Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: NigelC on December 27, 2011, 08:26:12 am
-
In looking at the lower cost (relatively) end of the MFD spectrum, the Pentax 645D looks the most cost-effective solution (or would be if there was a tilt solution - HartBlei SR is too wide for product photography). However, I am put off by the review by David Kilpatrick in (UK) Freelance Photographer and, I think, repeated in the British Journal of Photography, where he is basically saying that the image pipeline is a derivative of the K-series, "....giving 14 bit processing and a fuzzy, soft effect to the raw files, presumably as a result of the demosaicing effect....." Elswhere he says that the Raw files "...show a similiar loss of 3D separation to the K-series, something very apparent when compared to the crisp output from the Phase one, Leica and Hasselblad systems....". In other words, this is DSLR, not MFD quality, but with larger file size.
I haven't seem comments like this in any other review, so I wonder if this is DK being a bid idiosyncratic, or is everyone else being too polite?
Oh, and I thought "demosaicing" is what the raw converter does, not the camera - could he be describing a problem with raw conversion in ACR or Capture One.
Also a bit idiosyncratic, I thought, was the statement that "...where Pentax has really delivered an edge,though, is in the lens technology - a lesson Hasselblad should be considering right now...." I think he was thinking of the the new weathersealed 55mm, which others have poured cold water on, and the 25MM, which so far as I know, doesn't exist.
-
My limited experience with the Pentax is just the opposite. Image quality is first rate. The biggest problem that Pentax has is that almost all of their lenses are old, and not designed for the demands of digital. Most are "OK", but not great.
Michael
-
The A0 prints I have seen made from Pentax 645D were nothing short of amazing. The files I have seen were also both very sharp and free of much of the aliasing I have seen in other MF files.
As far as 14 bits goes, no sensor today has more than 14 bits of useful information.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am sure DK would have seen different detail if it had a red dot and a larger price tag.
I have been shooting with the 645D since March and I am always impressed with what I get. Here are some test shots I made. I am sure the Boston pano, a five image stitch, would be sharper if the Hotel window was made from Schlott glass. First image with the D FA 55mm and second with the A 120mm Macro.
-
The two complaints you quote are nonsense, and the one on demosaicing alone is enough to destroy all credibility of that review.
1. Demosaicing is done by raw conversion software, so unless he was for some strange reason looking only at in-camera JPEG's that criticism makes no sense. And judging a DMF camera by in-camera JPEG's also makes no sense, so nonsense either way.
2. As discussed and explained in many posts and threads in this forum, 14 bits is more than enough to cover the entire dynamic range of any of the CCD sensors in any existing DMF back or camera.
As others have suggested, the whole thing reeks of the myth of judging by brand prestige, in which it is believed that the quality of a company's products can never rise much above that of its higher volume, lower priced offerings, so that companies like Pentax which in reality have the advantage od sharing resources across a wider range of products are deemed a priori to be inferior to companies that operate only in a small, high-end niche.
As a counterpoint to that snobbery, note that core photographic sensor technology is not being advanced primarily by high end specialist sensor makers like Kodak or Teledyne-Dalsa, but instead by the lowly mass-market serving sensor designers at Sony, Canon, Panasonic, and Nikon.
-
....giving 14 bit processing and a fuzzy, soft effect to the raw files, presumably as a result of the demosaicing effect.....".
............. and the 25MM, which so far as I know, doesn't exist.
After one year of using the 645D, the only occasions I get fuzzy files are those when I was too lazy to use a tripod and good technique or missed focus. Frankly I'm often astounded at the sharpness of the files.
The 25mm is available from Asian vendors if you're willing to pay a premium. Production was impacted by the recent weather related disasters.
Tom
-
After one year of using the 645D, the only occasions I get fuzzy files are those when I was too lazy to use a tripod and good technique or missed focus. Frankly I'm often astounded at the sharpness of the files.
The 25mm is available from Asian vendors if you're willing to pay a premium. Production was impacted by the recent weather related disasters.
Tom
It used to be exactly the same with film in MF reflexes - unless you were shooting at top shutter speed, on fast film, or hand-held under studio flash. Hardly something for which one should blame digi.
Rob C
-
Another little myth is about the quality of the lenses. Many work really well with the sensor--the 45mm prime and older A (not FA) 150mm seem to be dogs. Some are stellar like both the A and FA 120mm Macro. I and many of the folks I know actually shooting with the 645D are pleased with the lenses they have. In spite, or perhaps because of the fact many are film lenses, the color contrast is really nice. I have used a lot of Rodenstock, Schneider, and Mamiya optics and the Pentax optics are exactly not great like those lenses.
If you go to the Pentax forum at Getdpi or the medium-format section of the Pentax Forums, you can get a lot of practical feedback on the optics. There don't seem to many 645D shooters at LuLa. There are even examples from the 25mm at the Pentax Forums from folks that have them--not many, but they are there.
-
Ah, yes, you cannot shoot a sharp image with a 645D handheld at "slow" shutter speeds--you cannot manual focus either. 100% crop from a handheld image, manual focus 35mm lens, at 1/60sec.--just to offer some proof, or not...
-
Hi,
Diglloyd has tested a lot of lenses on the P645D. Some are excellent and some are dogs. This is in no way specific to Pentax 645D, also, keep in mind that some people love dogs.
Best regards
Erik (Not overly liking dogs)
Another little myth is about the quality of the lenses. Many work really well with the sensor--the 45mm prime and older A (not FA) 150mm seem to be dogs. Some are stellar like both the A and FA 120mm Macro. I and many of the folks I know actually shooting with the 645D are pleased with the lenses they have. In spite, or perhaps because of the fact many are film lenses, the color contrast is really nice. I have used a lot of Rodenstock, Schneider, and Mamiya optics and the Pentax optics are exactly not great like those lenses.
If you go to the Pentax forum at Getdpi or the medium-format section of the Pentax Forums, you can get a lot of practical feedback on the optics. There don't seem to many 645D shooters at LuLa. There are even examples from the 25mm at the Pentax Forums from folks that have them--not many, but they are there.
-
To Erik's point about some being dogs, avoid zooms and you are mostly fine. I have a subscription to diglloyd's site, and I recommend that if you are considering dropping the 10k+ on a 645D system you too should invest for a years subscription.
Makes me want the pentax though, damn.
Hi,
Diglloyd has tested a lot of lenses on the P645D. Some are excellent and some are dogs. This is in no way specific to Pentax 645D, also, keep in mind that some people love dogs.
Best regards
Erik (Not overly liking dogs)
-
And it is also important to note there are 645D (and S2) owners that are not overly enthusiastic about Mr. Chamber's reviews and conclusions...
Travel 67 in Flickr has some full res 645D images you can download and you can also look at his site.
GanRef, a Japanese review site, also has full res 645D images from a host of Pentax lenses you can download. In some cases, they have preferred the zooms over the primes at certain focal lengths.
-
Ah, yes, you cannot shoot a sharp image with a 645D handheld at "slow" shutter speeds--you cannot manual focus either. 100% crop from a handheld image, manual focus 35mm lens, at 1/60sec.--just to offer some proof, or not...
That's pretty sharp! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's pretty sharp! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
Thank you. I was a little worried about mirror dampening coming from lens shutter cameras. But it is well dampened for such a large mirror. The camera was in a vertical orientation for this image as well.
-
Thank you. I was a little worried about mirror dampening coming from lens shutter cameras. But it is well dampened for such a large mirror. The camera was in a vertical orientation for this image as well.
Pentax did a really impressive job with the 645D.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you. I was a little worried about mirror dampening coming from lens shutter cameras. But it is well dampened for such a large mirror.
I recall reading years ago that the Pentax 645 cameras have a clever mirror mechanism that postpones almost all the mirror "bump" until after the shutter release is finished.
P. S. here is a link on that subject: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml
-
Your Boston skyline is making me homesick for "Beantown" I have to work in Tokyo over the holidays :(
Marc
-
As the other "guy with a 645D" I can confirm that the conclusions of this review are highly suspect. In 16 months of use, I have found it capable of producing truly excellent files, every bit the equal of other 40MP cameras. In a very quick and informal test, my 200mm f4 AF held up very nicely to the 180mm on the S2, which must rank as the best-of-the-best lens wise.
That said, I have experienced some real focus weirdness with he 35mm AF lens. I have also found unsharpness in files which I attribute to the vibrations from the shutter opening, which are quite significant. Beyond these two quirks, it's an excellent camera.
I should add that some of my best results with it have come in the studio, which is hardly it's natural habitat.
- N.
-
Hi,
Miles Hecker is a third guy holding the P645D in high regard...
The P645D "inheriting" from the K5 may not be a bad idea, as the K5 is one of the better APS-C cameras around. Weather proof, best DR of all and even very good AF.
Best regards
Erik
As the other "guy with a 645D" I can confirm that the conclusions of this review are highly suspect. In 16 months of use, I have found it capable of producing truly excellent files, every bit the equal of other 40MP cameras. In a very quick and informal test, my 200mm f4 AF held up very nicely to the 180mm on the S2, which must rank as the best-of-the-best lens wise.
That said, I have experienced some real focus weirdness with he 35mm AF lens. I have also found unsharpness in files which I attribute to the vibrations from the shutter opening, which are quite significant. Beyond these two quirks, it's an excellent camera.
I should add that some of my best results with it have come in the studio, which is hardly it's natural habitat.
- N.
-
Your Boston skyline is making me homesick for "Beantown" I have to work in Tokyo over the holidays :(
Marc
Well, in that case. Happy Shogatsu...
-
I have seen the "14bit" myth but we're still to witness the "Kodak makes an inferior type of sensor only for Pentax use" myth. I guess it will be any minute now ...
Happy Holidays,
Radu
-
I have seen the "14bit" myth but we're still to witness the "Kodak makes an inferior type of sensor only for Pentax use" myth. I guess it will be any minute now ...
Happy Holidays,
Radu
LOL. It does seem that some are reluctant to give Pentax any credit for their products.
I have found many of the Pentax MF lenses to be excellent and a few are only good to ok, but I wouldn’t describe any of them as “dogs”. On the positive side, the naysayers will likely keep used lens prices down ;D.
Nick, try the A version of the 35mm, it doesn't exhibit the reported funky field curvature of the FA version.
Tom
-
LOL. It does seem that some are reluctant to give Pentax any credit for their products.
I have found many of the Pentax MF lenses to be excellent and a few are only good to ok, but I wouldn’t describe any of them as “dogs”. On the positive side, the naysayers will likely keep used lens prices down ;D.
Nick, try the A version of the 35mm, it doesn't exhibit the reported funky field curvature of the FA version.
Tom
I have the 35mm A which I use on my 645n. Only minimal barrel distortion is visable, and that only on straight lines, of course, and easily correctable in scanned images. The 120mm A is excellent. Sadly the prices for used 645 lenses, manual or auto focus, have skyrocketed since the introduction of the 645D.