a high sync speed, good optical performance throughout the range, including on full frame 80mp sensors, and high grade build quality it's not to be forgotten.

* 25mm rectilinear ultrawideangle (the 24mm Mamiya goes wider but it must be de-fished)

As shown by our visualizer the 28mm Schneider lens with a P45+ is the same as a 25mm with the Pentax 645Z or 645D since these have a smaller sensor than the P45+. In other words the widest image you can get with a P45+ on a DF+ is the same as the widest image you can get with a 645Z/D.

In addition you have all the tech camera lenses, including a 23mm HR, which are in a league of their own and provide for shift/rise/fall/tilt/swing/stitching - only available with a true digital back, and not an integrated solution. You would need a 20mm with the smaller sensor a Pentax 645Z/D to match that.

You can also add all the Mamiya RZ lenses which work natively when putting the digital back like the P45+ on an RZ Pro IID. That inlcludes - though obviously on a very different kind of system. This includes interesting lenses like the 37mm fisheye, 75mm Shift, 100-200mm zoom, 110/2.8, 180mm soft focus, 350mm, 360mm, and 500mm, and the short barrel lenses which work with the tilt-shift adapter. These are MF only lenses and a few are quite slow (the 360mm is an f/6). But they all sync at 1/400th and RZ glass in general is known for it's pleasing rendering.

[tsjanik]

Excellent!



......................................................................
It's also telling, I think, that quality-obsessed Leica have produced adapters from their S2 body to many leading medium format system lenses...first came the Mamiya 645, Hasselblad V, and Pentax 67...then the Hasselblad H...then the Contax 645 [the latter two required reverse engineering the electronic actuators]...but not the Pentax 645. Maybe it's coming.

Ray

Hi Ray:

Inferring the quality of Pentax lenses by which adapters Leica makes seems a bit a stretch don't you think?  It seems more likely they didn't want to encourage the collection of superbly built, inexpensive lenses that are native to the 645D which uses essentially the same Kodak sensor as the S2. 

As to the range, the Pentax 67/645 adapter maintains functionality on the 645D.  They operate identically to the 645 A lenses, excepting the A setting.  This expands the offerings to include:
35mm fisheye
75 shift
105 f/2.4
120mm soft
400mm f/4 ED
600mm f/4
older 800 f/4 (if you can lift it)
800mm f/5.6 ED
1000mm reflex

In any event, both systems have more lenses than any of us could possibly use.

We're fortunate to have so many good choices in systems and I don't think you can say one has the edge over the other, except for personal preference considerations.

Cheers,

Tom

[araucaria]

I just wanted to add a few pentax 67 lenses to that list that I think are pretty interesting as they are very cheap and very good performers on the 67(100-200, except the 75 2.8,300ED and the zoom lens)

45 4
55 4 (last version)
75 2.8
165 2.8
300 4 ED
55-100 4.5 (I don't own this one but it's supposed to be better than the primes)

[Doug Peterson]

I just wanted to add a few pentax 67 lenses to that list that I think are pretty interesting as they are very cheap and very good performers on the 67(100-200, except the 75 2.8,300ED and the zoom lens)

45 4
55 4 (last version)
75 2.8
165 2.8
300 4 ED
55-100 4.5 (I don't own this one but it's supposed to be better than the primes)

Notably the Pentax 67 lenses can be used on the DF+ via simple adapter.

[torger]

If I was not going to shoot tech camera or not plan to upgrade to higher resolution (P65+, IQ180 etc) in near-time, I would surely get the 645Z. Considering the competition the sales reasons for cost-sensitive customers to buy into Phase One (or Hasselblad) systems is getting increasingly harder to find any sanity in.

Anyway, the Kodak sensor in the P45+ has excellent compatibility with tech cams and very nice image quality in abosulte terms, but if class-leading dynamic range is and high ISO is important to you, you need the Sony CMOS sensor. You'll need gradient filters with the P45+, and may do without on the 645Z in most cases.

I use old CCDs myself for my landscape photography, the reason is that I need a digital back because tech cam is my thing, and I like the Schneider Digitar lens range, and the old CCDs has best compatibility with those wides. I find the image quality to be good and can deal with the more limited dynamic range (still a lot easier to work with than slide film), but sure if I had not used a tech cam 645Z would probably be my primary choice, but perhaps I'd be satisfied with just a high res 135 system which is not far behind.

I don't see myself as a MF photographer but rather a large format photographer (I use Linhof Techno) which in the digital world means using MF digital back. A P45+ produces roughly the same resolution as 4x5" film, if we only count "grain-free" resolution, so it's certainly adequate resolution-wise for almost any application.

If cost is an issue, you surely already know that MF business model is not for the cost sensitive. However, if you can navigate second hand market and buy things just below highest end you can get MF systems which is as "cheap" as a new high end 135 or Pentax 645Z system, but buying second hand electronics is always a bit risky. To me as an amateur the risk is worth it, to most professionals it's not.

With the new MF CMOS sensors Phase One and Hasselblad can make more all-around cameras which can attract a wider market. There's an opportunity for them to expand their business model and go more head on competition like Pentax and Nikon/Sony from below. The coming five year period seems to become a dynamic one in terms of which direction MF will take and how high res 135 will evolve.

[Paul2660]

One other thought on the older 67 lenses.  I used them extensively when I was using a Zork adapter with a Canon 1ds MKIII and MkII, I used the 55 (which everyone stated was better than the more modern 645 Pentax lenses, and the 75mm shift). 

Both lenses I found lacking in sharpness with a 20MP 35mm camera, so I would not feel very good in using them on a 39MP CCD if sharpness is a facet you are looking for.  Obviously, just one users opinion.  However I was surprised to find both lenses lacking as so much had been written about them. 

Also, the use of the 67 lenses on a DF+ would be a problematic, unless you were using a IQ250 or 150 or Credo 50, as the DF viewfinder is not the brightest or easiest to manually focus from.  Live View on the modern Phase CMOS would be both much faster and more accurate.

You can find a lot of posts, blogs etc, all centered around trying to manually focus a Mamiya/Phase One DF or DF+ camera.  Joseph Holmes wrote a lot about it.  He also tried the Mamiya magnifier that attaches to the eye piece and I as I recall, did not have very good success. 
The DF+ AF is much faster and more accurate, hitting a good AF usually on the first hit, whereas the DF is a 1, 2, 3 type lock, 3rd attempt most accurate. 

The tech camera is another story, especially with wides, as you can figure out your hyperfocal and dial it in much more accurately than on the older 67 lenses or even a Mamiya or Phase One lens, at least in my experience.  On the flip side, a DF or DF+ with a 50MP CMOS back would be a great solution to try to use the 67 or older 645 glass, as the live view on the LCD is excellent. 

Paul

[Doug Peterson]

On the DF+ you can use Autofocus Confirmation even when using a manual-focus-only lens. It uses the same focus sensor as is used when using an autofocusing lens, and indicates with an arrow in either direction, or a dot (meaning "correct focus") as you turn the focus manually.

[eronald]

I think we need a Pentax rep to present his case in these discussions!

Why don't we have a Pentax rep yet?

Edmund  

[BobDavid]

Funny thing, I went from a Hassey CF39MS with H2F and a pancake cam/digitars with electronic shutters. Then I shed that system and bought into the Nikon D800, the 14-24mm lens is a miracle of modern optics. Now I am using an Oly  EM-1 and an EPL-5 with the fast Oly primes and one of the Pro zoom lenses. The Hassey served me well when I was in the fine art repro business. The H2F AF is accurate, but slow. After I moved away from fine art repro, I sold the Hassey and migrated to the D800. Nice AF, great glass, decent high resolution (though not anywhere near as sharp as the multi-shot files from the CF39MS), clean high ISO, and shadow detail to die for. I do not like the way it deals with highlights--the red channel blows out rather abruptly. The Nikon is not a good tool for fine art reproduction, but it is a great general purpose high-res camera. And now, I'm mostly using OLYs. I love the EM-1 and the EPL-5. Granted, I've closed my studio and business due to health reasons. I no longer cater to clients. But these lightweight go anywhere cameras have expanded my vocabulary as a fine artist. The Oly premium lenses are amazing--small, fast, well-corrected, contrasty, sharp, and easy to tote around in a small camera bag. My entire Oly kit weighs less than the CF39MS/H2F/120 Planar macro.

It all boils down to what you like to or have to photograph. Being that I am only accountable to myself, the Oly cameras and lenses are by far the most versatile and fun gear I've used, bar none. I am keeping the D800--mainly for the 14-24 and the 60 macro. I'm selling off the stellar 24-70 f/28 and the 70-200 VR f/4 lenses.

I am in the process of creating a portfolio of 50 pictures. Once completed, I will market them to interior architects, upscale interior decorators, etc. Here's a picture I made yesterday. All of the files are small JPGs straight out of the EM-1. I shot everything with the 25mm f/1.8 lens set to f/8.

[eronald]

Funny thing, I went from a Hassey CF39MS with H2F and a pancake cam/digitars with electronic shutters. Then I shed that system and bought into the Nikon D800, the 14-24mm lens is a miracle of modern optics. Now I am using an Oly  EM-1 and an EPL-5 with the fast Oly primes and one of the Pro zoom lenses. The Hassey served me well when I was in the fine art repro business. The H2F AF is accurate, but slow. After I moved away from fine art repro, I sold the Hassey and migrated to the D800. Nice AF, great glass, decent high resolution (though not anywhere near as sharp as the multi-shot files from the CF39MS), clean high ISO, and shadow detail to die for. I do not like the way it deals with highlights--the red channel blows out rather abruptly. The Nikon is not a good tool for fine art reproduction, but it is a great general purpose high-res camera. And now, I'm mostly using OLYs. I love the EM-1 and the EPL-5. Granted, I've closed my studio and business due to health reasons. I no longer cater to clients. But these lightweight go anywhere cameras have expanded my vocabulary as a fine artist. The Oly premium lenses are amazing--small, fast, well-corrected, contrasty, sharp, and easy to tote around in a small camera bag. My entire Oly kit weighs less than the CF39MS/H2F/120 Planar macro.

It all boils down to what you like to or have to photograph. Being that I am only accountable to myself, the Oly cameras and lenses are by far the most versatile and fun gear I've used, bar none. I am keeping the D800--mainly for the 14-24 and the 60 macro. I'm selling off the stellar 24-70 f/28 and the 70-200 VR f/4 lenses.

I am in the process of creating a portfolio of 50 pictures. Once completed, I will market them to interior architects, upscale interior decorators, etc. Here's a picture I made yesterday. All of the files are small JPGs straight out of the EM-1. I shot everything with the 25mm f/1.8 lens set to f/8.

Nice deconstruction

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The Pentax guy feels "tsjanik" makes a better work, I guess.

Anyway, I used to shoot P67 on film, and I had the impression that the lenses I had were a bit weaker than the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. The lenses I have are the fisheye, 45/4, 90/2.8, 165/4 and 300/4.

In any case, those lenses will not be sharper than the focusing accuracy that can be achieved. Focusing accuracy would speak for the Pentax 645Z, I think.

Regarding AF accuracy, I don't know. Tests I have seen on auto focusing accuracy with DSLRs essentially indicate that most systems have difficulty with optimum focus. Roger Ciala at Lensrentals has written a lot about that, but he also found that latests generation Canon DSLRs with the latest generation of AF lenses can match manual focusing with live view. Possible that Phase One AF is more accurate than DSLRs, but I would have some doubt.

The image below shows a cropped shot of a resolution target, the rectangles show the patterns that the viewfinder/ground glass could resolve, with my vision.

• Red PM5 (3X) prism finder
• Blue Hartblei 4X loupe
• Yellow PM5 + 3X monocular

As you can see, the sensor resolves far past the viewfinder. Obviously visual focusing on ground glass is more based on fine detail contrast than actual detail.
With live view focusing is at the pixel level. Another observation is that live view takes care of all alignment issues between sensor, lens, mirror, AF secondary mirror and AF sensor, at least regarding the point of focus. That all speaks for focusing with magnified live view.

Below is my beloved PM5/Zeiss 3X monocular combo:

Best regards
Erik

Ps.

This is a good article on focusing an MFD system: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html

I think we need a Pentax rep to present his case in these discussions!

Why don't we have a Pentax rep yet?

Edmund  

[torger]

There's other alternatives than the P45+ too, Hasselblad USA has some great deals on pre-owned H4D-50, $8400 is often not much more than what a P45+ sells for:

http://hasselbladusa.com/media/1064797/husa_cert_preowned.pdf

It's also quite easy to find second hand HC lenses (which otherwise is very expensive to buy new), or you put the body on the shelf, get an external battery and use it with a tech cam. High resolution lenses is overall quite expensive, also for 135 format, somewhat evening out the cost of the systems. The Schneider Digitar tech cam range has through the simple symmetrical design surprisingly good price/performance though, if you get them on lens board that is rather than expensive helical mounts.

Anyway, the offensively high prices of digital backs is where the main money pit of MF is, so if you get a good price on that your MF system don't have to be massively expensive.

Phase One is a popular prestige brand, but it's also the most expensive brand. It's a great brand if you want to have the latest MF tech first and the best feature set (concerning digital back), but if good price/performance is important to you there are more suitable brands. Second hand market is a bit special though, there's other rules there. Hasselblad CFV backs get a bit expensive because V mount is a popular amateur platform, P45+ is a bit expensive because of it's unique long exposure feature and excellent reliability reputation, Leaf Aptus backs are generally cheaper, H cameras are often quite cheap.

[BobDavid]

Before committing to a medium format reflex mirror camera, I'd wait and see how things will play out it 2015. The writing is on the wall--a MFD mirrorless camera will be hitting the marketplace. ... Nice thing about mirrorless cameras is they are light and highly adaptable to inexpensive tech cameras like the Cambo Actus. So, if you've really got an itch to shoot MFD, rent a camera every once in awhile and wait and see what surfaces in the mirrorless genre.

[araucaria]

A MF mirrorless will probably have special microlenses to compensate towards the edges in order to use wideangle lenses because of the short flange distance. I can see how that's going to be a problem with tilt/shift.

[BobDavid]

A MF mirrorless will probably have special microlenses to compensate towards the edges in order to use wideangle lenses because of the short flange distance. I can see how that's going to be a problem with tilt/shift.

We'll see.

[ndevlin]

A few points:

1. The 645z and an old Phasemiya system bear almost no resemblance to one another. Clarify what you want from your system and you will probably have your answer.

2. The 645z is fully modern in operation, and well weather-sealed.  It has terrific long-exposure, usable liveview and endless battery life.  If you shoot outdoors, and want a DSLR-like experience, there is no question.

3. The best IQ is obtained by using top quality rody and schneider lenses on a tech cam.  This mode of working sucks for most applications and tends to yield pretty dull imagery, imho. Except for architectural work, which tech cams own.  But the IQ is unparalleled.  The cost is also unparalleled. 

4. Other than having a leaf-shutter system (there is a 75 and 135) can someone clarify for me lenses the Pentax system is missing, exactly??  I have everything from 35-300, and ALL IN, the lenses cost me less than one new Phase or Hassy lens .

5. If you like the 3:2 aspect ration, the 810 is probably the camera for you right now.  That will change early next year when Sony again proves it is the only innovative company in the industry...

Just my 2c.

- N.

[Joe Towner]

I think we need a Pentax rep to present his case in these discussions!

Why don't we have a Pentax rep yet?

Edmund 

Good question, as I have reached out to the USA Pentax folks saying they need to do more in their outbound communications.  I was at an event and chatted with one of the 6 USA reps.  Nice guy, not in a great situation.  Evidently there was only 1 demo body to be shared by the 6 reps.  He had one sitting out, but only with the kit 55/2.8.  To top it off, he didn't have any prints showcasing the camera - I can make an 8x10 from an iPhone, but show me a few 30x40 images and all of a sudden you are showing why someone will invest in the system.  Not even a cheat sheet comparing it to other 35mm cameras - which they need to do while they have an advantage.

-Joe

[EricWHiss]

But remember something, great photography has very little to do with the camera, regardless of what a camera forum says.

Sage advice here.

However some people click with certain cameras and enjoy them more than others.

[Paul2660]

3. The best IQ is obtained by using top quality rody and schneider lenses on a tech cam.  This mode of working sucks for most applications and tends to yield pretty dull imagery, imho. Except for architectural work, which tech cams own.  But the IQ is unparalleled.  The cost is also unparalleled. 

Nick, number 3 caught my attention, as I sure don't find the landscape imagery posted by photographers on this site using a tech camera  as dull.   I agree the work flow is tedious, to say the least, but the results to me are worth it.  There are sure some times where I know I am going to shoot where I will leave the tech camera solution home as the conditions will not be the best.  However I will try to lead with it as often as I can. 

As I mainly use wides in my work, the tech solution give me a lot more control over overall DOF, with the ability to add tilt.  I use shift in almost all of my work, mainly because I like to create images that are short pano's.   I also am not a big fan of the 4:3 ratio as many others are, and the use of shift gives more latitude in post.

I would love to see a full frame CMOS medium format back that is also going to allow a more workable solution for movements, but that has yet to occur.   I also feel such a back will be a bit too expensive in the near future.

My main reason for the switch to a tech solution was very simple the lenses that are available offer so much more detail and overall image quality over anything that the Phase One/Mamiya lens lineup offer.  I find this true in the wide 23mm to 60m range, as you cross over to 75mm and above the Phase One/Mamiya glass gets much better. 

You can see some excellent examples of tech camera/landscapes in this thread over at getdpi.com  There is a  series of images posted by Wayne Fox that are most impressive.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52652-deciding-between-alpa-tc-stc-cambo-1250-a-2.html

As you pointed out, it's an individual choice for sure.

Paul