As straight MF SLRs which is better - Phase XF IQ2/3/50 or Pentax 645Z?

XF 250C is better

11 (25.6%)

Pentax 645Z

28 (65.1%)

Substantially the same

4 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 42

[eronald]

Exactly:

Here is the thread starter, just pick one  :

I already provided a profile icon 

Edmund

[eronald]

I've no doubt there are plenty. Buyer's remorse feeds these forums.

Klaban,

 Look here -XF blind buy, posted here now:
 http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102341.0
 And you know, I don't think the guy is anything out of the ordinary, it's just become hard to actually evaluate MF gear, and some people have more money than time.

Edmund

[Kolor-Pikker]

Phase One is all about leaf shutters, interchangeability, tethering performance and so on. You can't strip the Phase system of everything that people pay a premium for in the first place.

How about we compare lawn mowers to combines?

[eronald]

Phase One is all about leaf shutters, interchangeability, tethering performance and so on. You can't strip the Phase system of everything that people pay a premium for in the first place.

How about we compare lawn mowers to combines?

It's a valid remark. But then maybe Phase dealers have historically been very good at getting people to buy combines  when they need more agile industrial lawn mowers, and this poll shows that now that there is a heavy lawn mower manufacturer in town, agile and cheap "heavy lawn mowers" are starting to sell real well, and are actually appreciated by professional lawn maintainers for the fast effective job they do, not only their price. That's why I removed price from my criteria.

It's nice to have long do-everything feature lists. However.
- What percentage of MF SLR buyers genuinely need/want these features: high resolution , high DR,  the "MF look", fast accurate focus, a decent rear screen and focus check, and a decent frame rate?
- What percent of MF SLR buyers genuinely need/want any of these features : leaf shutter, tethering, swap-back, and tech cam wide-angle lens use to supplement the MF dSLR body ?

Edmund

PS I'm not disrespecting the tech-cam and Alpa crowd. It's just that I'm not convinced that they're rushing out to buy an XF
PPS I would call the Hassy an agile combine with a full-combine price.

[Gel]

The Q has been answered in the first few posts but as a Pentax 645z and 5DSr owner it's a question of am I even the slightest bit interested in the XF?

F*** no, it offers me nothing that I need and is much more costly. Nice to look at sure, but so is my wife and she's a much better long term investment.

[BernardLanguillier]

The Q has been answered in the first few posts but as a Pentax 645z and 5DSr owner...

Why do you own both if I may ask?

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

...or more money than sense?

...and some have more time than money or sense.
Case in point, the first post in this thread.

[Gel]

Why do you own both if I may ask?

Cheers,
Bernard

It's quite complicated. Forgetting the 645z for a moment, I'm a wedding photographer and shoot 50 weddings a year give or take a few. Before getting the 5Dr my wedding kit bag would consist of a 5D3 on the left and a 1DX on the right with the 645z for formals and couple shots.

The 5Dsr interested me as a replacement for the 1DX which I love for it's speed and the edge it had over the 5D3. The 5D3 can only fire 6 shots before the buffer fills and there was less button programming available vs the 1DX. The 5Ds and r have addressed this shortfall, 20 shots in a buffer, smoother operation (not quicker as such) and the AF 'feels' faster, more accurate and the ai servo mode is better imho. Plus as I stay late at most weddings the weight difference is appreciable.

So happy I am with it I'm thinking of getting another and running two 5Ds's although I might not get another r for no reason other than I already have one and price. Initially I thought to lose the 1DX but I'm sure it's something I should be keeping for high speed stuff that happens. I'm 'that guy' who throws stuff out or sells it only to find he needs it badly the next week for something!

The 645z was never really in question, love it and the glass is definitely better than the Canon stuff older than 5 years. I like the framing of it, the sensor size and the tilt screen.

The 5DSr seems to of been overlooked with all the A7rii hype, deservedly so I guess but a lot of it IS hype. I don't think the A7 bodies are pro level and it doesn't matter what they throw at the a7 it's still got the feel and operation of a consumer camera and that's no good for me or my workflow. I'm rambling but just trying to explain my thought process.

But as you can see both are complimentary. In the field I can use the 5Ds for faster moving and tracking, there's more af points and the dynamic range IS MUCH BETTER THAN ANY CANON BODY TO DATE and the colours are lovely to look at out of the camera. There's talk of Canon needing to use a Sony sensor but scale that sensor down to 25mp, double the pixel size and I can't see Canon having problems.

Both the 5Ds and 645z are complimentary, if the 5Ds had a tilt screen and focus peaking I might sell the 645z at a push, like if I needed some cash quickly but both bought together with several lenses are still cheaper than an XF with a 150mm lens.

If anyone is considering getting a 5DS, try it, it's really good.

[Joe Towner]

+1 Gel - the 5DsR is a great camera, and there is no match for the big white glass in the MF world.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue. I am sure the 5DsR is a very compelling camera. Many of the Canon lenses are clearly excellent.

Although I have the Sony A7rII on order, I would agree that it is not a professional level body, Sony also agrees, else they would call it Sony A9 and they don't.

For me, the camera is an imager. I am a slow tripod mounted user shooting stuff like landscape.

I have no views about Phase XF IQ250 vs Pentax 645Z, except that price is a factor I cannot ignore. The Pentax 645D was within my considerations, but that I went with an old Hasselblad with older Zeiss lenses at very low prices. A real deciding factor was the 1.3X crop on the Pentax - that makes real wide angles very expensive.

The XF has some nice innovations, like shooting from live view mode. Good idea with leaf shutters.

But the XF/IQ is beyond my means, so why speculate about it?

Best regards
Erik

It's quite complicated. Forgetting the 645z for a moment, I'm a wedding photographer and shoot 50 weddings a year give or take a few. Before getting the 5Dr my wedding kit bag would consist of a 5D3 on the left and a 1DX on the right with the 645z for formals and couple shots.

The 5Dsr interested me as a replacement for the 1DX which I love for it's speed and the edge it had over the 5D3. The 5D3 can only fire 6 shots before the buffer fills and there was less button programming available vs the 1DX. The 5Ds and r have addressed this shortfall, 20 shots in a buffer, smoother operation (not quicker as such) and the AF 'feels' faster, more accurate and the ai servo mode is better imho. Plus as I stay late at most weddings the weight difference is appreciable.

So happy I am with it I'm thinking of getting another and running two 5Ds's although I might not get another r for no reason other than I already have one and price. Initially I thought to lose the 1DX but I'm sure it's something I should be keeping for high speed stuff that happens. I'm 'that guy' who throws stuff out or sells it only to find he needs it badly the next week for something!

The 645z was never really in question, love it and the glass is definitely better than the Canon stuff older than 5 years. I like the framing of it, the sensor size and the tilt screen.

The 5DSr seems to of been overlooked with all the A7rii hype, deservedly so I guess but a lot of it IS hype. I don't think the A7 bodies are pro level and it doesn't matter what they throw at the a7 it's still got the feel and operation of a consumer camera and that's no good for me or my workflow. I'm rambling but just trying to explain my thought process.

But as you can see both are complimentary. In the field I can use the 5Ds for faster moving and tracking, there's more af points and the dynamic range IS MUCH BETTER THAN ANY CANON BODY TO DATE and the colours are lovely to look at out of the camera. There's talk of Canon needing to use a Sony sensor but scale that sensor down to 25mp, double the pixel size and I can't see Canon having problems.

Both the 5Ds and 645z are complimentary, if the 5Ds had a tilt screen and focus peaking I might sell the 645z at a push, like if I needed some cash quickly but both bought together with several lenses are still cheaper than an XF with a 150mm lens.

If anyone is considering getting a 5DS, try it, it's really good.

[eronald]

Erik,

 I am curious - since you already have the back, and as you say work off a tripod, why don't you use a tech cam where you can get those spectacular pseudo symmetric wides? It would really seem that you should be entirely happy with your existing Phase imager, and just looking to put something in front of it.
 
Edmund

[Chris Livsey]

should be entirely happy with your existing Phase imager,
Edmund

I'm not speaking for Erik but from many of his posts it is clear his P45 is not making him entirely happy. Not even C1 seems to produce the required magic. I think Erik suffers from buyers remorse which is usually impossible to shake off. I bet he can tell you to the cent (or equivalent) what he paid, a sure sign. If the gear pleases the cost in financial terms quickly gets forgotten. I suspect it is due to the V mount. I certainly find the H system a much more pleasant and productive shooting platform than than the V and I have both with backs in both ( at the moment). Which by a circuitous route brings us back on topic: Better in the context of your question is down to the shooting experience, which very few currently have and may well be coloured by the novelty of the new as yet.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Chris,

You are not entirely correct in your presumptions…

The way it is I am an engineer having a long time interest in the science of photography. That said I am also a quite keen amateur photographer.

Now, being interested in the technology, I felt that there were a lot of presumptions about advantages that simple were not reasonable from engineering standpoint, foremost the often stated 6-stop advantage in DR, which was often discussed when I bought my back. I also had an interest into going into MFD, but I felt MFD was to expensive.

Renting an MFD back was out of question, but I felt that an MFD at around 10k $US would be acceptable. I also had a few Hasselblad lenses I wanted to put in use, so when I found a back for around 10k I decided to jump into MFD.

Obviously, first things I have done was to verify the stuff that I felt reasonable and unreasonable. I found no great surprises. The P45+ was a bit weak on DR. Colour rendition is a bit to taste. What I have found here is that auto white balance on the Sony was quite reliable, the P45+ less so.

Regarding sharpness, the P45+ delivers, but focusing a Hasselblad V system is not easy. I use it with a Zeiss monocular (recommended by Joseph Holmes), that helps a lot.

So what I would say it performs as expected:

- DR slightly below my Sony stuff
- Color rendition is much dependent on profiles
- Sharpness was up to expectations

So I was and still am shooting along with it happily. But I feel that the only real benefit is higher resolution.

So I don't fell buyers remorse as the system works almost exactly as I expected. Compared to expectations there are plus and minus points.

The major plus is that I like shooting with it and I actually like the 49x37 crop.

Now, why didn't I go on with a technical camera? Three reasons

- Sustainability - repair/replacement costs
- Focusing, need a sliding adapter
- Live view would be optimal on a technical camera, but todays CMOS sensors are 1.3X crop
- Not practical on travel as I also need a 135 kit.

So, next buy is a Sony A7rII with a Canon 24/3.5 T&S and a new Sony Macro. But I keep the P45+ kit, I like shooting with it. I shot about the same number of images on the P45+ the latest two years.

So I am not unhappy with my expenditure, but I feel that it was not a very smart outlay.

So, my suggestions are simply:

- MFD has a resolution advantage (or used to have)
- MFD has an advantage of sensor size
- There is no magic about MFD - same physics apply as to any digital camera.
- Those factors need to be considered before buying into MFD

Regarding H vs. V, I have little doubt that the H-system is superior, but building a complete system with lenses would be much more expensive.

Question here is Phase One XF or Pentax 645Z? For me, neither. Phase One is to expensive. With Pentax 645 I am a bit considered about the lenses. Pentax 645D was on my shopping list, from time to time.

Best regards
Erik

I'm not speaking for Erik but from many of his posts it is clear his P45 is not making him entirely happy. Not even C1 seems to produce the required magic. I think Erik suffers from buyers remorse which is usually impossible to shake off. I bet he can tell you to the cent (or equivalent) what he paid, a sure sign. If the gear pleases the cost in financial terms quickly gets forgotten. I suspect it is due to the V mount. I certainly find the H system a much more pleasant and productive shooting platform than than the V and I have both with backs in both ( at the moment). Which by a circuitous route brings us back on topic: Better in the context of your question is down to the shooting experience, which very few currently have and may well be coloured by the novelty of the new as yet.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Edmund,

It is about costs. I planned to buy a HCam-B1 about this time but went Sony A7rII instead.

Also, I would say that technical cameras make best sense with live view backs.

Just to say, Chris Barret has a nice thread about switching from Phase One IQ-260 to Sony A7r: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101458.0 , my reasons may be similar.

Best regards
Erik

 

Erik,

 I am curious - since you already have the back, and as you say work off a tripod, why don't you use a tech cam where you can get those spectacular pseudo symmetric wides? It would really seem that you should be entirely happy with your existing Phase imager, and just looking to put something in front of it.
 
Edmund

[eronald]

---------snip-------------

Question here is Phase One XF or Pentax 645Z? For me, neither. Phase One is to expensive. With Pentax 645 I am a bit considered about the lenses. Pentax 645D was on my shopping list, from time to time.
Erik

Yes, the original 645D was marketed as a landscape amateur camera in Japan, originally; obviously the new Z is a different beast, just as the XF is a step up from the Phamiya.

Regarding DR, as an ex-P45+ owner I learnt two things:
- The DR is really there at base ISO, it was a decent product for its time, but to see it you need to expose around ISO 40 instead of ISO 100 - the ISO is overstated deliberately by 1-2 stops. Not all chips are equal though.
- White balance is really crucial, you should use a mini-colorchecker or something like it, and recompute a profile in each site. The CCD backs are very different  from the dSLRs when it comes to color rendering.

Edmund

[Chris Livsey]

Certainly in my early testing I find the P45 much more sensitive to white balance changes, and I will need to look at being more methodical in using a Q card or colour checker, it is very different in this regard than my P20 which is more forgiving/robust in that aspect.
I apologise to Eric for my presumptions.

[RobertJ]

The XF system has the new Schneider 35mm LS f/3.5, which is unmatched, except for tech cam lenses.  The Pentax has nothing of the sort.  The XF is clearly a better system, and it's also way more expensive.

What's the point of this thread?

[eronald]

The XF system has the new Schneider 35mm LS f/3.5, which is unmatched, except for tech cam lenses.  The Pentax has nothing of the sort.  The XF is clearly a better system, and it's also way more expensive.

What's the point of this thread?

The point of this thread is to hear you say that you prefer to use an XF because it can use the new Schneider 35.
However the poll seems to indicate that it is not "clearly" the better system - other photographers have seem to have different priorities.

Edmund

[DucatiTerminator]

BTW, what is a Pentax 645C?


If you're going to troll, at least do it right.  

[eronald]

BTW, what is a Pentax 645C?


If you're going to troll, at least do it right.  

 My humblest apologies, Darth Ducati

Edmund