Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on October 12, 2014, 04:32:57 am
-
The camera has been out for a little while, and I guess some of us here now own it.
What are your real life experiences with the Pentax 645Z like?
Edmund
-
Well, I'm not an owner, but I am feeling very, very sad at having tad to give back the demo to Pentax that I'd used for the last 6 weeks. Some of the best shooting I've ever done. Growing to really like the camera. It's miles better than the 645D, years ahead of Hassy and Phase, and markedly superior to the D800e in IQ and handling.
Plus, I just have found that the bigger the OVF, the better my pictures. No idea why. Just is.
In short, a terrific machine I would like to own. Only real improvement it needs is electronic first curtain shutter to reduce shutter vibrations.
- N.
-
Nick, since you have/ had an H4D 60, how do you rate the file quality of the pentax vs the hassy, ignoring all the handling characteristics etc?
In short, when you import the files in, which one blows you away more?
p.s. Excellent shots, BTW. Love the B&W.
-
Nick,
Thanks for sharing. The 3rd image is outstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nick
Please let us know which lenses you used for these excellent images.
As a corollary which lenses from the Pentax line do you recommend?
Are there any adapters for the camera so other brands of lenses can be used?
How do the files compare to those from the Leica S (or S2).
THANKS!
-
I agree that 3rd shot is spectacular, the sort of shot I'd be extremely proud of.
Mat
-
I agree that 3rd shot is spectacular, the sort of shot I'd be extremely proud of.
Mat
amazing pix.
Edmund
-
I won't repeat what's in my review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_pentax_645z_diary.shtml), other than to say that after another month of almost daily use the camera is even better than my initial evaluation.
Handling is first-rate... as Nick says, preferable to the Nikon 800e, which I was using previously. Image quality leaves almost nothing to be desired, either at low ISO or high. The Phase One IQ180 offered more resolution, but when the new Sony sensor is taken as a whole, for me it offers more. (Both Hasselblad and Phase along with Pentax wouldn't have selected it if it wasn't the current state of the art for its size).
All six Pentax lenses that I have are very fine. Would Leica S glass be better? Undoubtedly. But, as with most performance aspects of high-end equipment the differences lie at the margins. If you're a devoted and card-carrying pixel peeper, then nothing but the best will do (Leica S / Zeiss Otus). But in the real world of "Can you see the difference on a 20X30" print on the wall without sticking your nose against the glass", or at 100% on screen in the extreme corners, the answer for me is "no".
I spent enough years chasing the "holy grail" of image quality and spending outrageous amounts of money in that pursuit to know that it's a never-ending and ultimately fruitless search.
Based on my experience, and at this point in time, I believe that the 645z with selected Pentax lenses offers the highest image image quality combined with the most versatile handling of any camera system on the market; full frame 35mm or medium format.
It's not the best camera for all applications. I wouldn't use it for professional sports shooting, and it won't work on a tech camera with movements. But for most other applications, especially those that interest me...landscape and nature, it sings.
The bulk and weight can be a bit of an issue, as they are with all medium format systems, and even top-of-the-line Nikons and Canons. But this is not a hiking camera, at least not for me at age 70. For that I have the Sony A7r. The Pentax is used when I'm shooting from the car, in which case it rarely needs to be carried more than a couple of hundred yards. When I do those short distances, I put a couple of lenses in a shoulder bag, the camera with a lens on a BlackRapid sling, and the tripod over my shoulder. Anything less than a half mile or so is easily handled.
I'll be taking the whole Pentax kit, body, six lenses and all the extras in a Gura Gear Kiboko (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/kiboko.shtml) backpack as carry-on luggage, both on my December trip to Hawaii and my January / February back-to-back Antarctic expeditions.
Michael
-
How about portrait photography with Pentax Z645?
-
Why would portrait photography be an issue? Of course...portrait, fashion, product, and life style are all covered.
Just think of it as DSLR on steroids. The only real limitations are no fast lenses, maximum 3FPS, and slow tracking autofocus. Also, there are no current leaf shutter lenses, so high speed strobe sync is limited. But then, no DSLRs have leaf shutter lenses either.
Other than that the camera is about as versatile as it gets.
Michael
-
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the original article and also for the update!
Very nice to hear that the 645Z is not "just a" sensor update to the 645D but a really new camera improved in all details. I hope Pentax sells tons of them.
Best regards
Erik
I won't repeat what's in my review (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a_pentax_645z_diary.shtml), other than to say that after another month of almost daily use the camera is even better than my initial evaluation.
Handling is first-rate... as Nick says, preferable to the Nikon 800e, which I was using previously. Image quality leaves almost nothing to be desired, either at low ISO or high. The Phase One IQ180 offered more resolution, but when the new Sony sensor is taken as a whole, for me it offers more. (Both Hasselblad and Phase along with Pentax wouldn't have selected it if it wasn't the current state of the art for its size).
All six Pentax lenses that I have are very fine. Would Leica S glass be better? Undoubtedly. But, as with most performance aspects of high-end equipment the differences lie at the margins. If you're a devoted and card-carrying pixel peeper, then nothing but the best will do (Leica S / Zeiss Otus). But in the real world of "Can you see the difference on a 20X30" print on the wall without sticking your nose against the glass", or at 100% on screen in the extreme corners, the answer for me is "no".
I spent enough years chasing the "holy grail" of image quality and spending outrageous amounts of money in that pursuit to know that it's a never-ending and ultimately fruitless search.
Based on my experience, and at this point in time, I believe that the 645z with selected Pentax lenses offers the highest image image quality combined with the most versatile handling of any camera system on the market; full frame 35mm or medium format.
It's not the best camera for all applications. I wouldn't use it for professional sports shooting, and it won't work on a tech camera with movements. But for most other applications, especially those that interest me...landscape and nature, it sings.
The bulk and weight can be a bit of an issue, as they are with all medium format systems, and even top-of-the-line Nikons and Canons. But this is not a hiking camera, at least not for me at age 70. For that I have the Sony A7r. The Pentax is used when I'm shooting from the car, in which case it rarely needs to be carried more than a couple of hundred yards. When I do those short distances, I put a couple of lenses in a shoulder bag, the camera with a lens on a BlackRapid sling, and the tripod over my shoulder. Anything less than a half mile or so is easily handled.
I'll be taking the whole Pentax kit, body, six lenses and all the extras in a Gura Gear Kiboko (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/kiboko.shtml) backpack as carry-on luggage, both on my December trip to Hawaii and my January / February back-to-back Antarctic expeditions.
Michael
-
No, of course is not issue. My question is about experience with Pentax about portrait photography( bokeh,lens etc..)
I don't shoot landscape at all, only portrait photography.
-
But then, no DSLRs have leaf shutter lenses either.
Leics S* dSLRs (they are not MFDB and dSLR does not imply a sensor size) have leaf shutter lenses...
-
Thanks for the kind words. Of the three images I've attached, two were captured with the 45-85mm zoom, which both Michael and I find to be the real core of the system. Good lens. The light rays through the trees were shot with the 300mm f5.6. I don't really know how good this lens is bc I think it is being limited by vibration.
Of note, "Night Slide" was shot at ISO 25,600. Only this kind of speed makes the pin-point stars and sharp water possible.
Of note on another note, the B&W shot was done at f32 (6 seconds in daylight with ND filter), and looks gorgeous at 24x30".
How does the camera and the file it produces compare to the H4D-60? Well, the cameras largely don't compare. The Hasselblad is fairly painful to use. The Pentax is about the best of modern DSLR design. It feels much more rugged and never runs out of power :-)
I found the H quite useable with practice, in fairness.
The file? At ISO 50, with an over-abundance of light, the 60MP Dalsa CCD produces a nicer file. Deeper and more malleable even than the Pentax at base ISO. Just fabulous in every way. But how much better? Well, on my one real side-by-side test, I was initially convinced the H-file had more micro-contrast and better tonal detail. However, I ultimately went back and worked on the Pentax file in Lightroom, giving it everything I had. The result was that, with a lot more sharpening on the Pentax file (both overall and local) and with a large amount of area-specific work, I made the Pentax file look virtually indistinguishable from the H-file on-screen at 100%.
Outside of base ISO, there isn't much contest - the Pentax CMOS file is better once the speeds increase.
The lack of leaf-shutters on the Pentax sucks. First, it makes environmental portraiture work very hard. I now own both leaf shutter lenses for the 645, but have yet to try them on a real shoot. Both are blazing-sharp, though. That said, the need to manually focus and re-cock the shutter between shots is a sub-optimal solution (though less so when one is waiting for strobes to recharge).
Second, while the shutter is much better dampened on the "z" than the "D", I believe it is still an issue at speeds between 1/100th and 1 second.
Electronic first-curtain is simply and without question the answer on MF in the absence of leaf shutter lenses.
Portraiture? I haven't shot much portraiture with it, but the only issue is flash sync speed. The files are gorgeous and skin tones are very nice. Focusing is more than adequate.
I think a quick article updating our first review might be in order!
- N.
-
Nick
I am curious which lenses you have for the Pentax. I have a h4d 50 with the 28, 50 version 2, 100 and 210 lenses and have been thinking to switch to Pentax. I was hoping to increase Megapixels if I made a move to a new system but feel it may be years before we see a higher Megapixel chip with CMOS.
Thanks Steven
http://www.friedmanphoto.com (http://www.friedmanphoto.com)
-
Why would portrait photography be an issue?
I guess that would be skin-tone rendering. Some see a difference between say a D800 and anything medium format CCD concerning skin tones. Being a landscape photographer I don't have eyes for that, but I'm still curious about if the Pentax 645Z can please those people that were not pleased with how D800/D810/A7r and others render skin tones.
It would also be interesting to know if there is any difference between IQ250 and Pentax 645Z in that regard, say if the con-census is that IQ250 renders good skin tones but the 645Z does not. That would be an interesting result.
I think the 645Z really needs to sing in portrait to be a real alternative to the typical MFD user, which is not a landscape photographer but rather do various assignments in a studio.
-
It seems that not many people are using the 645z tethered in a studio. Maybe because there is no good solution for that. You can't us it directly with Lightroom or PhaseOne to tether. There is only a new software from Pentax called Pentax image transmitter 2 which you have to buy, but it seems nobody is using them. ::)
-
Why would portrait photography be an issue?
Michael
Michael,
Skin color and texture rendering is very specific, and a strength of the remaining CCD solutions eg. Phase, Hassy, Leica S. Somehow, they often get it right , with little need for rework. And this is worth a lot of money to the fashion/portrait crowd.
Nobody has been able to figure out yet what *exactly* makes a camera yield good skin tone, although people like Imatest and Image Engineering have been adding texture tests to their test software.
So, it would be nice to know what the fashion/portrait guys think.
Edmund
-
Has Pentax made any updates or changes to their warranty service for North America? Such that a 645z would no longer have to be sent to Japan for repair?
Thanks
Paul
-
Is a long round-trip time a problem? Wouldn't you have a backup?
For me it's more important that the service works than it's fast. That is when you send in something broken you get something working back. A real test is to see how the service handles a unit with intermittent failures, something that only fails in certain conditions. That's tough, and a classic is to get it back with the same error there...
-
Ok, a variety of points to address:
@stevenf: If you have and like the H4-50, with four fabulous lenses, do not change up. The Hassy is a great system. The lenses are as good or better, and the Leaf shutters are a real advantage. Change only if your are constantly aggravated by the usability of the camera, and/or need a higher ISO for your work.
@deeejjjaaaaa: The Leica S is academic for two reasons: (i) their CMOS camera is many months away and entirely untested and (ii) their prices limit their use and ownership to multi-millionaires, which most of us are not. And yes, no doubt their lenses are a lot better. If I won a lottery I'd for sure get an S system just for fun.
@ goldfinger: the USB 3 tethering solution is imminent and I have no doubt it will be quite good. I'll be eager to test when it comes out.
@eronald: skin rendering looks good in my brief tests. Looks very nice in in-camera jpegs converted to B&W :-)
-
Torger
Yes. It's a real problem to me. If I own 1 body at 8.5k and have to send it to Japan for 6 weeks for a repair. Also, I perfer to work with US based service for any product of this cost/complexity. As with Canon,Fuji, Nikon, and Phase One. If you send off a 645z to Japan, who do you call to check on the camera. And do they speak English?
In the 14 years I have owned Canon about 33% of repairs went back as they were not fixed right the first time both bodies and glass. Phase One since 2008 50% of my first time repairs went back again, either from my dealer checking the repair first or me finding something else was wrong. I have always owned a Value Add on Phase so extended returns are not an issue.
Buying a 2nd 645z for a back up may sound OK, but to me is a bit expensive.
I fully believe in the capabilities of the z in reality warranty repair is a important consideration at least to me.
Paul
-
@eronald: skin rendering looks good in my brief tests. Looks very nice in in-camera jpegs converted to B&W :-)
Nick that's a very nice portrait ... you give nice gray :)
Edmund
-
Paul,
Your concern on service is a very material one. I get fantastic support from Bill Gouge of Pentax (Ricoh) Canada, but i have not had to explore their service times.
Fortunately for you Americans, Lenrentals now seems to offer the 645z for a pretty reasonable price. Cheaper than the Phaseone extended warranty :-)
In all seriousness though, they really need to support the camera domestically. I will find out what the situation is. Of course, the more they sell the better the service will likely be....
-
Worth noting that a Pentax MF system can be bought for less than a P30 back alone so when the time comes to replace the ZD back on my Mamiya it looks as if I may be moving back to Ricoch.
What's the accuracy/consistency of exposure like BTW?
-
Nick,
Good point on Lens rentals, I did not realize they rented this camera now. It for sure would be an option.
Paul
-
... The light rays through the trees were shot with the 300mm f5.6. I don't really know how good this lens is bc I think it is being limited by vibration....
Not good at all... you can see a cobweb, but you can't see the spider... baaahh ;)
-
Nick,
Good point on Lens rentals, I did not realize they rented this camera now. It for sure would be an option.
Paul
$1200 for a month rental.
Much cheaper than a Phase warranty or Phase rental.
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/medium-format/pentax/pentax-645z-medium-format-dslr
I think cheap -or at least reasonably priced- medium format prices offer new perspectives. At these rental prices it makes sense to get one for a trip.
Maybe Leica should try and get the S out into rental too.
Edmund
-
@deeejjjaaaaa: The Leica S is academic for two reasons: (i) their CMOS camera is many months away and entirely untested and (ii) their prices limit their use and ownership to multi-millionaires, which most of us are not. And yes, no doubt their lenses are a lot better. If I won a lottery I'd for sure get an S system just for fun.
If I had a dollar for everytime someone mentions lecia and millionaires, I'd have 15 million in the bank.
Obviously I guess your talking about buying full retail of the latest cmos S series, but I paid less for my S2 than the Pentax and unlike any larger than 35mm format camera, you can use H series and Contax lenses with full functionality, honestly no glitches in focus or sharpness of focus.
I have 7 contax lenses, one leica lens, the 120 and it's very good and has different roll off than the Contax Zeiss, but it's not sharper, so if you just want a different look, you can buy Leica lenses as you go, but you don't have to buy the full line of lenses, to get up and running.
In fact medium format cameras seem to last forever, are usually taken care of better than a 35mm camera so dealer approved used can be a deal, in all makes, not just Leica.
Now I'll admit I haven't tested the Z, or any pentax digital and the world seems crazy for 6000 iso though so far I've rarely needed it in any format, any genre, so I guess I work differently than some.
Still, the Leica for the Lambo/Bentley crowd is not really true, except for the build quality.
IMO
BC
Leica S2
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/s2_shower_v3.jpg)
650 watt Arri Frensel key, through 1 stop frosted glass.
-
Yes. It's a real problem to me.
Ok, just curious :-). Local repair is sure better. I haven't had the best of experience concerning repairs (regardless of product), I usually don't have the luck that things actually break in pieces, they just start to behave funny and such things is very hard to get repaired. I guess it indeed would be a bit easier if you could call and speak to them in person.
-
J,
The Leica is a known quantity. This thread is about the 645Z, and people's hands-on experiences with the Z, precisely because it is new. And ISO 25000 in MF is new. Nick showed those star reflections, something you can only do with that sort of ISO, and it is spectacular. You won't do that with the S.
Edmund
If I had a dollar for everytime someone mentions lecia and millionaires, I'd have 15 million in the bank.
Obviously I guess your talking about buying full retail of the latest cmos S series, but I paid less for my S2 than the Pentax and unlike any larger than 35mm format camera, you can use H series and Contax lenses with full functionality, honestly no glitches in focus or sharpness of focus.
I have 7 contax lenses, one leica lens, the 120 and it's very good and has different roll off than the Contax Zeiss, but it's not sharper, so if you just want a different look, you can buy Leica lenses as you go, but you don't have to buy the full line of lenses, to get up and running.
In fact medium format cameras seem to last forever, are usually taken care of better than a 35mm camera so dealer approved used can be a deal, in all makes, not just Leica.
Now I'll admit I haven't tested the Z, or any pentax digital and the world seems crazy for 6000 iso though so far I've rarely needed it in any format, any genre, so I guess I work differently than some.
Still, the Leica for the Lambo/Bentley crowd is not really true, except for the build quality.
IMO
BC
Leica S2
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/s2_shower_v3.jpg)
650 watt Arri Frensel key, through 1 stop frosted glass.
-
J,
The Leica is a known quantity. This thread is about the 645Z, and people's hands-on experiences with the Z, precisely because it is new.
The thread had moved to a comparison of price with other cameras and I assume usability in low light.
I don't have trees, (btw Nick beautiful shot), but could display a low wattage shot obviously in a different genre, though basically I was responding to price.
But, when it comes to price, no new system is inexpensive, unless you have a complete lens set, some more expensive than others.
The Pentax is a good deal and changes the way medium format is priced, at least new medium format, but I costed out the newer pentax lenses and body when I looked at the 645 D and it wasn't inexpensive in total.
Heck just my micro 43 system with lenses, accessories, filters, viewfinders was twice what I paid for my S2, because I was set on lenses for the S2.
IMO
BC
-
Let's hope some other guys post 645Z pix. Nick's are - to say the least - surprisingly good.
Your case for the S has been well made.
Edmund
The thread had moved to a comparison of price with other cameras and I assume usability in low light.
I don't have trees, (btw Nick beautiful shot), but could display a low wattage shot obviously in a different genre, though basically I was responding to price.
But, when it comes to price, no new system is inexpensive, unless you have a complete lens set, some more expensive than others.
The Pentax is a good deal and changes the way medium format is priced, at least new medium format, but I costed out the newer pentax lenses and body when I looked at the 645 D and it wasn't inexpensive in total.
Heck just my micro 43 system with lenses, accessories, filters, viewfinders was twice what I paid for my S2, because I was set on lenses for the S2.
IMO
BC
-
@BC: In terms of price I was thinking purely from a civilian perspective. (Spare a thought every now and again for those of us who pay post-50%-tax-dollar for cameras :'(). If I were in the biz, I would chose cameras purely on performance as, assuming you're a good viable business, you can make the numbers work and the differences aren't that great over time.
You're right insofar as the new Pentax lenses are very aggressively priced. The 90mm is nice, but not $4k nice. Same with the 25mm. It's the fact that I got a three lens setup from 45mm-300mm in used near-mint for under $1,500 that makes this so appealing.
With the S2, is it the total package you like (lenses, finder, feel, and file) or in particular that you like the files/rendering?
- N.
-
Anybody have first hand experience of the new Pentax tethering software ?
-
@BC: In terms of price I was thinking purely from a civilian perspective. (Spare a thought every now and again for those of us who pay post-50%-tax-dollar for cameras :'(). If I were in the biz, I would chose cameras purely on performance as, assuming you're a good viable business, you can make the numbers work and the differences aren't that great over time.
You're right insofar as the new Pentax lenses are very aggressively priced. The 90mm is nice, but not $4k nice. Same with the 25mm. It's the fact that I got a three lens setup from 45mm-300mm in used near-mint for under $1,500 that makes this so appealing.
Is it the total package you like (lenses, finder, feel, and file) or in particular that you like the files/rendering?
- N.
Exactly. I had the 645D and sold it even though it is a fantastic camera. Two reasons:
1- Service and Repair. Prepare to be without your camera for 6-10 weeks if you need to send it in for repair. That is unacceptable for a professional like myself. For an amateur it might not matter.
2- Lenses. The new lenses are overpriced IMHO and the old lenses are only good at say f8-f16. Fine for Landscapes and Studio work (some) but not good if you want to take advantage of the large sensor to get some nice out of focus backgrounds when shooting people.
As far as I know the 645Z has not changed those issues. It is a shame since it seems like a fantastic camera. Probably the best AF Medium Format Camera ever made.
That said the 645D at current prices might be a good backup!
-
@BC: In terms of price I was thinking purely from a civilian perspective. (Spare a thought every now and again for those of us who pay post-50%-tax-dollar for cameras :'(). If I were in the biz, I would chose cameras purely on performance as, assuming you're a good viable business, you can make the numbers work and the differences aren't that great over time.
You're right insofar as the new Pentax lenses are very aggressively priced. The 90mm is nice, but not $4k nice. Same with the 25mm. It's the fact that I got a three lens setup from 45mm-300mm in used near-mint for under $1,500 that makes this so appealing.
Is it the total package you like (lenses, finder, feel, and file) or in particular that you like the files/rendering?
- N.
Hey Nick,
First off I haven't tested a 645z . . . well I did shoot some frames in a store and looked at them later, but as far as really using it, I don't know anything about it.
But . . . I think on paper it seems like a heck of a good deal and I really do hope Pentax offers good tethering and enough lenses to complete the line. I've tried some of their older lenses and since most are used I think it's a hit a miss on what's sharp, what isn't.
I guess their new lenses are expensive, but every camera makers pro line lenses are expensive. After you buy a few Cinema lenses, actually even leica still lenses look like a bargain.
The only point I was trying to make is if you look around, shop right and can live with 800 iso or less, an S2 (and a lot of other used, or demo medium format) is less or equal to the price of the new pentax and I don't compare lenses and files by the sub atomic level, but I'm always amazed at how sharp those old contax zeiss are.
But I still think the Pentax is good if you starting fresh with medium format, don't necessarily know if it changes things for Hasselblad and Phase, because I would imagine a lot of those buyers already are invested in lenses and a system.
But to be honest, I came within an inch of buying a 645d because I do like the look of ccd files for my work and the only thing that stopped me was the buffer and the tethering.
The Z seemed to have addressed that which is good for everyone.
IMO
BC
-
Anybody have first hand experience of the new Pentax tethering software ?
Not out yet.
-
2- Lenses. The new lenses are overpriced IMHO and the old lenses are only good at say f8-f16. Fine for Landscapes and Studio work (some) but not good if you want to take advantage of the large sensor to get some nice out of focus backgrounds when shooting people.
The 90mm is expensive, but still clearly cheaper than its equivalent Hassy H/Leica S, right?
Plus, it is the only of those offering in lens stabilisation which is IMHO a great asset.
So overpriced relative to what?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 90mm is expensive, but still clearly cheaper than its equivalent Hassy H/Leica S, right?
Plus, it is the only of those offering in lens stabilisation which is IMHO a great asset.
So overpriced relative to what?
Cheers,
Bernard
Specs wise seems good but just the overall feel, build of the lens does not feel at all at the level of the price. Also I really did not like the bokeh. Yes, this last part is subjective but important to me at least. Again, this might not matter to other users.
I am not saying the price of the new Pentax 645D lenses are as bad as the Sigma SD1 pricing fiasco (remember that?) but honestly they should be priced lower at say $3200 max. After all the Pentax is a lower cost alternative product. As it is the wide range of used FA and A lenses make a lot more sense.
-
Hi,
I'll presume that weather-proofing may be an advantage, and it seems that Pentax is known be good at that.
Best regards
Erik
I'll be taking the whole Pentax kit, body, six lenses and all the extras in a Gura Gear Kiboko (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/kiboko.shtml) backpack as carry-on luggage, both on my December trip to Hawaii and my January / February back-to-back Antarctic expeditions.
Michael
-
How does the camera and the file it produces compare to the H4D-60? Well, the cameras largely don't compare. The Hasselblad is fairly painful to use. The Pentax is about the best of modern DSLR design. It feels much more rugged and never runs out of power :-)
I found the H quite useable with practice, in fairness.
The file? At ISO 50, with an over-abundance of light, the 60MP Dalsa CCD produces a nicer file. Deeper and more malleable even than the Pentax at base ISO. Just fabulous in every way. But how much better? Well, on my one real side-by-side test, I was initially convinced the H-file had more micro-contrast and better tonal detail. However, I ultimately went back and worked on the Pentax file in Lightroom, giving it everything I had. The result was that, with a lot more sharpening on the Pentax file (both overall and local) and with a large amount of area-specific work, I made the Pentax file look virtually indistinguishable from the H-file on-screen at 100%.
Outside of base ISO, there isn't much contest - the Pentax CMOS file is better once the speeds increase.
- N.
Hi Nick,
Thanks for answering my query. Without getting into brand/ format wars, here's how I feel about this whole deal. The image quality aspect is just as I suspected. The "Old codgers", i.e. the CCD generation gives one better files out of the box while the new kids on the block (The 44x33 Sony sensor equipped cams) are much like the D800 etc. Decent files which needs quite a bit of work to get the best out of them. They are also much more versatile as cameras.
But my question is, (Price aside), do we really need to teach the old dogs new tricks? I mean, when I invested in Medium format, I knew exactly what I was getting into. It would do something well and that's about it. For everything else, a second 35mm/APSC/M43 kid would do just fine. I regularly pack the D800 and 1-2 lenses while taking the MF kit for a gig and of course, a mirrorless kit would be far smaller. The financial investment into a secondary kit would also be not that much compared to what one puts into an MF kit.
I might be the odd one out, but losing that base ISO advantage and files that look "Right" out of the box for some versatility just doesn't appeal to me. That said, at that price, the Pentax makes a strong case for itself but I do think that with the current pricing, the 645D is the silent killer in the MF landscape.
-
Yes, the Pentax seems to be a camera for retirees in Japan, and for photographers in the US, maybe amateurs in Europe.
Clearly, it is not expensive enough to compete with Phase and Leica and Hassy for the core MF market in the US: Bankers, dentists, lawyers.
Although I guess doctors could also afford Phase, they seem to be considered less hateful :)
Edmund
I've never heard the millionaire thing, usually it's doctors, dentists and of course lawyers.
-
Morning
As there are so many types of photographers it's only possible to offer a personal opinion and I in no way consider this to be the general view but to me, the Pentax makes little sense. I agree somewhat with synn's comments, I don't see a one camera fits all situation as being possible, different systems excel in different areas and whilst there are some excellent generalists, there are none I believe that can do everything perfectly.
That said, I'm not really sure what was missing from traditional ccd based mf systems, they excel at what they were designed to do, i.e low iso's, resolution, colour etc. and if you're a commercial studio photographer like BC et al. then the newer tech would apparently offer little benefit. The Pentax obviously has great high ISO performance but looking at numerous files, the difference between high end 35mm and good glass is minimal to my eye so rather than the slight bump in resolution, I don't see the benefit of paying the extra for the Pentax, particularly if lenses are either questionable at the cheaper end or expensive at the higher end. As a landscape photographer, I see little benefit over 35mm and zeiss wides for example, certainly not enough to warrant the cost, I doubt there would be much cost difference between say a D810, zeiss 21 and otus 55 against a 645z and a 55mm. Now weather sealing is a benefit but maybe I'm lucky, I have used my cameras everywhere from +50c in deserts in Iraq to -45c in Antarctica and never once had an issue caused by environmental issues, that's not to say others haven't just my personal experience.
Live view is obviously a plus for some people but having looked through many mf viewfinders, I've never felt that I couldn't focus accurately, live view on a tech cam, fantastic but not possible with the Pentax so again, I'm struggling to see the benefit.
It feels a little as though the newer cmos mf systems are bridging the gap between 35mm and traditional ccd mf backs but do they really need to? It's almost like they are solving a problem that doesn't really exist. There will always be people who want this camera and good for them, I hope they enjoy it but for my personal uses, it just doesn't seem to offer enough to compete with ccd mf or high end 35mm, it just sort of floats in the middle.
Anyway, just my opinion, if it evolves in to a system where it will flash sync at higher speeds, has great quality and reasonably priced lenses that allow the sensor to sing, will tether reliably (I appreciate that is on the way) and will offer real image quality improvements to the current 35mm offerings then I will look again, for now though, I will just enjoy shots others take with it. As an aside, I absolutely love Nicks shot of the trees, stunning because he captured it, I don't really feel that it couldn't have been captured equally well with a 35mm system that is smaller and cheaper.
Have a nice day!
Mat
-
I know one Swedish pro landscape photographer that is selling his Hasselblad gear (H4D-50) as he's bought a Pentax 645z instead. He's major comment was "at last a MF camera which is designed for field use" and posts an image with the Pentax 645z covered in rain. Obviously that was an important factor to him.
Higher ISO and long exposure is something that some landscape photographers desire, the P45+ has kept its high second hand value much thanks to long exposure capability. Higher ISO gives the possibility to freeze the action which does not happen super-often in landscape, but when it does I can assure that it's frustrating not being able to crank up the ISO. Some post-processing styles especially in landscape make heavy use of shadow pushing, and there the Sony CMOS have a marked advantage over CCDs. I use grads myself to solve the DR issue and I generally don't push shadows that much, but if you don't use grads having 1 extra stop in DR can make a real difference.
Does it provide a relevant image quality upgrade from a D810? Well, some like more megapixels and 50 is more than 36. The success of the high MP DSLRs I think indicates that there is a hunger for these types of systems, so an affordable MF system which handles much like a 135 DSLR is probably a good idea also from a business perspective.
I think the Pentax 645z will foremost attract DSLR users to upgrade to MF rather than attract typical Hasselblad and Phase One customers, which are not landscape photographers but those that work in studio with flashes and want leaf shutters etc. There's the price factor too, but I don't know how much that matters to pro users. Some like to not spend more than they need even if they can though, so maybe it will have some impact.
-
Hi,
I'll presume that weather-proofing may be an advantage, and it seems that Pentax is known be good at that.
Best regards
Erik
Their dSLR's are certainly quite rugged little beasts. The ones I had did many miles in a motorbike topbox which is hardly the friendliest environment for delicate equipment and they were never bothered by the experience. I'm not at all sure that the same can be said for the Nikon.
-
Not good at all... you can see a cobweb, but you can't see the spider... baaahh ;)
Perhaps she was out dining with, or even upon, a neighbour?
-
Torger, I think you may have hit on the only advantage of the Pentax over a 35mm DSLR, i.e pixels, sure some will appreciate the extra but they are expensive megapixels and according to a lot of reports their aren't yet many lenses that allow full use of them, especially with a crop sensor affecting the wide end. Software is so good nowadays that I'd be hard pushed to see a difference at "average" print sizes. I'd of course have no issue with being wrong about my summary but I haven't yet seen any evidence.
Mat
-
By the way I also spoke to Sven about his H4D50 and was very interested in hearing about his move to the Pentax, I hope he has a fantastic time with it. Now if we were talking about a Pentax with the same size sensor as the H4D and equal flash sync speed and lens range then I'd already be at the dealers!
-
By the way I also spoke to Sven about his H4D50 and was very interested in hearing about his move to the Pentax, I hope he has a fantastic time with it. Now if we were talking about a Pentax with the same size sensor as the H4D and equal flash sync speed and lens range then I'd already be at the dealers!
I actually may end up buying his H4D-50. I hope someone else is faster to buy it (maybe it's already sold by now, haven't checked with him) so I don't need to spend :). The larger sensor size and great compatibility with my preferred lens range is my reason, plus that I think 50 megapixel is a nice sweetspot and the H4D-50 has a little better screen than the CFV-50. The lesser weather-proofing I can live with, I just need it to work in -30C. The 33 megapixels I have today is a bit too pixelated/aliased at f/11 for my taste (damn it's hard when lenses are too sharp). I would need to use an external battery and the H body would just sit on a shelf though :-\
If I wasn't so sold on using movements in my shooting style I would shoot a 135 DSLR now (due to the prohibitive cost of competitive MF) and I would probably be very interested in Pentax 645z, and the reason would be those extra megapixels and a cost which is within reach, plus that I don't need to sacrifice any significant DSLR feature I'm already used with (live view, high ISO - most for the freeze-time aspect rather than hand-holding, long exposure). Do I need those extra megapixels? Uhm... not really, it's more about want than need.
-
Torger, I think you may have hit on the only advantage of the Pentax over a 35mm DSLR, i.e pixels, sure some will appreciate the extra but they are expensive megapixels and according to a lot of reports their aren't yet many lenses that allow full use of them, especially with a crop sensor affecting the wide end. Software is so good nowadays that I'd be hard pushed to see a difference at "average" print sizes. I'd of course have no issue with being wrong about my summary but I haven't yet seen any evidence.
Mat
I feel it goes deeper than just pixel count. I did a job recently over three days, it was for a farm equipment brochure. During the the first two I used the Nikon D3 and was frustrated somehow in that I was not getting what I wanted. On the third day I switched to the Mamiya and found both the work and the results an awful lot more satisfying. We've been over the many reasons why this may be so in other threads but to me at least the effect is real and MF is still far the better option when you can use it.
Image below was taken on the Mamiya in natural light. My apologies for there being no scantily clad young ladies involved. :D
-
Justin, I agree completely, "the mf look" has been discussed millions of times and I agree personally that I see a difference, my comments are based on the sony sensor in the 645z rather than what I presume is a traditional back you are using on your Mamiya? The 645z really feels like it is more of the same when compared to a dslr, rather than that quality that is apparent in the older tech. It could all be bollocks of course and I am only seeing what I want to see!
I have a stack of cash in my pocket at this very moment and I am battling with a number of options, the H4D 50 Torger is talking about is in excellent condition, low shutter count and is approx the same price as a 645z, I think my money would still go on the H4D as for me the ccd difference is real and I'm not looking for a camera to do everything. I'd definitely keep a dslr kit for what it excels at and also a mirrorless for what it excels at, it's nice that we have so many choices!
I'd get it bought Torger, only live once and all that.
Mat
-
Justin, looking forward to you putting your mistake right and adding more scantily clad women at once!
-
Portrait photography is one of the ONLY issues - because the lens lineup lacks quality leaf shutter lenses at this point. Also, lensprotogo is renting the pentax as well, and ship everywhere in the US.
-Doug
-
Some comparisons make the 645Z definitely worth that much more than the D.
EDIT: The following link compares the JPEGs only.
Example: http://alcarlayblog.com/acarlayphoto/2014/08/15/difference-between-pentax-645d-and-645z/
-
Some comparisons make the 645Z definitely worth that much more than the D.
Example: http://alcarlayblog.com/acarlayphoto/2014/08/15/difference-between-pentax-645d-and-645z/
Nice article. although, I beg to differ about the (Subjective) conclusion. The Z has that "Oh-so-nikoney" look to portraits that I am so familiar with (And not a fan of). The D files look crisper in comparison, partly due to the color rendering, partly due to the highlight rolloff.
My (Again, subjective) recommendation is that if one is after controlled light portraiture, get the D. It's a steal at 5K (Or a bit lesser used). If one wants to replace a DSLR, Z is the way to go. Beware though, you may be able to teach a horse to juggle china, but it won't be pretty.
-
Nice article. although, I beg to differ about the (Subjective) conclusion. The Z has that "Oh-so-nikoney" look to portraits that I am so familiar with (And not a fan of). The D files look crisper in comparison, partly due to the color rendering, partly due to the highlight rolloff.
My (Again, subjective) recommendation is that if one is after controlled light portraiture, get the D. It's a steal at 5K (Or a bit lesser used). If one wants to replace a DSLR, Z is the way to go. Beware though, you may be able to teach a horse to juggle china, but it won't be pretty.
I see more detail or at least more "acuity" in the 645D. I agree that the 645Z images look like typical CMOS DSLR images (not necessarily a bad thing). The 645D definitely look more neutral and should I say CCD like.
The article is spot on with the somewhat deficient handling of the Highlights in the 645D. I don't know why the 645D does this but it is characteristic of the camera. This was something that really bothered me when I had the D. I much prefer the smoother rolloff into white of my PhaseOne IQ160, It is a DRAMATIC difference and MUCH more tweakable to taste in the Phase. Whether it is because of hardware or software or both I don't really care but it is a reality when dealing with the files. In that aspect the 645Z looks worlds better than the D.
-
Nice article. although, I beg to differ about the (Subjective) conclusion. The Z has that "Oh-so-nikoney" look to portraits that I am so familiar with (And not a fan of). The D files look crisper in comparison, partly due to the color rendering, partly due to the highlight rolloff.
My (Again, subjective) recommendation is that if one is after controlled light portraiture, get the D. It's a steal at 5K (Or a bit lesser used). If one wants to replace a DSLR, Z is the way to go. Beware though, you may be able to teach a horse to juggle china, but it won't be pretty.
As a landscape photographer, the better highlight recovery and increased flexibility offered by the 645z appeal much more than the occasional portrait session I may do.
I am willing to massage the 645z files to get that look in case I do go for a rare portrait session.
-
As a landscape photographer, the better highlight recovery and increased flexibility offered by the 645z appeal much more than the occasional portrait session I may do.
I am willing to massage the 645z files to get that look in case I do go for a rare portrait session.
Fair enough.
Judging by the Nikon files I've worked on, you can leave the grads at home with the Z.
-
I see that we end up in CCD vs CMOS, that the CCD offers a different look. Maybe it's texture-related? Just as with skin-tones I don't really have eyes for this either, but it would be interesting to know from those that do see this difference if Pentax 645z is more "DSLR-like" in look than the other CMOS alternatives such as IQ250, Credo 50 or Hasselblad H5D-50c?
-
I see that we end up in CCD vs CMOS, that the CCD offers a different look. Maybe it's texture-related? Just as with skin-tones I don't really have eyes for this either, but it would be interesting to know from those that do see this difference if Pentax 645z is more "DSLR-like" in look than the other CMOS alternatives such as IQ250, Credo 50 or Hasselblad H5D-50c?
I won't even pretend to be able to put all this into numbers and graphs, but the images from the Credo 50 (More specifically, Frank Doorhof's portraits) were the only ones where I saw this CMOS chip getting close to that "MF look".
-
I won't even pretend to be able to put all this into numbers and graphs, but the images from the Credo 50 (More specifically, Frank Doorhof's portraits) were the only ones where I saw this CMOS chip getting close to that "MF look".
afaik cmos needs some preprocessing of the "real" raw before one gets the raw file, and this filtering destroys some texture. If you downscale enough, I guess you get it back, but essentially then you need to consider that the sensor itself has a scale-dependent behavior.
Edmund
-
I won't even pretend to be able to put all this into numbers and graphs, but the images from the Credo 50 (More specifically, Frank Doorhof's portraits) were the only ones where I saw this CMOS chip getting close to that "MF look".
And since also Frank's camera uses the same CMOS device as the others, it 'proves' once more that it is all due to post-processing (incl. camera profile). Even the Bayer CFAs are identical. In Frank's case the lighting may have played a favorable role, because he knows what he is doing.
Cheers,
Bart
-
And since also Frank's camera uses the same CMOS device as the others, it 'proves' once more that it is all due to post-processing (incl. camera profile). Even the Bayer CFAs are identical. In Frank's case the lighting may have played a favorable role, because he knows what he is doing.
Cheers,
Bart
Frank is using a system in which the maker of the raw and the maker of the software are the same. That is, Team Phase One control the chain from start to end.
Capture One's full, native, and highly specialized support for yhr Credo 50, and IQ150 and IQ250 are essential in producing the net look. Put it through Lightroom, where support is thrown in the same way it is for any other camera, and much of the magic is lost.
This is especially true of color and detail/grain rendering.
-
Frank is using a system in which the maker of the raw and the maker of the software are the same. That is, Team Phase One control the chain from start to end.
Capture One's full, native, and highly specialized support for yhr Credo 50, and IQ150 and IQ250 are essential in producing the net look. Put it through Lightroom, where support is thrown in the same way it is for any other camera, and much of the magic is lost.
This is especially true of color and detail/grain rendering.
Hi Doug,
Yes, that's my exactly my point. There is nothing 'magical' about the hardware, it's just a bit different (and may be less, or more, suitable for specific types of photography, e.g. shifts, or long exposure, or etc. ) in the way it records the same photons.
'The look' comes from controlling the post-processing pipeline from Raw to final output.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not just that, I am very sure Leaf's proprietary color profiles play a big part in it too.
But yes, even my ccd files if run through Lightroom is a dog's breakfast.
-
Ok, how about getting back to some images?
Pentax 645Z, 45-85mm, f6.3, 1/400th, ISO 160, blackflies set to +15
-
Forgive me for my ignorance, but is Lightroom the weapon of choice for the Pentax 645Z? What does the manufacturer recommend?
-
It would be interesting to shoot the same subject with a Credo 50 and IQ250, same lens, camera etc. Hopefully the lighting could be controlled. I would be interested in outdoors.
Then open the files in C1, watch the files as C1 runs them, as they always pop a bit. Now load the default profiles Credo 50 for the Credo and IQ250 for the 250. Select two variants of each, and load the opposite profiles, i.e. load a IQ250 on the Credo and Credo on the 250.
I don't feel you will see much difference in the two. Unless Phase One/Leaf is still building a totally different controller card for the Credo which I don't think they are, the two images are going to be very close.
Just like you can take a D800e in C1 and load the default profile for the IQ250 on it. (At least you can in 7 I have not tried this in 8), many in fact most times the C1 profile for the 250 looks better on the D800e than the default C1 Nikon profile.
Between the Credo 50 and IQ250, I am sure you can pixel peep between the 2, but I also feel I could get the file very very close in C1 without much work.
I also feel that Phase One is going to have the best raw conversion for the IQ250/credo 50, and for sure best noise to detail ratio. But I would also expect that.
Paul
-
You can't apply Leaf Credo 50 profiles to IQ250 or the other way around, you get the totally wrong color if you try it in Capture One.
The reason is that Leaf profiles are designed to work in a different way than Phase One profiles (more specifically, Leaf profiles require to first convert into prophoto RGB space as a pre-processing step rather than stay in camera space), and it seems like if you apply a Phase One profile on a Leaf file it's processed as if it would be a Leaf profile, and you get the totally wrong colors.
In RawTherapee you can change swap profiles and get the correct processing, however it seems like the IQ250 profiles on a credo file provide a much less saturated result, which I don't know is correct or some sort of bug. All my IQ250 test files are unfortunately from strange light conditions so I have no good way to sanity check colors for that.
-
You can't apply Leaf Credo 50 profiles to IQ250 or the other way around, you get the totally wrong color if you try it in Capture One.
The reason is that Leaf profiles are designed to work in a different way than Phase One profiles (more specifically, Leaf profiles require to first convert into prophoto RGB space as a pre-processing step rather than stay in camera space), and it seems like if you apply a Phase One profile on a Leaf file it's processed as if it would be a Leaf profile, and you get the totally wrong colors.
In RawTherapee you can change swap profiles and get the correct processing, however it seems like the IQ250 profiles on a credo file provide a much less saturated result, which I don't know is correct or some sort of bug. All my IQ250 test files are unfortunately from strange light conditions so I have no good way to sanity check colors for that.
Interesting. Thanks for clarification.
Paul
-
Interesting. Thanks for clarification.
I still think it's the same sensor in the Credo 50, IQ250, Hasselblad H5D-50c and Pentax 645Z, down to the CFA. In RawTherapee we use the same color matrix (ie CFA interpretation) for all of them with good results. Have not had any side-by-side shots to actually see if they render equal though. Even if exact same sensor there will be some micro-differences due to different lenses, IR filter, and possibly through ways you can configure the digital sensor, but I think those differences will be hard to see with the eye.
But it doesn't matter to the typical pro user, if you want to use C1 it's either the Credo 50 or the IQ150/250, and they will render differently as C1 doesn't support swapping profiles between the two. They could if they wanted to but there's little to gain for them to demonstrate that the IQ250 can be made to look exactly the same as the Credo 50. I think the C1 software is very important link to Phase One to make the IQ250 stand out from the competition. Maybe they should cut away $10k from the IQ250 price and raise the price of a C1 license with $10k, I think it would be more fair ;D
Likewise the popularity of the 645Z will depend as much on software support as on the camera itself.
-
Not out yet.
It is out... but not everywhere...
-
It is out... but not everywhere...
Where? I have it directly from Ricoh that it's been delayed.
Thx.
-
Forgive me for my ignorance, but is Lightroom the weapon of choice for the Pentax 645Z? What does the manufacturer recommend?
Lightroom. The Pentax produces DNGs as native files.
-
Where? I have it directly from Ricoh that it's been delayed.
Thx.
Here...
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-medium-format/274087-tethering-coming-645z-near-you-2.html#post2973818
and here...
http://shop-uk.ricoh-imaging.eu/image-transmitter-2.html
-
I gather from these that it's truly not available yet, but rather delayed as I've been told (was supposed to be a September 26th release. We'll get a copy and do an evaluation.
-
In Frank's case the lighting may have played a favorable role, because he knows what he is doing.
Cheers,
Bart
Frank Doorhof can make a Box Brownie sit and beg :)
Edmund
-
Justin, looking forward to you putting your mistake right and adding more scantily clad women at once!
Quite, and the general consensus of opinion was that the pictures would indeed be enhanced by the presence of such things but when volunteers were called for to go and explain this to the girls in the office, some of whom may be a little more mature than we are usually treated to here on LL, and suggest they might wish to fill the void there came an eerie silence except for the shuffling of feet as tumbleweed rolled gently across the foreground.
-
Forgive me for my ignorance, but is Lightroom the weapon of choice for the Pentax 645Z? What does the manufacturer recommend?
both Ricoh and Pentax (since the beginning) were dealing with SilkyPix... just like Fuji & Panasonic... the company is ISL = http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/
-
Quite, and the general consensus of opinion was that the pictures would indeed be enhanced by the presence of such things but when volunteers were called for to go and explain this to the girls in the office, some of whom may be a little more mature than we are usually treated to here on LL, and suggest they might wish to fill the void there came an eerie silence except for the shuffling of feet as tumbleweed rolled gently across the foreground.
I see; they are afraid of a dermatological image :)
Edmund
-
How about portrait photography with Pentax Z645?
The camera has some limitations in terms of people photography from a very low 1/125 sync speed to the clustering of the focus points.
Here is a good review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGhKDwfD1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30TWJ8bWGmA
The issue of the slow software, if is still there, will not affect most of the Landscape people but could cost a lot on processing time for people.
It will be good to know what software the actual owners are using.
Best regards,
-
Hi Nick:
Some lovely photos you've posted; seems a Z is inevitable for you.
You mentioned that the shutter seems a bit better in the Z and that you've seen problems with long lenses. I've had the D since 2010 and in my experience, any lens that has a tripod mount (300, 400 and 600) has shake issues at speeds under 1/125s. Sometimes you're lucky, more often not. The 600mm is an amazing lens, but without extraordinary efforts to stabilize the camera, it's not very useful at slow shutter speeds. In your experience, what ISO of the Z is equivalent to 400 in the D? The ability to use high ISO seems to me to be the major attraction of the Z.
Tom
-
Hi Nick:
Some lovely photos you've posted; seems a Z is inevitable for you.
You mentioned that the shutter seems a bit better in the Z and that you've seen problems with long lenses. I've had the D since 2010 and in my experience, any lens that has a tripod mount (300, 400 and 600) has shake issues at speeds under 1/125s. Sometimes you're lucky, more often not. The 600mm is an amazing lens, but without extraordinary efforts to stabilize the camera, it's not very useful at slow shutter speeds. In your experience, what ISO of the Z is equivalent to 400 in the D? The ability to use high ISO seems to me to be the major attraction of the Z.
For what it is worth, and I am focusing here on the photographic result ignoring brands/format discussions, I have now hundreds of frames shot with a 400mm f2.8 E FL on the D810 at various slow shutter speeds. Thanks to EFC, those are tack sharp with zero impact of vibration, and that is mounted to a panoramic head (RRS PG-02). For some of them I realized after capture that the RRS rail I mounted the lens on was not 100% tightly screwed to the lens, but images were still sharp nonetheless.
When considering body+lens, the weight and cost are within the same ballpark but image quality is much more consistent on the D810 with a much faster AF too, a very effective stabilization making handheld shooting possible and 2 stops extra light when required. I believe that the Nikon 400mm f2.8 E FL is also superior optically.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5601/15282856747_703e5388c0_o.jpg)
I am frankly unclear as to why anyone would want to use the 645Z with the 600mm f5.6 considering the lack of EFC.
This does of course take nothing away from the qualities of the 645Z as a whole, but it just doesn't seem like the right option if long lenses shooting represents an important part of what you do.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
.....I am frankly unclear as to why anyone would want to use the 645Z with the 600mm f5.6 considering the lack of EFC. ............
Hi Bernard:
The simple answer is because I have a 600mm lens and it's really good and the files from the Pentax are terrific. Would an 810 and modern AF 600mm be better for some uses? Certainly, but I have limited resources and I already have too much gear. If the Z allows higher shutter speeds, it solves the vibration problem in most of my cases.
...... but it just doesn't seem like the right option if long lenses shooting represents an important part of what you do.
Cheers,
Bernard
Long lenses are important , but I use the 35mm and 120mm more often. The Z appeals to me because it allows shots like the following at lower light levels; both with the 600mm, the herons (1/100s) would be sharper at a higher shutter speed:
Regards,
Tom
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3824/13905376772_1a33603045_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nbLG4o)_IGP1779 copy (https://flic.kr/p/nbLG4o) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2886/12865041203_e5300ecffb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/kAQGxe)_IGP1004 (https://flic.kr/p/kAQGxe) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people/21294128@N08/), on Flickr
-
Hi Bernard:
The simple answer is because I have a 600mm lens and it's really good and the files from the Pentax are terrific. Would an 810 and modern AF 600mm be better for some uses? Certainly, but I have limited resources and I already have too much gear. If the Z allows higher shutter speeds, it solves the vibration problem in most of my cases.
Long lenses are important , but I use the 35mm and 120mm more often. The Z appeals to me because it allows shots like the following at lower light levels; both with the 600mm and the herons (1/100s) would be sharper at a higher shutter speed:
Nice images Tom.
Great if you can make it work for you! The story is of course different if you already own these pieces of equipment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...... The story is of course different if you already own these pieces of equipment.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks. Bernard, I could open a Pentax museum. :D
-
Thanks. Bernard, I could open a Pentax museum. :D
Ha ha ha, please invite for the opening cocktail party! The very first lenses I used more than 30 years ago were Asahi Pentax screw type lenses, I owe everything to the brand!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Smaller sensors have the advantage that they're faster to fill, and you get deeper DoF with larger aperture. It's very common that wildlife photographers have an APS-C camera as an extra for more reach. Canon made a great move with the 7DII to make it with "pro" body and features, small sensors have its place also in pro photography.
Back to the Pentax 645Z I would think that for really low light photography like astro a D810 would still get better image quality despite lower resolution as you can have wider aperture and thus lower ISO and thus less noise. But I'm not sure.
But that's not too important, the thing with the Pentax 645Z is that for the first time there's an MF camera that is so all-around that you may not need a 135 camera system at all. Additionally, it's so low cost that it actually seems like expensive to have a 135 system on the side (with traditional MF the cost is so high than a 135 system on the side is just like buying a couple of extra lens caps). If your focus is at maximizing image quality in normal focal lengths in normal light I guess one can sacrifice a little reach and light sensitivity at the extreme ends.
-
Here is a copy and paste of my notes from Sept 19th.
I have just past the 10,000 frame mark on my 645z, its at 10823 and sleeping for the weekend.
I got it a couple of months ago and have been using it almost exclusively for my advertising work. I'm very happy with it so far, for the most part.
Here are my top TEN lists for it
Some thing that do bother me though are,
1. AF zone is too small (center 25% of the frame only)
2. inconsistent AF accuracy
3. wait time to use the aperture and ss wheels after firing off a frame
4. the grip, too small
5. SD slots too close to strap point, relocate the strap mounts please
6. missing cap for PC connection
7. wait time to turn on LV after firing off a few frames
8. cable release option besides FluCard
9. FA collar AF/MF switch, PITA
10. tunnel like viewfinder, your eye needs to be lined up perfectly to see 100% of the frame
things I love, beyond the resolution, decent lenses (for the money), ISO sensitivity
1. rear monitor, huge
2. dual SD slots, my Mobi wifi card works wonderfully at speed with the camera
3. weight, nice balance
4. solid lens mount
5. side tripod mount
6. comprehensive menu
7. Live View magnification, the only true way I have found to get accurate focus
8. Matrix metering is usually spot on
9. Long battery life, one battery lasts almost all day, around 1000-1300 frames even with the wifi card transmitting
10. Three WB preset favourites, great to swing back and forth through while testing a scenario
I don't use the camera everyday. I now have three systems from 3 separate brands that I use on shoots; Pentax 645z, Nikon D800 (lightweight back up to the 645z) and the Canon 5D mk3 for lighter file size work.
Saying that, I'm working on a 25 day project, shooting 50 locations with 50 hero shots and over 450 extra scenarios. I'm half way right now and the Pentax is shining. Most of the time I don't bother using the other cameras for the smaller or lighter work because I'm enjoying the the Pentax especially with the 45-85 and the 35 prime. The Nikon has been consistently jamming when needed the most and the Canon now feels like a Fisher Price toy.
When I'm done this project I willing be thinking about sending the camera in to have all the lenses calibrated with the body, specifically checking the focus.
Overall I give it an 8.5/10
Rob
-
...
But that's not too important, the thing with the Pentax 645Z is that for the first time there's an MF camera that is so all-around that you may not need a 135 camera system at all. Additionally, it's so low cost that it actually seems like expensive to have a 135 system on the side (with traditional MF the cost is so high than a 135 system on the side is just like buying a couple of extra lens caps). If your focus is at maximizing image quality in normal focal lengths in normal light I guess one can sacrifice a little reach and light sensitivity at the extreme ends.
This is very important point, I can see myself selling Aptus and Hassy V system, replace it with 645Z and then have my trusty good old X-Pro1 (APS-C) for all those situations when I don't need extra resolution or want to be more discrete.
Before I bought (and for very reasonable amount of money) Aptus 75S I already had Hassy V system and was looking hard and long at D800E. I did compare them and D800E couldn't match output (at base ISO, Aptus is old man now) of Aptus. Also building Nikon system would cost me more than Aptus + existing Hassy V system - choice was clear, but now with 645Z on the market I'm thinking really hard.
-
Has anyone in this forum tested the Pentax 645Z against the Pentax 645D in terms of cool accuracy, tonality and Dynamic Range over the same subject?
I'm asking because I'm very interested in these cameras and would like to know they compare.
I'm not asking about resolution here just color and tonality results.
Thank you!
ACH
-
Has anyone in this forum tested the Pentax 645Z against the Pentax 645D in terms of cool accuracy, tonality and Dynamic Range over the same subject?
I'm asking because I'm very interested in these cameras and would like to know they compare.
I'm not asking about resolution here just color and tonality results.
Thank you!
ACH
EDIT: The link compares only OOC Jpegs for whatever reason.
There are many comparisons if you google for it, but here's one I shared earlier in the thread http://alcarlayblog.com/acarlayphoto/2014/08/15/difference-between-pentax-645d-and-645z/
-
The real world version of http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/index.html
I'll come visit for sure!
-
Has anyone in this forum tested the Pentax 645Z against the Pentax 645D in terms of cool accuracy, tonality and Dynamic Range over the same subject?
I'm asking because I'm very interested in these cameras and would like to know they compare.
I'm not asking about resolution here just color and tonality results.
Thank you!
ACH
Not head-to-head, but I've shot a lot with both, and the "z" is better in all respects in my view. Colour accuracy looked excellent when Michael and I shot the colour/ISO ramp for the original review. Really solid reproduction. The original LR profile kind of sucked - they've updated it at our suggestion.
The "z" is also way faster and more responsive. It's just the evolution as a camera that you'd expect it to be. It isis more button-heavy than the "D", which I dislike, but you get used to it quickly.
@tsjanik: re: what ISO on the "z" is equal to 400 on the "D"? Tough one. My guess is somewhere between 1600 and 4000. Seriously. And the resolution mostly keeps up too.
- N.
-
In a previous post, I had mentioned how the Z has a very DSLR look to color rendition and the D has that MF look to it. To my eyes, this is because in a typical DSLR file has similar colors sort of bleeding into each other (maybe because of the CFA or whatnot), while the older gen MF backs render them as distinct colors. This was my observation when comparing the credo 40 and the D800 side by side. Here's an example where the greens and yellows melt into each other on the D800 file, but not on the Credo. Both processed in C1P
D800
http://flic.kr/p/iGE486
Credo
http://flic.kr/p/iGEftH
This can be rectified to an extent by massaging individual color channels and whatnot, but not a 100%.
Now I can't say for sure if this would be the same case on the Z vs the D, but judging by the samples powerslave's article had and because the Z's sensor is similar to that of the D800, I have a feeling it would be the case.
Edit: of course, Nick has real life experience with both cams and I dont, so I might very well be wrong.
-
Hi,
The "powerslave" files are out of the camera jpegs.
Best regards
Erik
In a previous post, I had mentioned how the Z has a very DSLR look to color rendition and the D has that MF look to it. To my eyes, this is because in a typical DSLR file has similar colors sort of bleeding into each other (maybe because of the CFA or whatnot), while the older gen MF backs render them as distinct colors. This was my observation when comparing the credo 40 and the D800 side by side. Here's an example where the greens and yellows melt into each other on the D800 file, but not on the Credo. Both processed in C1P
D800
http://flic.kr/p/iGE486
Credo
http://flic.kr/p/iGEftH
This can be rectified to an extent by massaging individual color channels and whatnot, but not a 100%.
Now I can't say for sure if this would be the same case on the Z vs the D, but judging by the samples powerslave's article had and because the Z's sensor is similar to that of the D800, I have a feeling it would be the case.
Edit: of course, Nick has real life experience with both cams and I dont, so I might very well be wrong.
-
Hi,
The "powerslave" files are out of the camera jpegs.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for pointing that out Erik. Sorry for sharing the link without confirming the facts. I blindly assumed a comparison of a large sensor camera would be based primarily, if not partially on RAW files and not JPEGs.
-
Hi,
I would also made that assumption.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for pointing that out Erik. Sorry for sharing the link without confirming the facts. I blindly assumed a comparison of a large sensor camera would be based primarily, if not partially on RAW files and not JPEGs.
-
... Here's an example where the greens and yellows melt into each other on the D800 file, but not on the Credo. Both processed in C1P...
Hmmm... exif shows Nikon file was processed in LR5. No?
-
In the end we will only know about the Z as a people photographing tool when somebody goes out and photographs the faces of a dozen people at the mall.
Edmund
-
Thanks. Bernard, I could open a Pentax museum. :D
I could make a healthy contribution if you ever do it. ;)
-Dave-
-
Hmmm... exif shows Nikon file was processed in LR5. No?
I might have exported the JPEG out of LR5 as I use it as a DAM. That's the only thing it does well for me :D
-
Edmund,
Why don't you rent one and go shoot?
Then you'll know.
IMO
BC
-
So after 20k plus images on the 645Z, I'll reiterate, I'm very happy. If you want to read my pros/cons, they are over on page 5 of this thread.
Someone was asking for portraits taken with the Z, so here are a bunch; mixed lighting, strobe, daylight, open shade you name it.
Indoor images are with mixed lighting (available and strobe) except for the headshot styled image which is just window light. The image of the two sitting and standing was warmed up with CTO on the Octabox.
The guy in the kitchen is with HMI's.
Rob
-
Someone was asking for portraits taken with the Z, so here are a bunch; mixed lighting, strobe, daylight, open shade you name it.
Outdoor images are all available light except for the couple of the guy with the blue jacket standing. That one is Profoto 600B through an Octabox, 3 stop ND etc etc.
Thanks
-
And here are a few randoms. The first portrait is well crunched in PS and still has lots of room to be played with. The long orange sky was 30 seconds @f11 iso 320 and the lighthouse was 15 seconds @f11 iso 2500.
-
Here are some more shot outside using available light only.
-
I hate people with reversed lenshoods ;D
-
I hate people with reversed lenshoods ;D
Thats my sister :)
R
-
Edmund,
Why don't you rent one and go shoot?
Then you'll know.
IMO
BC
J,
It's the Socratic method :)
... and please don't darkly mutter "Phaedo" under your breath.
Edmund
-
I could make a healthy contribution if you ever do it. ;)
-Dave-
LOL. You too? Buy, but rarely sell.
Tom
-
Thats my sister :)
R
Cute sister; I didn't notice the lens hood. :D
-
Cute sister; I didn't notice the lens hood. :D
I was thinking exactly the same thing! But just imagine how much hotter she'd be on a CCD!
-
I was thinking exactly the same thing! But just imagine how much hotter she'd be on a CCD!
Hot pixels are no problem at all in capture one pro. You should upgrade from Lightroom!
-
Here is a copy and paste of my notes from Sept 19th.
I have just past the 10,000 frame mark on my 645z, its at 10823 and sleeping for the weekend.
I got it a couple of months ago and have been using it almost exclusively for my advertising work. I'm very happy with it so far, for the most part.
Here are my top TEN lists for it
Some thing that do bother me though are,
1. AF zone is too small (center 25% of the frame only)
2. inconsistent AF accuracy
3. wait time to use the aperture and ss wheels after firing off a frame
4. the grip, too small
5. SD slots too close to strap point, relocate the strap mounts please
6. missing cap for PC connection
7. wait time to turn on LV after firing off a few frames
8. cable release option besides FluCard
9. FA collar AF/MF switch, PITA
10. tunnel like viewfinder, your eye needs to be lined up perfectly to see 100% of the frame
things I love, beyond the resolution, decent lenses (for the money), ISO sensitivity
1. rear monitor, huge
2. dual SD slots, my Mobi wifi card works wonderfully at speed with the camera
3. weight, nice balance
4. solid lens mount
5. side tripod mount
6. comprehensive menu
7. Live View magnification, the only true way I have found to get accurate focus
8. Matrix metering is usually spot on
9. Long battery life, one battery lasts almost all day, around 1000-1300 frames even with the wifi card transmitting
10. Three WB preset favourites, great to swing back and forth through while testing a scenario
I don't use the camera everyday. I now have three systems from 3 separate brands that I use on shoots; Pentax 645z, Nikon D800 (lightweight back up to the 645z) and the Canon 5D mk3 for lighter file size work.
Saying that, I'm working on a 25 day project, shooting 50 locations with 50 hero shots and over 450 extra scenarios. I'm half way right now and the Pentax is shining. Most of the time I don't bother using the other cameras for the smaller or lighter work because I'm enjoying the the Pentax especially with the 45-85 and the 35 prime. The Nikon has been consistently jamming when needed the most and the Canon now feels like a Fisher Price toy.
When I'm done this project I willing be thinking about sending the camera in to have all the lenses calibrated with the body, specifically checking the focus.
Overall I give it an 8.5/10
Rob
We should have a like button.
Thanks for the realistic mini-review.
-
Hi,
I guess that Nick would look into that if C1 supported Pentax 645D/645Z, but unfortunately they don't.
Best regards
Erik
Hot pixels are no problem at all in capture one pro. You should upgrade from Lightroom!
-
Lol. You may have missed a joke there, Erik ;)
-
Hi,
I guess that Nick would look into that if C1 supported Pentax 645D/645Z, but unfortunately they don't.
Best regards
Erik
I think Synn meant hot pixies and mistyped.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I have not missed the joke, just I felt it was a bad one, specially as there was a heated discussion on that issue an another channel on C1 not supporting Pentax MFD.
But anyway, I would suggest that the lady is pretty cool, inverted lens shade and all.
Best regards
Erik
Lol. You may have missed a joke there, Erik ;)
-
Justin, I agree completely, "the mf look" has been discussed millions of times and I agree personally that I see a difference, my comments are based on the sony sensor in the 645z rather than what I presume is a traditional back you are using on your Mamiya? The 645z really feels like it is more of the same when compared to a dslr, rather than that quality that is apparent in the older tech. It could all be bollocks of course and I am only seeing what I want to see!
I have a stack of cash in my pocket at this very moment and I am battling with a number of options, the H4D 50 Torger is talking about is in excellent condition, low shutter count and is approx the same price as a 645z, I think my money would still go on the H4D as for me the ccd difference is real and I'm not looking for a camera to do everything. I'd definitely keep a dslr kit for what it excels at and also a mirrorless for what it excels at, it's nice that we have so many choices!
I'd get it bought Torger, only live once and all that.
Mat
It is a ZD back on the Mamiya which has several 'issues' but when it all comes together still works brilliantly. Here's a spread recently published and even though the printers have done their best to murder it there is still a quality that comes through. Online publishing doesn't do it any favours either -
http://issuu.com/mortons-digital/docs/tfhnovpre/7?e=7600234/9578264
Pages 6-7 (Michael Fahey's Fordsons)
-
Here are some more shot outside using available light only.
It is very nice pictures. Thanks! Which lens did you use for those two people on the road?
-
Not head-to-head, but I've shot a lot with both, and the "z" is better in all respects in my view. Colour accuracy looked excellent when Michael and I shot the colour/ISO ramp for the original review. Really solid reproduction. The original LR profile kind of sucked - they've updated it at our suggestion.
The "z" is also way faster and more responsive. It's just the evolution as a camera that you'd expect it to be. It isis more button-heavy than the "D", which I dislike, but you get used to it quickly.
@tsjanik: re: what ISO on the "z" is equal to 400 on the "D"? Tough one. My guess is somewhere between 1600 and 4000. Seriously. And the resolution mostly keeps up too.
- N.
Thanks Devlin. Great information.
ACH
-
Well, just to weigh in on this topic I can say that I am very happy with the "Z". I have owned and used the old D since it was introduced. I was quite happy with that camera, still have it. Very rugged, good image quality, great ergonomics. Now that I have had the "Z" for a couple of months I am just blown away, haven't picked up the dslr since. Is there a difference in the files? Yep. Is that bad? No, only different. It's the tool that makes me want to use it, and after all that's what this is all about, right? So grab your tool of choice and get out there and expose some pixels!
-
Well, just to weigh in on this topic I can say that I am very happy with the "Z". I have owned and used the old D since it was introduced. I was quite happy with that camera, still have it. Very rugged, good image quality, great ergonomics. Now that I have had the "Z" for a couple of months I am just blown away, haven't picked up the dslr since. Is there a difference in the files? Yep. Is that bad? No, only different. It's the tool that makes me want to use it, and after all that's what this is all about, right? So grab your tool of choice and get out there and expose some pixels!
here, here. your last line says it all. sometimes reading this and other forums the discussion gets down to engineering and physics of the camera and lens. take what you have and create art. i would only one item to your last line and that would be besides exposing pixels i would add and/or film since i do both.
-
It is very nice pictures. Thanks! Which lens did you use for those two people on the road?
Its was shot with the FA 150 f2.8
thanks
Rob
-
I'm seeing the 645Z advertised new at $8K on ebay.
Edmund
-
I'm seeing the 645Z advertised new at $8K on ebay.
Edmund
What are you waiting for?
-
What are you waiting for?
Edmund, you've already admitted that you're looking. Either that, or you've got waaay too much time on your hands.
Jim
-
What are you waiting for?
I am waiting for a bigger budget - I bid on an H3D22 today, but got outbid, it went for about $2K.
Edmund
-
Still going through the soccer stuff, but here's a side by side of the same wedding group shot with CMOS and CCD. The IMGP files are from the Pentax 645Z, while the A659 files are from the Hasselblad H4D-50.
http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/Hasselblad-H4D-50-v-Pentax-645Z/
RAWs are at https://copy.com/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw
Given that I shoot in all types of places, the ability to push the ISO is huge. Oh how I wish I had the Z for one of my favorite shots - the noise level on the Hass is just too much for me. http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ptg6PTm/0/O/i-Ptg6PTm.jpg
I'm spoiled in that I live 5 minutes from Glazers here in Seattle, so anything Hasselblad related I can rent. I'd have to purchase the Z and the lenses I wanted to work with regularly, but can rent from LensRentals anything special.
-
...here's a side by side of the same wedding group shot with CMOS and CCD...
I do not know about CMOS vs. CCD, but aren't all those photos rather underexposed (with the exception of IMGP1706 perhaps)?
-
Hi Slobodan,
I don't care! The guy has been kind enough to post raw images. So I just convert them using Capture One! Argh, doesn't support Pentax or Hasselblad. OK Hocus-Phocus than! Argh, doesn't support Pentax. OK, I will use Lightroom, RawTherapee, AccuRaw, RawDeveloper or some other nice program that don't excludes comparison with the competition!
Best regards
Erik
I do not know about CMOS vs. CCD, but aren't all those photos rather underexposed (with the exception of IMGP1706 perhaps)?
-
Thanks for raw files!
Just after a cursory look, I am not sure that you made the Hasselblad full justice. The Pentax images are very sharp in the plane of focus.
Regarding colour, I am no expert on that. But it depends very much on the white balance. You dont't happen to have a greycard shot?
Thanks a lot, anyway that Pentax looks good.
Erik
Still going through the soccer stuff, but here's a side by side of the same wedding group shot with CMOS and CCD. The IMGP files are from the Pentax 645Z, while the A659 files are from the Hasselblad H4D-50.
http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/Hasselblad-H4D-50-v-Pentax-645Z/
RAWs are at https://copy.com/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw
Given that I shoot in all types of places, the ability to push the ISO is huge. Oh how I wish I had the Z for one of my favorite shots - the noise level on the Hass is just too much for me. http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ptg6PTm/0/O/i-Ptg6PTm.jpg
I'm spoiled in that I live 5 minutes from Glazers here in Seattle, so anything Hasselblad related I can rent. I'd have to purchase the Z and the lenses I wanted to work with regularly, but can rent from LensRentals anything special.
-
The shots aren't what I would call pro work, but when walking up on a paid wedding photographer asking to take a few shots, I'll take what I can.
Over or under exposed, it's actually a better test situation as with situations where you don't have full control you take what you can get. 1706 may be a good example of showing the full range, since looking at the histogram I've got peaks on both ends. I didn't have my gear ready as I literally jumped out of a car since they were already shooting. I've got a group shot that's 3 stops over, but since this is DMF, I expect to be able to pull it back.
As usual it seems, the photog didn't have a card on him, nor did the second shooter. Is it just me or a major business failure to not have something to just hand to folks when you're out working.
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing raw files!
I looked at one of the Pentax 645Z files. I did check out exposure in RawDigger, I would say it was almost dead on prefect ETTR exposure.
After that I opened the image in Lightroom and started with Jeff Schewes portrait sharpening preset, taking away masking which looked a bit unnatural. I found that very little luminance noise reduction did help the image but using to much made a bit plasticy look.
White balance plays a tremendous role colour, I tried both "cloudy" and "daylight" and I felt that daylight gave more natural but possibly not most pleasant colour.
Noise structure looks good for a 400 ISO image. The enclosed image shows "cloudy" on left and "daylight" on the right.
The Hasselblad images tend to be underexposed two stops at 100 ISO, but two stops under at 100 ISO is essentially the same as normal exposure at 400 ISO. Shifting exposure may affect colour rendition, due to "hue-tweaks varying with brightness" as discussed on the other thread. The Hasselblad shoots are not as good as the best Pentax 645 shots, so direct comparison is not possible. On the other hand, I would say that the Hasselblad is playing in another (lower) division, in this case.
But, the CCD backs work well at base ISO.
Best regards
Erik
The shots aren't what I would call pro work, but when walking up on a paid wedding photographer asking to take a few shots, I'll take what I can.
Over or under exposed, it's actually a better test situation as with situations where you don't have full control you take what you can get. 1706 may be a good example of showing the full range, since looking at the histogram I've got peaks on both ends. I didn't have my gear ready as I literally jumped out of a car since they were already shooting. I've got a group shot that's 3 stops over, but since this is DMF, I expect to be able to pull it back.
As usual it seems, the photog didn't have a card on him, nor did the second shooter. Is it just me or a major business failure to not have something to just hand to folks when you're out working.
-
Still going through the soccer stuff, but here's a side by side of the same wedding group shot with CMOS and CCD. The IMGP files are from the Pentax 645Z, while the A659 files are from the Hasselblad H4D-50.
http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/Hasselblad-H4D-50-v-Pentax-645Z/
RAWs are at https://copy.com/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw
Given that I shoot in all types of places, the ability to push the ISO is huge. Oh how I wish I had the Z for one of my favorite shots - the noise level on the Hass is just too much for me. http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ptg6PTm/0/O/i-Ptg6PTm.jpg
I'm spoiled in that I live 5 minutes from Glazers here in Seattle, so anything Hasselblad related I can rent. I'd have to purchase the Z and the lenses I wanted to work with regularly, but can rent from LensRentals anything special.
Thank you very much for sharing these with us, I'm slowly building collection of various files from all over the place. admins from pentaxforums also released their full review with a lot of samples to download and there are links to raw files available on fstopper too (also ISO25600 file).
One thing puzzles me though, some DNG files can be opened and processed in CaptureOne (I use version 7), others can't. My theory is that the ones that can be opened in C1 were probably shot as .PEF files (original Pentax raw files) and then converted to DNG using Adobe's converter and the ones which C1 can't open/process are the ones that were shot as DNG - can anybody confirm that this is the case?
(also covering them again to dng from DNG doesn't do the trick and C1 won't open them)
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that C1 is just showing anti competitive behaviour. POS in my view.
Hocus-Phocus is a bit it different, it is intended for Hasselblad only, but C1 is supposed to be general purpose. Im a tired of all that proprietary stuff.
Best regards
Erik
Thank you very much for sharing these with us, I'm slowly building collection of various files from all over the place. admins from pentaxforums also released their full review with a lot of samples to download and there are links to raw files available on fstopper too (also ISO25600 file).
One thing puzzles me though, some DNG files can be opened and processed in CaptureOne (I use version 7), others can't. My theory is that the ones that can be opened in C1 were probably shot as .PEF files (original Pentax raw files) and then converted to DNG using Adobe's converter and the ones which C1 can't open/process are the ones that were shot as DNG - can anybody confirm that this is the case?
(also covering them again to dng from DNG doesn't do the trick and C1 won't open them)
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that C1 is just showing anti competitive behaviour. POS in my view.
Hocus-Phocus is a bit it different, it is intended for Hasselblad only, but C1 is supposed to be general purpose. Im a tired of all that proprietary stuff.
Best regards
Erik
Paradoxically on Mac, Phocus works well with some dSLR images, even though it is never touted as a general purpose converter.
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
Nice to hear! My take is that Hocus-Phocus is quite OK, Hasselblad has some nice stuff like the HTS, it is good it is fully supported in Phocus. It would be still better if it was supported in a converter based on open specifications.
I very strongly feel that we photographers should be able to use our own images with the tools of our choice. I don't feel that MFD is going in that direction, in general, but I am happy that Pentax and Leica are taking a non proprietary path.
Best regards
Erik
Paradoxically on Mac, Phocus works well with some dSLR images, even though it is never touted as a general purpose converter.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I am pretty sure that C1 is just showing anti competitive behaviour. POS in my view.
Hocus-Phocus is a bit it different, it is intended for Hasselblad only, but C1 is supposed to be general purpose. Im a tired of all that proprietary stuff.
Best regards
Erik
they won't support anything else than PhaseOne team backs, as stated here (last comment from admin) - http://forum.phaseone.com/en/viewtopic.php?p=81979&sid=485a82092293f9033ccd3ee4270cb95b#p81979
I'm not happy with that at all, migrated to C1 from LR4 when they released version 7 but not much I can do
-
Hi Erik,
My understanding is that open-source library based tools such as RPP (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html) are actually quite good in terms of results; however the interface is usually horrid. But then you can program, so you can use the command-line version which in the case of libraw (http://www.libraw.org/) is obviously free.
In the special case of RPP, I think their browsing tool Fast Raw Viewer (http://www.fastrawviewer.com/) supports just about every camera including the Pentax, Phase and Hassy and may be useful to people in the field as it gives Raw histograms .
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
Nice to hear! My take is that Hocus-Phocus is quite OK, Hasselblad has some nice stuff like the HTS, it is good it is fully supported in Phocus. It would be still better if it was supported in a converter based on open specifications.
I very strongly feel that we photographers should be able to use our own images with the tools of our choice. I don't feel that MFD is going in that direction, in general, but I am happy that Pentax and Leica are taking a non proprietary path.
Best regards
Erik
-
I don't understand how you can like the appearance of the skin even on the "in focus" Z pictures. It's just look unreal textures. I would expect that such systems (high price systems) offer texture quality as good at 400-800 iso than CCD system like P1 or Hassy at 50-100 iso. It is not the case at all. Low noise, all right, but terrible textures. I prefer a little bit of noise.
-
Hi Edmund,
I am looking at RawTherape a bit and also at a program called AccuRaw.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
My understanding is that open-source library based tools such as RPP (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Overview.html) are actually quite good in terms of results; however the interface is usually horrid. But then you can program, so you can use the command-line version which in the case of libraw (http://www.libraw.org/) is obviously free.
In the special case of RPP, I think their browsing tool Fast Raw Viewer (http://www.fastrawviewer.com/) supports just about every camera including the Pentax, Phase and Hassy and may be useful to people in the field as it gives Raw histograms .
Edmund
-
I finally did the plunge and I am totally happy with the Z. I have a 645D, which I decided to keep as a backup. Also have a stable of lenses, too crazy to list.
Already after a the few times of use, I must have dinged the aluminum Pentax plate. Don't know yet whether I should get it replaced. Slightly less solid than the 645D. But more a sign of how much I like the camera and that I am not afraid of using it for anything. Perhaps having the backup helps. Perhaps I'll keep the ding as a beauty mark.
I like the files and don't see much of a difference to the D, even though I prefer the D files just ever so slightly, when shot from a tripod at 100ASA. But the ability to crank up sensitivity is out of this world. 800 and 1600 ASA settings are readily usable. Going up to 400 already reduced file quality when shooting with the D. The enormous sensitivity of the Z allows me to easily use of all of those nice telephoto ED lenses, 300, 400, 600, and 800, in 645 and 67 versions (300, 400). The detail in the files is amazing as well. You can easily crop and you'll be amazed how much is left. Also great to use all of my many adapted lenses. Speed doesn't seem to be a limit anymore.
I accidentally hit the movie recording button, and that was a revelation in itself. Medium format video. Unbelievable. The battery life is another plus.
Only when I downloaded the files and saw my memory quickly fill up I realized that there was a price to the Z...
-
...............I like the files and don't see much of a difference to the D, even though I prefer the D files just ever so slightly, when shot from a tripod at 100ASA..............
Hi Tom:
I've held off on the Z so far, despite the temptation of high ISO particularly for use with the longer lenses. Can you expand on your statement? What is it you prefer in the D files?
Best,
Tom
-
Hi Tom,
I'd say the D is just slightly more saturated and slightly more natural at the same time when compared to the Z. Almost unnoticeable. The typical CCD/CMOS thing. Haven't played with the Z enough to see whether there's a setting that get's closer to the D parameters. You won't notice unless you compare very closely.
I certainly wouldn't let that hold me up if I was you, especially since you are one of the few who use those long telephotos very successfully.
Another benefit I forgot to mention in my post is the stronger autofocus motor. There are no more issues with the 90mm autofocus, even though it gets stuck at infinity or close distance at times. But it no longer stops while focusing as a result of a weak focus drive.
-
Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but with Sony making the Nikon D800E sensor then bringing out the A7R, isn't it likely that they'll bring out a mirrorless Sony 645 camera - as they make the sensor for the Pentax 645Z?
-
Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but with Sony making the Nikon D800E sensor then bringing out the A7R, isn't it likely that they'll bring out a mirrorless Sony 645 camera - as they make the sensor for the Pentax 645Z?
I think someone will make a compact-wide mirrorless with this sensor, eg. use a 50mm to capture a wide strip on the MF sensor, while keeping a small size for the lens. Sort of like the Xpan :)
(http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_LX100/images/LX100-Multiple-Aspect-Ratio_16-9.jpg)
Image linked from http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_LX100/ (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_LX100/) (fair use, technical discussion).
Edmund
-
Tom:
Thanks for the compliment. I will get a Z at some point, the high ISO is a compelling feature. I rarely use the 645D at 400 and almost never above. Do you have an idea of the upper ISO limit of the Z which retains a high quality file; my impression is 1600-3200?
Tom
-
I will get a Z at some point, the high ISO is a compelling feature. I rarely use the 645D at 400 and almost never above. Do you have an idea of the upper ISO limit of the Z which retains a high quality file; my impression is 1600-3200?
Hi Tom,
I think that noise performance also depends a lot on the software one uses for the Raw conversion/initial editing.
Technically, I'd expect little benefit above ISO 800-1600 with (if needed) a further push in Raw conversion of a couple of stops, because it looks like the sensor is mostly ISO-less. Pushing in postprocessing also allows to reduce the risk of clipping specular highlights from slight on sensor overexposure. I usually try to also keep the color of specular highlights intact, with an additional shorter exposure if necessary, but with the 645Z's reported noise performance that's less likely to be needed with additional pushing in post.
I once did a technical analysis (using RawDigger and a series of Raw Exposures and Blackframes) for a fellow photographer on his 645D, and that indicated ISO 400 maximum, for more speed push in post. It will be interesting to see how the 645Z behaves, maybe DxOmark.com is already working on it.
For static subjects one always has the option to combine/average multiple exposures to reduce noise even further, or add multiple exposures for higher sensitivity, although adding will also increase noise. Given the reported long exposure capabilities of the 645Z that adding of exposures is less likely to be needed, but averaging is always an interesting option, also for removing traffic (with median averaging of 3 or more shots) from a historical/architectural site.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
I took Hunt's colorimetry course, one of the things he demoed was that color is a low-frequency percept. For us as photographers, this can be a guide in post -filter ab channels- , and is of course of relevance for compression and codecs. Hunt's course was the best $500 I ever spent on anything image-related.
Edmund
Hi Tom,
I think that noise performance also depends a lot on the software one uses for the Raw conversion/initial editing.
Technically, I'd expect little benefit above ISO 800-1600 with (if needed) a further push in Raw conversion of a couple of stops, because it looks like the sensor is mostly ISO-less. Pushing in postprocessing also allows to reduce the risk of clipping specular highlights from slight on sensor overexposure. I usually try to also keep the color of specular highlights intact, with an additional shorter exposure if necessary, but with the 645Z's reported noise performance that's less likely to be needed with additional pushing in post.
I once did a technical analysis (using RawDigger and a series of Raw Exposures and Blackframes) for a fellow photographer on his 645D, and that indicated ISO 400 maximum, for more speed push in post. It will be interesting to see how the 645Z behaves, maybe DxOmark.com is already working on it.
For static subjects one always has the option to combine/average multiple exposures to reduce noise even further, or add multiple exposures for higher sensitivity, although adding will also increase noise. Given the reported long exposure capabilities of the 645Z that adding of exposures is less likely to be needed, but averaging is always an interesting option, also for removing traffic (with median averaging of 3 or more shots) from a historical/architectural site.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I took Hunt's colorimetry course, one of the things he demoed was that color is a low-frequency percept.
Edmund, indeed it is, perceptually. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no high frequency content to capture, but it does explain why Bayer CFAs work so well, we're not good at discriminating the losses.
For us as photographers, this can be a guide in post -filter ab channels- , and is of course of relevance for compression and codecs.
Absolutely, although the sparser sampling also increases risks of producing lower frequency colored noise. That will still present a challenge to restrain without hurting image quality.
Hunt's course was the best $500 I ever spent on anything image-related.
One could easily find a lesser tutor...
Cheers,
Bart
-
One could easily find a lesser tutor...
Cheers,
Bart
Or a younger one :)
I always wanted to take some photography classes, but photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.
Edmund
-
.......... Pushing in postprocessing also allows to reduce the risk of clipping specular highlights from slight on sensor overexposure. I usually try to also keep the color of specular highlights intact, with an additional shorter exposure if necessary,........
Thanks for your comments Bart. As much as I understand the logic of ETTR, I consistently underexpose by 1/2-1 stop for certain images to avoid clipping. Clipped highlights are irreversible damage to a file. This has been my most difficult adjustment to digital - film is much more forgiving to overexposure. Michael's "Sun Road" image taken with the Z impressed me with its dynamic range that maintained a clear outline of the sun, so perhaps clipping is less problematic with the Z (or Michael did a good job of determining exposure ;D).
Tom
-
Hi Tom,
Files at 1600 are still of superb quality. After that image quality somewhat declines, perhaps similar to the 400 setting on the D. 3200 is still very usable if you need to get the shot and don't have to crop.
I was quite surprised, and you will be pleased.
Tom
-
Thanks for your observations Tom; that's very encouraging. On a operational level for me, that means 1/15s @ ISO 200 becomes 1/125s @ ISO 1600 - quite a difference with long lenses. Have you noticed in improvement in shutter vibration in the Z?
Tom
-
photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.
And your point is?
IMO
BC
-
Or a younger one :)
I always wanted to take some photography classes, but photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.
Edmund
You hate Professional Photographers also? I though your hate (or despise) was mainly directed towards PhaseOne/Leaf (and to a lesser degree Hasselblad). Dang, you are gonna tear this forum apart. As it is you are making Phase/Leaf dealers work a lot harder online doing damage control.
Come down to Puerto Rico and il take you around and give you some photo tips for free. Or at least what I can contribute.
-
And your point is?
IMO
BC
That people who do real work couldn't care less about his paper qualifications and Internet opinions, so now he has one more thing to hate on.
-
Back on topic. The Z has proven that I need an 80mp version...
(http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/SSFC-with-Pentax/i-qHRZRx4/0/L/IMGP0470-L.jpg) (http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/SSFC-with-Pentax/i-qHRZRx4/A)
Looking close, I can only identify a few folks - at 80mp, I'm sure I'd be able to identify everyone :D
-
You hate Professional Photographers also?
Nah, I admire their charm, unflappable calm, unfailing courtesy, and their ability to herd cats on set :)
I think I was a professional photographer with very small p's.
Edmund
-
And your point is?
IMO
BC
No real point.
I'm just surprised how accessible the engineers are, compared to the "artists". Of course, most bright-eyed,moneyed and eager students who flock to a photo workshop will not be interested in a course consisting of page after page of equations.
Edmund
context:
Robert William Gainer Hunt
Born at Sidcup, Kent, England, 28th July 1923.
Robert Hunt was awarded a B.Sc (Bachelor of Science) with first class honours, and an A.R.C.S. (Associate of the Royal College of Science), in physics,1940-1943, and a D.I.C. (Diploma of Imperial College) in Technical Optics,1946-47, all from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London. He was also awarded a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy), 1953, and a D.Sc (Doctor of Science), 1968, from the University of London. He worked as an Experimental Officer at the Ministry of Supply on optical sighting devices for tanks, 1943-46. He was a research scientist at the Kodak Research Laboratories, Harrow, 1946-82, where he worked on factors affecting the quality of colour images, and devices for making reflection prints from both negative and positive images on film; he was finally Assistant Director of Research. Since 1982 he has worked as an independent colour consultant, and has taken a leading role in the development of colour appearance models. He was a Visiting Professor of Physiological Optics at the City University, London, 1967-1998, a Visiting Professor of Colour Science at the Colour & Imaging Institute at the University of Derby, England, 1994-2004, and a Visiting professor of Colour Science at the Department of Colour Science at the University of Leeds, 2004-2009. He has been Chairman of the Colour Group of Great Britain, 1961-63; Chairman of the Colorimetry Committee of the Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage (CIE), 1975-83; and President of the International Colour Association (AIC), 1981-85. He has written over a hundred papers on colour vision, colour reproduction, and colour measurement, and two books 'The Reproduction of Colour' now in its sixth edition, and 'Measuring Colour' now in its fourth edition co-authored with Michael Pointer. His current research interests include modelling the human system of colour vision so as to be able to predict how colours will appear in different viewing conditions, and applying colour science to practical problems in industry and in the environment. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Fellow of the Royal Television Society, Honorary Fellow of the British Kinematography Sound and Television Society, Honorary Member of the Society for Imaging Science and Technology, and Honorary Fellow of the Society of Dyers and Colourists. He is a member of the Royal Institution and has served as one of its Vice-Presidents, 1985-87. He has been awarded the Newton Medal of the Colour Group (Great Britain), 1974, the Progress Medal of the Royal Photographic Society, 1984, the Judd-AIC Medal of the International Colour Association, 1987, the Gold Medal of the Institute of Printing, 1989, the Johann Gutenberg Prize of the Society for Information Display, 2002, the Godlove Award of the Inter-Society Color Council (U.S.A.), 2007. and Honorary Fellowship of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, 2009. For services to the field of colour science and to young people through Crusaders he was appointed an Officer of the British Empire (O.B.E.) in 2009.
His interests include: all aspects of colour science, visiting interesting places in the world, photography, and railways. The most important things in his life are: his Christian Faith, he is an Elder and lay preacher in his local church; and his family, he married Eileen Mary (née Redhead) in 1947, and his family consist of his wife, their four children and their four spouses, twelve grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.
-
Hi,
He may say that photographers charge 5000 for an equivalent workshop. Defining equivalent may be a bit hard.
Best regards
Erik
And your point is?
IMO
BC
-
... I always wanted to take some photography classes, but photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.
While the intrinsic value of a scientific class might be higher, the reality is that it is a demand and supply that determines the price, not how much each group values their time. There are simply 10x more people interested in a photography class than in a scientific one.
-
While the intrinsic value of a scientific class might be higher, the reality is that it is a demand and supply that determines the price, not how much each group values their time. There are simply 10x more people interested in a photography class than in a scientific one.
I'm not making any call on "intrinsic value", however in a way I'm surprised that some photo guys don't just teach in order to teach. In the case of Hunt, that seemed to be the case. Teaching is often its own reward, even though that sounds corny, I've done a lot of it and it's fun.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Just to note, I took part in one of Hans Kruse's workshops in the Dolomites, that was around 1100€ (1400$) and included 10 hours of classroom instruction, 50 hours of photography, five nights at a good hotel all meals and drinks. Also, it included a good company of engineers and scientists, five of the participants were engineers, two were senior scientists, but all 10 participants were enthusiastic photographers.
I wouldn't say that was expensive. But, I wouldn't say anything of this relates to the Pentax 645Z.
My take from what I have read is that Pentax 645Z owners are extremely happy.
Best regards
Erik
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-8CKnJ3t/0/X3/20140602-_DSC6001-X3.jpg)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-4542bVC/0/X3/20140603-_DSC4026-X3.jpg)
While the intrinsic value of a scientific class might be higher, the reality is that it is a demand and supply that determines the price, not how much each group values their time. There are simply 10x more people interested in a photography class than in a scientific one.
-
I would argue that those photographers writing articles for LL teach for free. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wanna go too!
Those pix are wonderfully pleasant to look at.
Edmund
Hi,
Just to note, I took part in one of Hans Kruse's workshops in the Dolomites, that was around 1100€ (1400$) and included 10 hours of classroom instruction, 50 hours of photography, five nights at a good hotel all meals and drinks. Also, it included a good company of engineers and scientists, five of the participants were engineers, two were senior scientists, but all 10 participants were enthusiastic photographers.
I wouldn't say that was expensive. But, I wouldn't say anything of this relates to the Pentax 645Z.
My take from what I have read is that Pentax 645Z owners are extremely happy.
Best regards
Erik
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-8CKnJ3t/0/X3/20140602-_DSC6001-X3.jpg)
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-4542bVC/0/X3/20140603-_DSC4026-X3.jpg)
-
I'll tell ya a secret I love photography.
Now I have to say that in a low voice because some people think that if you love something you should do it for free.
That's kind of a strange thought to me, because in my world good photography, no matter how much you dig doing it is big, hard work, and work and free don't really belong in the same sentence.
I understand shooting for yourself because that will open doors down the line, but giving it up for free because somebody wants it . . . I dunno bout that.
I don't mind sharing, to a point, I'll answer a lot of questions, to a point, but in a world where every bit of knowledge should be put online for the world to "share" just doesn't make sense.
It's funny, I dig cars and have a few fast ones. Nothing fancy, just rods.
The owner of the rod shop I go to digs cars, loves cars, makes beautiful cars and I've never, ever, never asked him to do a single thing for free or even for a discount.
I'm a good customer, I'll bet he will cut me a deal, but just cause he loves doing something doesn't give me the opening to leverage his passion for my benefit.
FWIW: Everybody finds their own way and I'd never think my way was the best way . . . but. . .
I've never had a photography class, only assisted two days to help a friend and sure didn't come from money.
What I did was build a small studio in my garage and once I was ready, I found people that paid for photography and sold myself as a photographer.
So far it's worked out pretty good, but I've been lucky, have a great partner, work with good people and work for good clients.
But nothing makes you better, learn faster than an empty stomach, metaphorically and physically.
IMO
BC
-
That people who do real work couldn't care less about his paper qualifications ...
... and I thought your day job was in marketing.
-
Hi,
Sharing experience and knowledge is a pleasant experience for many… It is quite possible to share experience for pleasure, but that is not a commercial venue.
Now, I would say that world would be a boring place to live if everything was measured in commercial terms. Much innovation originates in curiosity, the urge to find out. Without that urge we wouldn't have lenses, film, cameras or digital sensors. Another point possibly made, this site (LuLa) is very much a commercial one, but it was started because Michael Reichmann wanted to share.
People making their living from photography are hard working self made people doing success in a market that is both demanding and competitive, they deserve all respect.
Best regards
Erik
I would argue that those photographers writing articles for LL teach for free. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't understand how you can like the appearance of the skin even on the "in focus" Z pictures. It's just look unreal textures. I would expect that such systems (high price systems) offer texture quality as good at 400-800 iso than CCD system like P1 or Hassy at 50-100 iso. It is not the case at all. Low noise, all right, but terrible textures. I prefer a little bit of noise.
What images are you speaking of? Is it your own 645z that's doing this? If not, I'm wondering what you're looking at, bc this is not consistent with my experience at all.
- N.
-
These?
https://www.copy.com/s/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw/Hass-Pentax
Personally, I am quite glad to have some raw samples, so I would not complain about quality of the samples.
Best regards
Erik
What images are you speaking of? Is it your own 645z that's doing this? If not, I'm wondering what you're looking at, bc this is not consistent with my experience at all.
- N.
-
I don't understand how you can like the appearance of the skin even on the "in focus" Z pictures. It's just look unreal textures. I would expect that such systems (high price systems) offer texture quality as good at 400-800 iso than CCD system like P1 or Hassy at 50-100 iso. It is not the case at all. Low noise, all right, but terrible textures. I prefer a little bit of noise.
What the hell is "texture"!?
I heard a lot about magic ingredients in the Leica vs. Contax, CMOS vs. CCD, etc. debates, but... "texture"!?
-
What the hell is "texture"!?
I heard a lot about magic ingredients in the Leica vs. Contax, CMOS vs. CCD, etc. debates, but... "texture"!?
Texture is something that gets destroyed by some CMOS camera filtering - you then have "plastic skin" or "orange peel".
Edmund
-
Texture is something that gets destroyed by some CMOS camera filtering - you then have "plastic skin" or "orange peel".
Edmund
In other words, detail? As far as I could see, there is plenty of detail in those files, every pore and wrinkle is visible in those faces.
-
I would argue that those photographers writing articles for LL teach for free. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Or, if you were cynical, you'd say that, in some cases, they could be commoditising their complement (whether it be workshops or prints) ;)
-
In other words, detail? As far as I could see, there is plenty of detail in those files, every pore and wrinkle is visible in those faces.
What cameras do you regularly work with?
IMO
BC
-
What cameras do you regularly work with?
Canon 60D currently, film Hasselblads in the bygone era.
-
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
-
... 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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_mapping) and displacement mapping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
-
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
-
Thanks for the comments Tom; higher usable ISO and less shutter vibration. You do realize you're pushing me over the edge ;D
-
... the Z is calling you... ;)
-
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.
-
You know my request, Joe. As always, some skintones under flash please! :D