Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Omni Images on December 09, 2014, 07:19:42 pm
-
I'm looking to move up to medium format digital for landscape.
The introduction of the Pentax 645Z has just made it affordable for me.
A kit with the 55mm lens is coming in at around 12K here in Australia, I think I will be able to manage that price.
Recently I have been looking at the second hand sites and seeing some good value Phase One kits for sale now for not a lot more than the new Pentax, making me think perhaps I can realistically afford to go a fraction further cost wise and get a Phase One. ... Which I would LOVE... but around 15K would be my limit .... so that is my ceiling.
Delving further into the specs I see the Pentax has a cmos sensor where as the older P backs are ccd. The newer IQ backs are now cmos.
Am I going backwards if I go for the older ccd sensor, seeing as Phase One has moved to cmos sensors also ?
Another minor issues would be weather sealing .. as I often shoot in harsh wet/snow conditions etc ... Phase One doesn't seem to great on that point, but the new Pentax is pretty much waterproof.
Over all image quality is my main concern, so lens quality is a big factor to me, so buying into a system with better lenses I feel is important.
I think the Phase one has a larger physical sized sensor .. is that a plus ?
I will only be using it for landscape work, sunrise sunset .. general low light work but day time too, using low iso on tripod etc.
Any advise and information to help with my decision would be much appreciated.
I am leaning towards buying into a second hand Phase One, and perhaps "one day" be able to upgrade to an IQ back.
I also use a Linhof 617s and have a Horseman 4x5.
Also interested to hear more about an Alpa with a P1 back too ... could that be a consideration ?
Thank you.
-
Pros for P45+ in the situation you outlined:
- Compatibility with a tech cam
--- Rise/fall/shift/tilt/swing on every lens*
--- Unbelievably good lenses
--- Variable aspect ratio via intra-image-circle stitching
--- more-manual/Traditional/slower/more-tactile/more-visceral shooting experience (opinion of course)
--- Did I mention these lenses are phenomenal?
- Compatibility with Capture One
--- color controlled from start to end of chain
- Service, Support, Warranty Options**
- Upgrade options: under the current P+ upgrade promo (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/p-upgrade-promotion) it's very possible you'd get more value for your P45+ trade-in then you'd pay for a P45+. Over at getdpi.com (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/) they call medium format "Dante's Inferno" because people get a taste of medium format quality and end up upgrading even further into it.
Did I mention the tech camera lenses? ;D
Anyway, I'd suggest working with a dealer (selfish suggestion since we are one) to get raw files from the 45+ and make some of your own edits and prints from them. Don't rely (at least exclusively) on numbers/charts/graphs.
Durability wise you'll find the p+ series was tested in fire (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOemv9F_Ahw), ice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgDsW8uTorY), and water (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J4BErvU-kg) and are used by a great many customer (including many on this forum) in trying field conditions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M6Txh-maKM).
After that I'd say you should go out and shoot some with each option. They are both very good cameras, but they are also pretty drastically different tools, each with pros and cons. You should make the choice after having actually taken pictures - nothing else that someone else can say will matter next to that experience.
*depends on which tech camera platform you select; see our tech camera overview (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-overview) for more info
**Will depend a bit on how you buy and where you are located. We are a dealer for the US and for Phase One gear we can provide immediate expert phone/email support to our clients, repairs are fast and reliable, and loaner gear can be made available in the case it's needed.
-
Hi,
Personally, I shoot with a P45+ on a Hasselblad 555/ELD, check this thread if interested in that option:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52041-some-p45-hasselblad-v-series-samples.html
This thread may be interesting regarding CMOS vs. CCD colour rendition:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52173-if-ccd-rendering-can-achieved-cmos-where-examples-2.html#post609275
My posting is a good starting point, but check the whole thread. The 645D uses same generation Kodak CCD as the P45+.
A lot of raw images from my camera 555 ELD/P45+ here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=5
Short responses to your questions below:
Keep in mind, your mileage may vary!
Best regards
Erik
I'm looking to move up to medium format digital for landscape.
The introduction of the Pentax 645Z has just made it affordable for me.
A kit with the 55mm lens is coming in at around 12K here in Australia, I think I will be able to manage that price.
Recently I have been looking at the second hand sites and seeing some good value Phase One kits for sale now for not a lot more than the new Pentax, making me think perhaps I can realistically afford to go a fraction further cost wise and get a Phase One. ... Which I would LOVE... but around 15K would be my limit .... so that is my ceiling.
Delving further into the specs I see the Pentax has a cmos sensor where as the older P backs are ccd. The newer IQ backs are now cmos.
Well, CMOS has less shadow noise, higher ISO, better dynamic range. IQ-250 sensor is same as the ones in IQ-150/IQ-250. It is made by Sony and AD-conversion is on sensor, which is a good thing. It also means that the bits are coming from Sony, really.
Am I going backwards if I go for the older ccd sensor, seeing as Phase One has moved to cmos sensors also ?
Yes, but many claims CCD is favorable. Technically, this is probably not the case. CMOS offer great live view.
Another minor issues would be weather sealing .. as I often shoot in harsh wet/snow conditions etc ... Phase One doesn't seem to great on that point, but the new Pentax is pretty much waterproof.
Yes, Pentax is know to be water proof for real. There are stories of Phase One equipment surviving harsh conditions, but you may be better of with Pentax.
Over all image quality is my main concern, so lens quality is a big factor to me, so buying into a system with better lenses I feel is important.
There are two discussion threads about Pentax lens quality here at LuLa. Check them out. Phase One has some great lenses from Schneider but they are expensive. Older Mamiya lenses are often great.
I think the Phase one has a larger physical sized sensor .. is that a plus ?
Yes, it is a plus. The main plus may be that the P45+ has 1.1 crop factor while the Pentaz 645Z/IQ-250 etc have 1.3X crop factors. So you need wider lenses with the smaller sensors, which may be more expensive. Not a lot of cheap ultra wides around
I will only be using it for landscape work, sunrise sunset .. general low light work but day time too, using low iso on tripod etc.
Should be fine, don't forget MLU.
Any advise and information to help with my decision would be much appreciated.
I am leaning towards buying into a second hand Phase One, and perhaps "one day" be able to upgrade to an IQ back.
I also use a Linhof 617s and have a Horseman 4x5.
Also interested to hear more about an Alpa with a P1 back too … could that be a consideration ?
Personally, I would say that using a back with a technical camera is a very interesting option.
Thank you.
-
The ability of using a Medium Format digital back on a tech cam is not to be lightly dismissed.
It is a rabbit hole for your money but the quality difference of typical tech cam lenses is easily seen, and for many the sole reason for bearing the additional cost and complication.
And yes, the sensor on the P45+ is larger than all the current CMOS chips including the 645z. That has an effect on the image as well but that is a bit more subjective.
-
Hi, Doug pretty much covered a LOT with his post.
I would like to add that the Pentax 645z is like a larger Nikon D810 with better POTENTIAL image quality but with a smaller lens selection. The Pentax is VERY easy to work with right from the moment you get it. Search around for reviews and user experiences on the lenses available for the Pentax 645 system. If the lenses available are good enough for your needs and the focal lengths you normally use or would like to use then the limited lens selection is a non-issue. My pick for landscape would be the DA645 28-45mm lens although at $5,000 it is not exactly cheap and it is pretty large and heavy but easy to filter and covers a VERY useful range for landscape and architecture work with the 50 mp sensor.
The main issue I have with the Pentax 645z (the same goes for the 645D which I had) is that customer support / service is pretty much non-existent in the USA and basically worldwide except Japan. So if anything goes wrong with your camera and it needs to be repaired it needs to go to Japan and customers have reported consistently being without the camera for about 10 weeks. Not cool at all for a $9k camera.
With a Digital back you will get the option of basically building up a custom system since a back can be mounted in a VERY wide range of bodies and mated to a wide range of lenses as a result. A good dealer helps a lot with that. But with less integration will come a steeper learning curve and some compromises.
-
Are you looking to shoot at ISO above 200?
If this is a significant part of your work, then you should get a CMOS.
If you're OK staying at 200 and below, then you can get a better deal with CCD.
Why are you not considering Credo?
Credo and IQ and very similar, and Credo is much cheaper.
A Credo 40 would be much better than any P series back, and you can get a full kit with body and lens for $14k new.
-
Hi,
Just to mention, you can buy a Hasselblad H5D40 for 9995 $US here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893188-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_40_DSLR_Camera.html
That is a small sensor CCD system, of course.
A benefit of Mamiya or Pentax 645 based systems is that there are a lot of lenses around at affordable prices.
These two postings on Jim Kasson's blog may be worth reading:
http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20141207
http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20141208
Personally, my plan was to go with the Hasselblad 555/ELD and P45+, and add a Hartblei HCam later on. I would combine that Hartblei HCam with Canon T&S lenses and a Mirex T&S adapter, so I could use my Hasselblad lenses with tilt and shift.
But, I decided to buy 40 mm Distagon and a Flexbody along that route. So I am not that much 'gungh ho' for the Hartbeli HCam any longer.
What I really have found is that:
- The Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ is sort of OK
- Focusing accuracy is a major issue. Missing live view sourly!
- I am not sure T&S work for me. A modern back with good live view may be different.
The thing below may be an interesting option:
(http://www.hartblei.de/photos/busstopsmall.jpg) (http://www.hartblei.de/de/whatsnew.htm)
Best regards
Erik
-
I'm looking to move up to medium format digital for landscape.
The introduction of the Pentax 645Z has just made it affordable for me.
You answered your own question from the start.
In regards to repairs, unless it's Canon or Nikon, any major repair is going to fly off somewhere regardless of the brand and I've heard nobody complain about the 645d so I assume the Z is even better in build quality.
Personally, I don't think you'll see much difference in image quality from a Nikon D800 to the Pentax as long as you have good glass, but I'm sure that response will bring up a variety of charts and diagrams to prove me wrong.
The thing I'm kind of missing is the "why". If you shoot landscapes, I assume that's a slower process on a tripod, so if you like the Pentax why not save a bunch a get the D?
I'd bet dollars to donuts the file quality is equal, unless you shoot in low light.
But remember something, great photography has very little to do with the camera, regardless of what a camera forum says.
IMO
BC
-
You answered your own question from the start.
In regards to repairs, unless it's Canon or Nikon, any major repair is going to fly off somewhere regardless of the brand and I've heard nobody complain about the 645d so I assume the Z is even better in build quality.
Personally, I don't think you'll see much difference in image quality from a Nikon D800 to the Pentax as long as you have good glass, but I'm sure that response will bring up a variety of charts and diagrams to prove me wrong.
The thing I'm kind of missing is the "why". If you shoot landscapes, I assume that's a slower process on a tripod, so if you like the Pentax why not save a bunch a get the D?
I'd bet dollars to donuts the file quality is equal, unless you shoot in low light.
But remember something, great photography has very little to do with the camera, regardless of what a camera forum says.
IMO
BC
I had the 645D and while the image quality was good, the D800E I tested alongside it had more dynamic range and of course much cleaner high iso and long exposure image quality. Resolution wise they were just about equal and dependent on the lens use in which case the Nikon offered a much larger range of options. In landscape photography dynamic range and resolution are king. Of course if one likes the look of the file and working with the camera that is taken into consideration as well. I really did not liked the way the 645D handled the highlights so off it went.
I still question how much of an advantage the 645z has over a D810 since there are some stellar lenses available for the Nikon and the Pentax lenses, while very good, are not known to be superb.
I got the PhaseOne IQ160 (and tech cam)nfor Landscape work since it really offered a resolution advantage (with Rodenstock lenses) over any camera I have used. Love the way it handles the highlights. It also turns out I love the way it renders skintones with strobes so I use it for people work with a Hasselblad H1. Works great tethered also. For me it turned out to be a much more versatile and enjoyable tool to work with than I tough it would be.
All that said, Why do you want MFDigital? What are you looking for?
-
Erik,
You sound like a good candidate to sell the OP a P45+ at a discount and get a Hasselblad CMOS back with livevew.
Edmund
Hi,
Just to mention, you can buy a Hasselblad H5D40 for 9995 $US here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893188-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_40_DSLR_Camera.html
That is a small sensor CCD system, of course.
A benefit of Mamiya or Pentax 645 based systems is that there are a lot of lenses around at affordable prices.
These two postings on Jim Kasson's blog may be worth reading:
http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20141207
http://blog.kasson.com/?m=20141208
Personally, my plan was to go with the Hasselblad 555/ELD and P45+, and add a Hartblei HCam later on. I would combine that Hartblei HCam with Canon T&S lenses and a Mirex T&S adapter, so I could use my Hasselblad lenses with tilt and shift.
But, I decided to buy 40 mm Distagon and a Flexbody along that route. So I am not that much 'gungh ho' for the Hartbeli HCam any longer.
What I really have found is that:
- The Hasselblad 555/ELD P45+ is sort of OK
- Focusing accuracy is a major issue. Missing live view sourly!
- I am not sure T&S work for me. A modern back with good live view may be different.
The thing below may be an interesting option:
(http://www.hartblei.de/photos/busstopsmall.jpg) (http://www.hartblei.de/de/whatsnew.htm)
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
This link may be interesting for you: http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/
The VFC 39 uses the same CCD as the P45+, but it is possible that Phase One makes better use of it.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Edmund,
I have considered it, but decided not to for a couple of reasons, one of those reasons being the crop factor. Honestly I was spending a bit to much on the Hasselblad P45+ combo, so spending brakes are now "on".
Regarding, live view is something I really appreciate, makes for easy and accurate focusing. It of course needs to be magnified and the magnified part needs to be movable.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
You sound like a good candidate to sell the OP a P45+ at a discount and get a Hasselblad CMOS back with livevew.
Edmund
-
The 645D uses same generation Kodak CCD as the P45+.
Erik, the 645D 6 micron sensor is one generation newer than the P45+ 6.8 micron sensor. The other main difference is that the 645D sensor has microlenses for better high ISO, while the P45+ does not.
Otherwise, I agree with your other comments on the pros/cons.
Ray
-
I'm looking to move up to medium format digital for landscape.
The introduction of the Pentax 645Z has just made it affordable for me.
A kit with the 55mm lens is coming in at around 12K here in Australia, I think I will be able to manage that price.
Recently I have been looking at the second hand sites and seeing some good value Phase One kits for sale now for not a lot more than the new Pentax, making me think perhaps I can realistically afford to go a fraction further cost wise and get a Phase One. ... Which I would LOVE... but around 15K would be my limit .... so that is my ceiling.
The only thing which gives me pause on the Pentax system, whether 645D or 645Z, is the lens range and quality.
Mamiya/Phase One has an edge on both aspects, especially with some of the manual focus Mamiya 645 glass which can be found at tremendous bargain prices.
So here's an option that no-one has suggested yet. If you like the 645D/645Z sensor size but doubt the lenses...get a used Leica S2, which fits your budget. Essentially the same Kodak 6 micron sensor as the 645D, but in a 3:2 aspect ratio. What the Leica does is key you into the biggest range of medium format glass of any medium format camera. Leica's own lenses are insanely good but also insanely expensive...but thanks to the really short flange distance, there are adapters to all sort of other system's lenses: Mamiya 645, Contax 645, Hasselblad H, Hasselblad V, Pentax 67. You could get the used S2 body, start with cheap-but-excellent glass from these systems, and gradually upgrade to the native Leica lenses where you feel you need any extra quality.
Ray
-
But remember something, great photography has very little to do with the camera, regardless of what a camera forum says.
IMO
BC
Or lenses, but maybe a bit more than little for lenses?
-
It's really a straight forward discussion given the info as to what you're shooting and the two options, and pricing we speak of may encourage a holiday trip:
Weather sealing including lenses and ISO 400 and higher - Pentax
Adaptability, long exposures, leveraging your existing Horseman for even bigger images - Phase
As always, try to get different systems into your hands before purchase, everyone has a different workflow, and what may work for me won't always work for someone else. If you haven't worked with CaptureOne, grab the demo and watch their webinars and such - it's pretty powerful, and may factor in to your decision.
-
It's really a straight forward discussion given the info as to what you're shooting and the two options, and pricing we speak of may encourage a holiday trip:
Weather sealing including lenses and ISO 400 and higher - Pentax
Adaptability, long exposures, leveraging your existing Horseman for even bigger images - Phase
As always, try to get different systems into your hands before purchase, everyone has a different workflow, and what may work for me won't always work for someone else. If you haven't worked with CaptureOne, grab the demo and watch their webinars and such - it's pretty powerful, and may factor in to your decision.
I agree:
- Need a modern SLR body, good AF, high ISO, fast shooting rate (3fps), liveview focusing ====> 645Z
- Need bulletproof tethering, tech camera ability, superlong exposures =======> P45+.
Edmund
-
People shouldn't spend their money only to advance a bit on what they are already doing... It doesn't advance their photography... Investing into doing more (advanced) things makes sense... Investing in having trivial improvement in "quality" (whatever that means) but still doing the same, makes little sense... Just my 2 Cts...
-
The only thing which gives me pause on the Pentax system, whether 645D or 645Z, is the lens range and quality.
Mamiya/Phase One has an edge on both aspects, especially with some of the manual focus Mamiya 645 glass which can be found at tremendous bargain prices.................................................
Ray
So Ray I'm thinking critically and demanding evidence to support your statement ;D. I will also point out that a number of superbly built manual focus lenses are available for the Pentax, e.g. the 150mm A f/3.5. Sharp, compact and about $150. As to the range: 25mm to 600mm, at least 20 lenses and most available as AF or manual. As to the comparative quality, the only direct comparison to a Mamiya lens I'm aware of is here:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html
Tom
-
So Ray I'm thinking critically and demanding evidence to support your statement ;D.
Excellent!
I will also point out that a number of superbly built manual focus lenses are available for the Pentax, e.g. the 150mm A f/3.5. Sharp, compact and about $150. As to the range: 25mm to 600mm, at least 20 lenses and most available as AF or manual. As to the comparative quality, the only direct comparison to a Mamiya lens I'm aware of is here:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html
Tom
I'll start with the range, as that is easier to address. The Pentax 645 range has no counterpart to the following Mamiya/Phase One 645 lenses:
* Fisheye
* Shift
* Tilt/Shift
* Soft focus
* Compact mirror long-tele
* AF leaf-shutter lenses (choice of 8 )
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
* 500mm teles (choice of 3! f/8 mirror, f/5.6, f/4.5) (the Pentax 150-300mm zoom set to 250mm + a 2x TC hits 500mm, but at f/11)
Against that, the Mamiya/Phase One has no counterpart to the following Pentax lenses:
* 25mm rectilinear ultrawideangle (the 24mm Mamiya goes wider but it must be de-fished)
* 400mm and 600mm teles (Mamiya can only get there with 200mm or 300mm + 2x TC)
* 1.4x TC
* Wideangle zooms (choice of 2)
* Longer tele zoom (150-300; Mamiya's longest is 105-210)
Overall, number of different prime focal lengths [not prime lenses, as there are often 2 or 3 lenses with the same focal length]: Mamiya 17, Pentax 13
Both systems are large, but I think any neutral observer would give the "win" to Mamiya/Phase One.
As for non-native lenses, both systems have plenty of adapter options in common - Pentax 67, Hasselblad V, Pentacon Six/Kiev/Exakta 66, Bronica GS1, Leica Visoflex M39
- but Mamiya alone has a few more: Mamiya RB/RZ, Bronica SQ, Kiev 88.
Quality is of course generally more subjective.
I don't believe that modern Pentax 645 digital designs are anything other than superlative.
But I remember in my film days, being a bit disappointed by Pentax 645 images shared by fellow astrophotographers. We tend to shoot wide open, you see, and aberrations just seemed worse than what I was getting with my Mamiya 645 lenses.
It's also telling, I think, that quality-obsessed Leica have produced adapters from their S2 body to many leading medium format system lenses...first came the Mamiya 645, Hasselblad V, and Pentax 67...then the Hasselblad H...then the Contax 645 [the latter two required reverse engineering the electronic actuators]...but not the Pentax 645. Maybe it's coming.
Ray
-
Just going to throw my opinion in here...but a Phase One P45+ with H4X/H5X makes a hell of a combo. You then have a modern SLR with the ability to switch backs to a tech camera. I purchased a used P45+ privately and the H1+80mm kit was basically thrown in for free. I then found an H4X for a steal of a deal. Found a bunch of lenses for ridiculous deals as my current rental market is moving away from Hasselblad so they're discounting all the used stuff heavily. Couldn't be more happy with my decision...unless an iq260 was to fall into my lap I suppose.
I will say that the biggest downfall of the H system is their single claw, clasping/locking mechanism, but if you find a solid copy then you should be fine. I used a v mount back previously on a tech cam, but the 555eld was not for me in the end.
-
Against that, the Mamiya/Phase One has no counterpart to the following Pentax lenses:
* Wideangle zooms (choice of 2)
Phase One has a Schneider 40-80LS wide angle zoom (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/40-80mm-phase-one-tested). Very very good quality. Hefty lens, to be sure, but with a high sync speed, good optical performance throughout the range, including on full frame 80mp sensors, and high grade build quality it's not to be forgotten.
(https://digitaltransitions.com/images/upload/40-80mm/Schneider_40-80LS_at-80mm_Phase-One-IQ260.jpg)
* 25mm rectilinear ultrawideangle (the 24mm Mamiya goes wider but it must be de-fished)
As shown by our visualizer (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-overview) the 28mm Schneider lens with a P45+ is the same as a 25mm with the Pentax 645Z or 645D since these have a smaller sensor than the P45+. In other words the widest image you can get with a P45+ on a DF+ is the same as the widest image you can get with a 645Z/D.
In addition you have all the tech camera lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-overview), including a 23mm HR, which are in a league of their own and provide for shift/rise/fall/tilt/swing/stitching - only available with a true digital back, and not an integrated solution. You would need a 20mm with the smaller sensor a Pentax 645Z/D to match that.
You can also add all the Mamiya RZ lenses which work natively when putting the digital back like the P45+ on an RZ Pro IID. That inlcludes - though obviously on a very different kind of system. This includes interesting lenses like the 37mm fisheye, 75mm Shift, 100-200mm zoom, 110/2.8, 180mm soft focus, 350mm, 360mm, and 500mm, and the short barrel lenses which work with the tilt-shift adapter. These are MF only lenses and a few are quite slow (the 360mm is an f/6). But they all sync at 1/400th and RZ glass in general is known for it's pleasing rendering.
-
Excellent!
......................................................................
It's also telling, I think, that quality-obsessed Leica have produced adapters from their S2 body to many leading medium format system lenses...first came the Mamiya 645, Hasselblad V, and Pentax 67...then the Hasselblad H...then the Contax 645 [the latter two required reverse engineering the electronic actuators]...but not the Pentax 645. Maybe it's coming.
Ray
Hi Ray:
Inferring the quality of Pentax lenses by which adapters Leica makes seems a bit a stretch don't you think? It seems more likely they didn't want to encourage the collection of superbly built, inexpensive lenses that are native to the 645D which uses essentially the same Kodak sensor as the S2.
As to the range, the Pentax 67/645 adapter maintains functionality on the 645D. They operate identically to the 645 A lenses, excepting the A setting. This expands the offerings to include:
35mm fisheye
75 shift
105 f/2.4
120mm soft
400mm f/4 ED
600mm f/4
older 800 f/4 (if you can lift it)
800mm f/5.6 ED
1000mm reflex
In any event, both systems have more lenses than any of us could possibly use.
We're fortunate to have so many good choices in systems and I don't think you can say one has the edge over the other, except for personal preference considerations.
Cheers,
Tom
-
I just wanted to add a few pentax 67 lenses to that list that I think are pretty interesting as they are very cheap and very good performers on the 67(100-200, except the 75 2.8,300ED and the zoom lens)
45 4
55 4 (last version)
75 2.8
165 2.8
300 4 ED
55-100 4.5 (I don't own this one but it's supposed to be better than the primes)
-
I just wanted to add a few pentax 67 lenses to that list that I think are pretty interesting as they are very cheap and very good performers on the 67(100-200, except the 75 2.8,300ED and the zoom lens)
45 4
55 4 (last version)
75 2.8
165 2.8
300 4 ED
55-100 4.5 (I don't own this one but it's supposed to be better than the primes)
Notably the Pentax 67 lenses can be used on the DF+ via simple adapter.
-
If I was not going to shoot tech camera or not plan to upgrade to higher resolution (P65+, IQ180 etc) in near-time, I would surely get the 645Z. Considering the competition the sales reasons for cost-sensitive customers to buy into Phase One (or Hasselblad) systems is getting increasingly harder to find any sanity in.
Anyway, the Kodak sensor in the P45+ has excellent compatibility with tech cams and very nice image quality in abosulte terms, but if class-leading dynamic range is and high ISO is important to you, you need the Sony CMOS sensor. You'll need gradient filters with the P45+, and may do without on the 645Z in most cases.
I use old CCDs myself for my landscape photography, the reason is that I need a digital back because tech cam is my thing, and I like the Schneider Digitar lens range, and the old CCDs has best compatibility with those wides. I find the image quality to be good and can deal with the more limited dynamic range (still a lot easier to work with than slide film), but sure if I had not used a tech cam 645Z would probably be my primary choice, but perhaps I'd be satisfied with just a high res 135 system which is not far behind.
I don't see myself as a MF photographer but rather a large format photographer (I use Linhof Techno) which in the digital world means using MF digital back. A P45+ produces roughly the same resolution as 4x5" film, if we only count "grain-free" resolution, so it's certainly adequate resolution-wise for almost any application.
If cost is an issue, you surely already know that MF business model is not for the cost sensitive. However, if you can navigate second hand market and buy things just below highest end you can get MF systems which is as "cheap" as a new high end 135 or Pentax 645Z system, but buying second hand electronics is always a bit risky. To me as an amateur the risk is worth it, to most professionals it's not.
With the new MF CMOS sensors Phase One and Hasselblad can make more all-around cameras which can attract a wider market. There's an opportunity for them to expand their business model and go more head on competition like Pentax and Nikon/Sony from below. The coming five year period seems to become a dynamic one in terms of which direction MF will take and how high res 135 will evolve.
-
One other thought on the older 67 lenses. I used them extensively when I was using a Zork adapter with a Canon 1ds MKIII and MkII, I used the 55 (which everyone stated was better than the more modern 645 Pentax lenses, and the 75mm shift).
Both lenses I found lacking in sharpness with a 20MP 35mm camera, so I would not feel very good in using them on a 39MP CCD if sharpness is a facet you are looking for. Obviously, just one users opinion. However I was surprised to find both lenses lacking as so much had been written about them.
Also, the use of the 67 lenses on a DF+ would be a problematic, unless you were using a IQ250 or 150 or Credo 50, as the DF viewfinder is not the brightest or easiest to manually focus from. Live View on the modern Phase CMOS would be both much faster and more accurate.
You can find a lot of posts, blogs etc, all centered around trying to manually focus a Mamiya/Phase One DF or DF+ camera. Joseph Holmes wrote a lot about it. He also tried the Mamiya magnifier that attaches to the eye piece and I as I recall, did not have very good success.
The DF+ AF is much faster and more accurate, hitting a good AF usually on the first hit, whereas the DF is a 1, 2, 3 type lock, 3rd attempt most accurate.
The tech camera is another story, especially with wides, as you can figure out your hyperfocal and dial it in much more accurately than on the older 67 lenses or even a Mamiya or Phase One lens, at least in my experience. On the flip side, a DF or DF+ with a 50MP CMOS back would be a great solution to try to use the 67 or older 645 glass, as the live view on the LCD is excellent.
Paul
-
On the DF+ you can use Autofocus Confirmation even when using a manual-focus-only lens. It uses the same focus sensor as is used when using an autofocusing lens, and indicates with an arrow in either direction, or a dot (meaning "correct focus") as you turn the focus manually.
-
I think we need a Pentax rep to present his case in these discussions!
Why don't we have a Pentax rep yet?
Edmund
-
Funny thing, I went from a Hassey CF39MS with H2F and a pancake cam/digitars with electronic shutters. Then I shed that system and bought into the Nikon D800, the 14-24mm lens is a miracle of modern optics. Now I am using an Oly EM-1 and an EPL-5 with the fast Oly primes and one of the Pro zoom lenses. The Hassey served me well when I was in the fine art repro business. The H2F AF is accurate, but slow. After I moved away from fine art repro, I sold the Hassey and migrated to the D800. Nice AF, great glass, decent high resolution (though not anywhere near as sharp as the multi-shot files from the CF39MS), clean high ISO, and shadow detail to die for. I do not like the way it deals with highlights--the red channel blows out rather abruptly. The Nikon is not a good tool for fine art reproduction, but it is a great general purpose high-res camera. And now, I'm mostly using OLYs. I love the EM-1 and the EPL-5. Granted, I've closed my studio and business due to health reasons. I no longer cater to clients. But these lightweight go anywhere cameras have expanded my vocabulary as a fine artist. The Oly premium lenses are amazing--small, fast, well-corrected, contrasty, sharp, and easy to tote around in a small camera bag. My entire Oly kit weighs less than the CF39MS/H2F/120 Planar macro.
It all boils down to what you like to or have to photograph. Being that I am only accountable to myself, the Oly cameras and lenses are by far the most versatile and fun gear I've used, bar none. I am keeping the D800--mainly for the 14-24 and the 60 macro. I'm selling off the stellar 24-70 f/28 and the 70-200 VR f/4 lenses.
I am in the process of creating a portfolio of 50 pictures. Once completed, I will market them to interior architects, upscale interior decorators, etc. Here's a picture I made yesterday. All of the files are small JPGs straight out of the EM-1. I shot everything with the 25mm f/1.8 lens set to f/8.
-
Funny thing, I went from a Hassey CF39MS with H2F and a pancake cam/digitars with electronic shutters. Then I shed that system and bought into the Nikon D800, the 14-24mm lens is a miracle of modern optics. Now I am using an Oly EM-1 and an EPL-5 with the fast Oly primes and one of the Pro zoom lenses. The Hassey served me well when I was in the fine art repro business. The H2F AF is accurate, but slow. After I moved away from fine art repro, I sold the Hassey and migrated to the D800. Nice AF, great glass, decent high resolution (though not anywhere near as sharp as the multi-shot files from the CF39MS), clean high ISO, and shadow detail to die for. I do not like the way it deals with highlights--the red channel blows out rather abruptly. The Nikon is not a good tool for fine art reproduction, but it is a great general purpose high-res camera. And now, I'm mostly using OLYs. I love the EM-1 and the EPL-5. Granted, I've closed my studio and business due to health reasons. I no longer cater to clients. But these lightweight go anywhere cameras have expanded my vocabulary as a fine artist. The Oly premium lenses are amazing--small, fast, well-corrected, contrasty, sharp, and easy to tote around in a small camera bag. My entire Oly kit weighs less than the CF39MS/H2F/120 Planar macro.
It all boils down to what you like to or have to photograph. Being that I am only accountable to myself, the Oly cameras and lenses are by far the most versatile and fun gear I've used, bar none. I am keeping the D800--mainly for the 14-24 and the 60 macro. I'm selling off the stellar 24-70 f/28 and the 70-200 VR f/4 lenses.
I am in the process of creating a portfolio of 50 pictures. Once completed, I will market them to interior architects, upscale interior decorators, etc. Here's a picture I made yesterday. All of the files are small JPGs straight out of the EM-1. I shot everything with the 25mm f/1.8 lens set to f/8.
Nice deconstruction :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
The Pentax guy feels "tsjanik" makes a better work, I guess.
Anyway, I used to shoot P67 on film, and I had the impression that the lenses I had were a bit weaker than the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. The lenses I have are the fisheye, 45/4, 90/2.8, 165/4 and 300/4.
In any case, those lenses will not be sharper than the focusing accuracy that can be achieved. Focusing accuracy would speak for the Pentax 645Z, I think.
Regarding AF accuracy, I don't know. Tests I have seen on auto focusing accuracy with DSLRs essentially indicate that most systems have difficulty with optimum focus. Roger Ciala at Lensrentals has written a lot about that, but he also found that latests generation Canon DSLRs with the latest generation of AF lenses can match manual focusing with live view. Possible that Phase One AF is more accurate than DSLRs, but I would have some doubt.
The image below shows a cropped shot of a resolution target, the rectangles show the patterns that the viewfinder/ground glass could resolve, with my vision.
- Red PM5 (3X) prism finder
- Blue Hartblei 4X loupe
- Yellow PM5 + 3X monocular
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Focusing/USAF.jpg)
As you can see, the sensor resolves far past the viewfinder. Obviously visual focusing on ground glass is more based on fine detail contrast than actual detail.
With live view focusing is at the pixel level. Another observation is that live view takes care of all alignment issues between sensor, lens, mirror, AF secondary mirror and AF sensor, at least regarding the point of focus. That all speaks for focusing with magnified live view.
Below is my beloved PM5/Zeiss 3X monocular combo:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Focusing/20130717-_DSC2305SONYSLT-A99V.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
Ps.
This is a good article on focusing an MFD system: http://www.josephholmes.com/news-sharpmediumformat.html
I think we need a Pentax rep to present his case in these discussions!
Why don't we have a Pentax rep yet?
Edmund
-
There's other alternatives than the P45+ too, Hasselblad USA has some great deals on pre-owned H4D-50, $8400 is often not much more than what a P45+ sells for:
http://hasselbladusa.com/media/1064797/husa_cert_preowned.pdf
It's also quite easy to find second hand HC lenses (which otherwise is very expensive to buy new), or you put the body on the shelf, get an external battery and use it with a tech cam. High resolution lenses is overall quite expensive, also for 135 format, somewhat evening out the cost of the systems. The Schneider Digitar tech cam range has through the simple symmetrical design surprisingly good price/performance though, if you get them on lens board that is rather than expensive helical mounts.
Anyway, the offensively high prices of digital backs is where the main money pit of MF is, so if you get a good price on that your MF system don't have to be massively expensive.
Phase One is a popular prestige brand, but it's also the most expensive brand. It's a great brand if you want to have the latest MF tech first and the best feature set (concerning digital back), but if good price/performance is important to you there are more suitable brands. Second hand market is a bit special though, there's other rules there. Hasselblad CFV backs get a bit expensive because V mount is a popular amateur platform, P45+ is a bit expensive because of it's unique long exposure feature and excellent reliability reputation, Leaf Aptus backs are generally cheaper, H cameras are often quite cheap.
-
Before committing to a medium format reflex mirror camera, I'd wait and see how things will play out it 2015. The writing is on the wall--a MFD mirrorless camera will be hitting the marketplace. ... Nice thing about mirrorless cameras is they are light and highly adaptable to inexpensive tech cameras like the Cambo Actus. So, if you've really got an itch to shoot MFD, rent a camera every once in awhile and wait and see what surfaces in the mirrorless genre.
-
A MF mirrorless will probably have special microlenses to compensate towards the edges in order to use wideangle lenses because of the short flange distance. I can see how that's going to be a problem with tilt/shift.
-
A MF mirrorless will probably have special microlenses to compensate towards the edges in order to use wideangle lenses because of the short flange distance. I can see how that's going to be a problem with tilt/shift.
We'll see.
-
A few points:
1. The 645z and an old Phasemiya system bear almost no resemblance to one another. Clarify what you want from your system and you will probably have your answer.
2. The 645z is fully modern in operation, and well weather-sealed. It has terrific long-exposure, usable liveview and endless battery life. If you shoot outdoors, and want a DSLR-like experience, there is no question.
3. The best IQ is obtained by using top quality rody and schneider lenses on a tech cam. This mode of working sucks for most applications and tends to yield pretty dull imagery, imho. Except for architectural work, which tech cams own. But the IQ is unparalleled. The cost is also unparalleled.
4. Other than having a leaf-shutter system (there is a 75 and 135) can someone clarify for me lenses the Pentax system is missing, exactly?? I have everything from 35-300, and ALL IN, the lenses cost me less than one new Phase or Hassy lens .
5. If you like the 3:2 aspect ration, the 810 is probably the camera for you right now. That will change early next year when Sony again proves it is the only innovative company in the industry...
Just my 2c.
- N.
-
I think we need a Pentax rep to present his case in these discussions!
Why don't we have a Pentax rep yet?
Edmund
Good question, as I have reached out to the USA Pentax folks saying they need to do more in their outbound communications. I was at an event and chatted with one of the 6 USA reps. Nice guy, not in a great situation. Evidently there was only 1 demo body to be shared by the 6 reps. He had one sitting out, but only with the kit 55/2.8. To top it off, he didn't have any prints showcasing the camera - I can make an 8x10 from an iPhone, but show me a few 30x40 images and all of a sudden you are showing why someone will invest in the system. Not even a cheat sheet comparing it to other 35mm cameras - which they need to do while they have an advantage.
-Joe
-
But remember something, great photography has very little to do with the camera, regardless of what a camera forum says.
Sage advice here.
However some people click with certain cameras and enjoy them more than others.
-
3. The best IQ is obtained by using top quality rody and schneider lenses on a tech cam. This mode of working sucks for most applications and tends to yield pretty dull imagery, imho. Except for architectural work, which tech cams own. But the IQ is unparalleled. The cost is also unparalleled.
Nick, number 3 caught my attention, as I sure don't find the landscape imagery posted by photographers on this site using a tech camera as dull. I agree the work flow is tedious, to say the least, but the results to me are worth it. There are sure some times where I know I am going to shoot where I will leave the tech camera solution home as the conditions will not be the best. However I will try to lead with it as often as I can.
As I mainly use wides in my work, the tech solution give me a lot more control over overall DOF, with the ability to add tilt. I use shift in almost all of my work, mainly because I like to create images that are short pano's. I also am not a big fan of the 4:3 ratio as many others are, and the use of shift gives more latitude in post.
I would love to see a full frame CMOS medium format back that is also going to allow a more workable solution for movements, but that has yet to occur. I also feel such a back will be a bit too expensive in the near future.
My main reason for the switch to a tech solution was very simple the lenses that are available offer so much more detail and overall image quality over anything that the Phase One/Mamiya lens lineup offer. I find this true in the wide 23mm to 60m range, as you cross over to 75mm and above the Phase One/Mamiya glass gets much better.
You can see some excellent examples of tech camera/landscapes in this thread over at getdpi.com There is a series of images posted by Wayne Fox that are most impressive.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52652-deciding-between-alpa-tc-stc-cambo-1250-a-2.html (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52652-deciding-between-alpa-tc-stc-cambo-1250-a-2.html)
As you pointed out, it's an individual choice for sure.
Paul
-
I'm looking to move up to medium format digital for landscape.
For landscape I think dynamic range is important. For the similar price you pay for the 645Z + lenses I would recommend Hasselblad CFV-50C with a technical camera.
Have a look into my post here:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52844-backlight-landscape-photography-realized-say-no-silhouette.html
-
I would like to ad that a lot of people here and in other forums make conclusions about image quality based on images (or crops) displayed on the web. At least for me, the biggest difference with the high image quality of my IQ160 and Rodenstock lens combination is in the prints. I mean, I see improvements no matter the medium used to display the images but in large prints it is eye opening.
Also of note, working with my tech camera rig (Rodenstock/RM3Di/IQ160) is a MUCH slower process compared to working with a DSLR and that has limitations. If you have limited time at a location (Landscape / Architecture) and want to get the MOST out of that location (meaning the most compositions / images in a short amount of time) then a tech camera is most likely not the right tool. With my tech camera I usually scout a (landscape) location first and/or look for good shots before taking the camera out. I really think more about making the image before any gear comes out of the bag. That is something that can be done even with an iPhone obviously but with a tech camera it is almost mandatory. No spray and pray capability. ;D I also somewhat increase my standards of what would be worthy when Im carrying my tech camera. So I end up with a LOT less images but generally more images worthy of prints (for sale).
On a smaller note, I know a LOT of you here do not use your camera gear on client supervised shoots involving tethered workflow shooting people and using flash lighting but in those situations the PhaseOne backs (or leaf, hasselblad and even the Leica S/S2) absolutely rule. Also, C1 Pro is a joy to work with in those situations, it really sets itself above and beyond all other software I have used.
-
Hi,
I both agree and disagree. The problem with prints is that they cannot be shared over the internet. Actual pixel crops can be quite relevant, but they ignore the number of pixels. Also, JPEGs are always processed and processing plays a very major role on image quality.
That is the reason that I strive to publish raw images of all my test/demo images. Sometimes I fail, and some times it is less than practical.
Best regards
Erik
I would like to ad that a lot of people here and in other forums make conclusions about image quality based on images (or crops) displayed on the web. At least for me, the biggest difference with the high image quality of my IQ160 and Rodenstock lens combination is in the prints. I mean, I see improvements no matter the medium used to display the images but in large prints it is eye opening.
Also of note, working with my tech camera rig (Rodenstock/RM3Di/IQ160) is a MUCH slower process compared to working with a DSLR and that has limitations. If you have limited time at a location (Landscape / Architecture) and want to get the MOST out of that location (meaning the most compositions / images in a short amount of time) then a tech camera is most likely not the right tool. With my tech camera I usually scout a (landscape) location first and/or look for good shots before taking the camera out. I really think more about making the image before any gear comes out of the bag. That is something that can be done even with an iPhone obviously but with a tech camera it is almost mandatory. No spray and pray capability. ;D I also somewhat increase my standards of what would be worthy when Im carrying my tech camera. So I end up with a LOT less images but generally more images worthy of prints (for sale).
On a smaller note, I know a LOT of you here do not use your camera gear on client supervised shoots involving tethered workflow shooting people and using flash lighting but in those situations the PhaseOne backs (or leaf, hasselblad and even the Leica S/S2) absolutely rule. Also, C1 Pro is a joy to work with in those situations, it really sets itself above and beyond all other software I have used.
-
Hi,
I both agree and disagree. The problem with prints is that they cannot be shared over the internet.
Erik
How about we do that print exchange?
Edmund
-
Hi,
I would say that sharing raws, especially when combined with processing data is better than posting a physical print. The receiver can print the image any way they want.
Sharing prints can be a great learning experience, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
How about we do that print exchange?
Edmund
-
4. Other than having a leaf-shutter system (there is a 75 and 135) can someone clarify for me lenses the Pentax system is missing, exactly??
Nick, didn't I just do that on the first page of this thread?
Let me copy and paste again:
"The Pentax 645 range has no counterpart to the following Mamiya/Phase One 645 lenses:
* Fisheye
* Shift
* Tilt/Shift
* Soft focus
* Compact mirror long-tele
* AF leaf-shutter lenses (choice of 8 )
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
* 500mm teles (choice of 3! f/8 mirror, f/5.6, f/4.5) (the Pentax 150-300mm zoom set to 250mm + a 2x TC hits 500mm, but at f/11)
"
Of those, the three I'd single out as really important to me are:
* Fisheye
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
It's easy to fall into the logic trap of "I need no further lenses in this system, therefore nobody else would need any further lenses in this system".
I have everything from 35-300, and ALL IN, the lenses cost me less than one new Phase or Hassy lens .
And I have just about everything M645 from 24-300, and ALL IN, the lenses cost me less than one new Phase or Hassy lens.
Both Mamiya/Phase and Pentax have that great advantage of low cost older manual focus lenses.
The difference is just that with Mamiya, as I posted above, there is more choice.
Ray
-
Notably the Pentax 67 lenses can be used on the DF+ via simple adapter.
In fact: DF+ -> ANY Mamiya body with a 645 mount ever made, back to 1975.
Ray
-
But remember something, great photography has very little to do with the camera, regardless of what a camera forum says.
True in many but not all cases.
This great photography had very little to do with the camera:
(http://www.spotsinthebox.com/N/image/ronald2449.jpg)
(Yes, it's one of yours!)
This great photography was completely dependent on the camera:
(http://www.lonelyspeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sony-a7S-review-astrophotography-2.jpg)
It required a clean ISO 51200 to simultaneously (a) keep the exposure short enough to freeze the motion of the stars, (b) allow the lens to be stopped down enough (f/8) to keep both foreground rocks and infinity stars in focus, (c) actually pick up faint stars and Milky Way details and colour despite the paltry amount of light admitted by an f/8 lens in only 8 seconds! Nobody had made such a photo before, because the camera didn't exist which could do it before.
It's easy to fall into the logic trap of "I can make great photos of my type of subjects with pretty much any camera, therefore great photography has very little to do with the camera".
Ray
-
True in many but not all cases.
This great photography had very little to do with the camera:
(http://www.spotsinthebox.com/N/image/ronald2449.jpg)
(Yes, it's one of yours!)
This great photography was completely dependent on the camera:
(http://www.lonelyspeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sony-a7S-review-astrophotography-2.jpg)
It required a clean ISO 51200 to simultaneously (a) keep the exposure short enough to freeze the motion of the stars, (b) allow the lens to be stopped down enough (f/8) to keep both foreground rocks and infinity stars in focus, (c) actually pick up faint stars and Milky Way details and colour despite the paltry amount of light admitted by an f/8 lens in only 8 seconds! Nobody had made such a photo before, because the camera didn't exist which could do it before.
It's easy to fall into the logic trap of "I can make great photos of my type of subjects with pretty much any camera, therefore great photography has very little to do with the camera".
Ray
There are star photographers and star photographers - those who need a long lens and fast camera, and those for whom the stars will stand still at arms length :)
I like both pictures.
Edmund
-
For sure, Pentax will develop more lenses upon time. If they develop a tilt/shift adapter like the HTS 1.5 but at a "Pentax price" ... I bet many will really jump into this system.
The problem of the lenses will become a real problem if they continue to increase Pixels density >> they will be forced to develop a whole new line of HD lenses and they will be expensive.
-
"The Pentax 645 range has no counterpart to the following Mamiya/Phase One 645 lenses:
* Fisheye
Pentax 67 35mm Fisheye
* Shift
Pentax 67 75mm Shift
Hartblei 45mm Super-rotator
* Tilt/Shift
Hartblei 45mm super-rotator
* Soft focus
huh? seriously? It's called Photoshop
* Compact mirror long-tele
Mirror? Seriously? How's the weather over in 1985?
* AF leaf-shutter lenses (choice of 8 )
Yup - this is the gap, but the 75mm and 135mm LS are razor sharp.
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
Pentax 67 - 105mm f2.5 (best bokeh of the bunch)
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
Since ISO is irrelevant, I expect a 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 should suffice, or the 67 400mm f4, which is outstanding as well
* 500mm teles (choice of 3! f/8 mirror, f/5.6, f/4.5) (the Pentax 150-300mm zoom set to 250mm + a 2x TC hits 500mm, but at f/11)
Pentax 67 500mm f4.5 *AND* 600mm f5.6
Of those, the three I'd single out as really important to me are:
* Fisheye
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
What exactly are you shooting??
It's easy to fall into the logic trap of "I need no further lenses in this system, therefore nobody else would need any further lenses in this system".
And I have just about everything M645 from 24-300, and ALL IN, the lenses cost me less than one new Phase or Hassy lens.
Both Mamiya/Phase and Pentax have that great advantage of low cost older manual focus lenses.
The difference is just that with Mamiya, as I posted above, there is more choice.
The main difference is actually that the older Mamiya 645 lenses are most crap. Looked good for weddings on film. Just not in the game for high-res digital. The older pentax lenses are.
Ray
-
Hi,
Cheap lenses is one of the reasons I bought into Hasselbald V. But I would say that old MF lenses play best with live view for manual focus.
Buying a cropped sensor back limits your options in wide angles, so I would suggest looking into lenses and deciding on sensor later.
Personally, my original plan was to buy an Hasselblad 555/ELD for my P45+ first and later upgrade to a Hartblei HCam with Canon T&S lenses. But, meanwhile I decided to buy a 40/4 Distagon and a Flexbody for my tilt and shift needs.
What I have found is that the Distagon 40/4 is pretty OK for my needs, the Flexbody less so.
Best regards
Erik
Nick, didn't I just do that on the first page of this thread?
Let me copy and paste again:
"The Pentax 645 range has no counterpart to the following Mamiya/Phase One 645 lenses:
* Fisheye
* Shift
* Tilt/Shift
* Soft focus
* Compact mirror long-tele
* AF leaf-shutter lenses (choice of 8 )
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
* 500mm teles (choice of 3! f/8 mirror, f/5.6, f/4.5) (the Pentax 150-300mm zoom set to 250mm + a 2x TC hits 500mm, but at f/11)
"
Of those, the three I'd single out as really important to me are:
* Fisheye
* Really fast standard (f1.9 vs f2.8 )
* Really fast APO teles (choice of 3: 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 500/4.5)
It's easy to fall into the logic trap of "I need no further lenses in this system, therefore nobody else would need any further lenses in this system".
And I have just about everything M645 from 24-300, and ALL IN, the lenses cost me less than one new Phase or Hassy lens.
Both Mamiya/Phase and Pentax have that great advantage of low cost older manual focus lenses.
The difference is just that with Mamiya, as I posted above, there is more choice.
Ray
-
Unless the OP comes back and says something, can we close this thread?
Otherwise, it's a rehash of previously stated opinions, options and distractions.
-
Hello, yes I am still here and reading, it started slow, then has really taken off.
Not sure what to say here to contribute.
I have constraints that I am working through to get the most bang for my buck, as the "buck" is my biggest constraint, and the other constraint is the sort of work I want this new "system" to perform.
My main aim in all this is to be able to print LARGE. .. no interest in sharing pics on facebook, I will, but my main reason is for printing large and detailed images upwards of 70" in size that will blow your socks off in image quality in a large print.
I am doing largish images now in two ways.
I have a Linhof 617s .. wet scan on a V750 pro
or I shoot pano's with my Canon cameras and use a Manfrotto 303+ head and stitch upwards of 8-12 images together.
Recently I am taking a number of shots that could only be taken as a single shot, yet still want to enlarge these images.
I will still stitch the medium format shots, but mostly want it for these "single shot" enlargements.
Case in point ... I have a Sky Watcher head .. so shots like the star/landscape shot posted by "ondebanks" and agree with ... need the camera for the special shot .... I too have images in mind but can't shoot them yet due to not having the camera/equipment to shoot them.
I'm working on shots using a water housing with dome port to shoot sunset/sunrise 1/2 1/2 underwater with flash ... so yeah, I want a phase one housing, Aqua Tech have made one, but it's listed as out of stock at B&H ...
I have the opportunity to shoot our back country mt ranges by helicopter, best I had was using my Canon 5DII .. would love a Phase one for that too. As we are moving, it is hard to shoot stitches, so single shots.
I also have a number of landscape shots that have moving items such as waves ... or where perhaps I might catch a bird swoop in close ? or what ever, but movement in some way.
So my thought's of wanting a tech camera for landscape are being crushed by the applications I want these "One shot wonder" images ... I also take my housing, Aqua Tech and Canon 1D4 out into the surf here, and of course restricted in the size I can print up to also there.
So I am thinking perhaps I need both ... so buying a "back" that I can use on a phase one type body, plus use it on a Tech body camera ... and both take excellent glass. So starting with a decent back and build from there seems the way forward for me.
Thank you all for your comments and insights.
I intend to go to the city soon and start looking around ... I live in a tiny country town and have to travel almost 4 hours to Sydney .. so renting is not an option really ... I have to just go up and spend a few days looking around... perhaps a number of times to get a feel for the different systems.
Thanks.
-
Nick,
All your suggested lens counterparts are adaptations from cameras other than the Pentax 645. I deliberately steered clear of lenses such as this, when I drew up my comparative list. I only included lenses made by Mamiya, with an M645 bayonet fitting, specifically for the M645/645AF line, and optimised for the camera's 6x4.5cm format (70mm image circle). I did exactly the same with the Pentax 645 lens line, in this case also allowing any lens made specifically for the "cropped" digital sensor. The point was to see which lenses Pentax and Mamiya/Phase produced, matching that standard definition of a lens system.
Now the inclusion of Pentax 67 lenses may seem justified on the basis of the full coupling adapter that the Pentax 645 has. One can equally use such lenses on a Mamiya, but the aperture won't be coupled (of course some of the longer P67 teles have no aperture coupling at all, even to the Pentax cameras - just a preset aperture). But that is to ignore the design parameters of those lenses - that they are optimised over a 90mm image circle, and that they deliver their desired effect on a 6x7cm output image.
So that 35mm lens you listed gives a 180-degree fisheye effect on 56 x 70 mm film. It's not much of a fisheye on a 44 x 33 mm 645D/645Z sensor: 111 degrees. The M645 24mm is not a full 180-degree fisheye on a 44 x 33 mm sensor either, but at 142 degrees it's 30% more "fishy" than the 37mm, and at 174 degrees on the 60MP and 80MP backs, it's only a few degrees short of its 180-degrees design.
And that 75mm shift lens you listed was designed for semi-wideangle architecture shots on 56 x 70 mm film. It's a short telephoto on a 44 x 33 mm 645D/645Z sensor. It's still a shift lens, but you'd have to be able to position your camera over 60% further away from the building to get the same amount of building into the field of view, and even if that is physically permitted by the surroundings of the building, it changes the whole perspective of the photo.
The 105/2.5 lens you listed is very nice, but it's not a standard lens on a 44 x 33 mm 645D/645Z sensor - it has the field of view of a classic portrait lens. Almost exactly the same as 180mm on 6x7.
There never was an official Pentax 67 500mm f4.5 lens. Pentax made a 500mm f4.5 lens for 35mm format cameras, and at one time in the 1970s offered an adapter to the P67 mount. (http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/002KIV) It can't have been well corrected outside its designed-for-35mm image circle. Also, that lens is not an APO, not even ED.
Photoshop is very good, but if you think it can replicate the unique asymmetric ray-deviating properties of a real soft-focus lens with dialed-in spherical abberation, you are mistaken. Nothing but actual optics can do that.
As for your sneering about "How's the weather in 1985?"...that's just unnecessary. Can we not keep a factual discussion factual? Either the Pentax 645 system has a compact mirror lens, or it doesn't. Fact: it doesn't. It's irrelevant whether you like catadioptric lenses, or consider them relics of the past. I and many others happen to use them. The Mamiya's optics are a step above the 35mm-format mirrors that people may be familiar with...Jack Welch has reported on this in getdpi.
Finally, I cannot let this go without comment:
> The main difference is actually that the older Mamiya 645 lenses are most crap. Looked good for weddings on film. Just not in the game for high-res digital. The older pentax lenses are.
Have you any evidence that "the older Mamiya 645 lenses are most crap"? You realise that you lose credibility when you throw out sweeping, unsubstantiated, derogatory statements like that? Any considered research on this shows that both Mamiya and Pentax older lenses are fine, and in many cases excellent, performers on high-res digital. Quite apart from these 44 x 33mm medium format sensors, there are vast numbers of sample images and reports online by those using them on high-res 36 x 24 mm full frame cameras. Some lenses are better than others, but nobody says they're crap.
Ray
-
Well, you have the 120mm 67 soft focus, if you need it. I would also add that image stabilization at focal lengths of 28-45mm and 90mm (maybe up to 3 stop equiv.), and probably future lenses, is usually more important than a 1.9 lens for landscape. Of course if the camera is always on a tripod this doesn't matter (which is not my experience of landscape photography). Manual focusing will also be greatly aided by live view - a large benefit of the Pentax compared to the P45+. Furthermore clean high iso makes larger DOF possible for all lenses, not to mention sharpness, by using e.g. iso 400 + f4, vs. iso 100 and f1.9 (on one lens).
-
For what it's worth, I've used just about all the MF systems out there at various times, and ended up landing on the 645Z since none of its disadvantages bothered me, like lack of good tethering or leaf shutter lenses.
What I do like, especially right after getting to use it alongside the 645D, is just how fast this camera is and how easy it is to get hand-held shots, only the Leica S came close before it in that regard. Its probably the easiest-to-use camera of the bunch by a long shot, ignoring image quality altogether.
-
Used 645D's are hella cheap right now and are decent to ISO1600.
Why not build a system around that and jump to the Z when need be?
-
This great photography was completely dependent on the camera:
(http://www.lonelyspeck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sony-a7S-review-astrophotography-2.jpg)
It required a clean ISO 51200 to simultaneously (a) keep the exposure short enough to freeze the motion of the stars, (b) allow the lens to be stopped down enough (f/8) to keep both foreground rocks and infinity stars in focus, (c) actually pick up faint stars and Milky Way details and colour despite the paltry amount of light admitted by an f/8 lens in only 8 seconds! Nobody had made such a photo before, because the camera didn't exist which could do it before.
This demonstrates that such a photo can now be created with a single frame rather than via a composite. Pretty cool, IMO. But also IMO it's as easy (and wrong) to overstate the importance of new camera/sensor capabilities as to understate them. I think BC is right in so far as photography is creatively and technically constrained more by photographers' imaginations & skills than by their gear. This doesn't mean more capable gear isn't desirable or can't inspire new levels of creativity.
As for the Pentax 645D, I've used mine at EI 3200 with pretty darn good results given the "right" subject matter (not astrophotography or anything else requiring fine tonal detail in the shadows.)
-Dave-
-
No doubt that some photography / techniques really push the limits of currently available gear. That is what is cool about being able to see work from such a wide range of photographers nowadays. A lot of them are really pushing the limits of technology. Some people push the technology other people the techniques (to get the result they want with what they have) and some do both. Ultimately it is about the vision of the photographer and the end result I guess, everything in between is much more fluid and personal since a lot of times one can achieve similar results in very different ways.
-
OP here....
Almost finally made up my mind.
Seriously considering going for the P45+ back.
Did a trip to Sydney in the past few days and dropped into L&P this morning, spent a few hours in there looking at my options.
I do have to go to Sydney again on Monday and intend to have a look at the Pentax 645Z ... but I'm sure my mind is made up.
I want to buy into a system that is versatile.
Buying a back and the body will enable me to also use the back on a technical body such as Alpa Cambo etc ... and having the phase One body and the Tech camera will also allow me to up grade to a higher back in time ... the P45+ will also hold value I feel, and upgrades from there will less painful once bought into the system.
Both cameras can also take the very best of lenses too, so upgrade options are available for both bodies in backs and lenses.
-
Hi,
I wish you good luck and happiness with your choice of equipment and I hope you are going to share your experience!
Best regards
Erik Kaffehr
OP here....
Almost finally made up my mind.
Seriously considering going for the P45+ back.
Did a trip to Sydney in the past few days and dropped into L&P this morning, spent a few hours in there looking at my options.
I do have to go to Sydney again on Monday and intend to have a look at the Pentax 645Z ... but I'm sure my mind is made up.
I want to buy into a system that is versatile.
Buying a back and the body will enable me to also use the back on a technical body such as Alpa Cambo etc ... and having the phase One body and the Tech camera will also allow me to up grade to a higher back in time ... the P45+ will also hold value I feel, and upgrades from there will less painful once bought into the system.
Both cameras can also take the very best of lenses too, so upgrade options are available for both bodies in backs and lenses.
-
Thanks, Erik, I sure will.
Being a water guy I like the option that there should be a few water housings out there for the Phase One too ... even though it's listed as "no longer available" ... I'll find one sooner or later.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/996754-REG/aquatech_11601_meridian_80_sport_housing.html
Up-date, just e-mailed AquaTech about this housing, for those interested in one too..
We have some mate we did a run of 25 units and sold them pretty quickly and we made another 25 which most went to phase one.
I am pretty sure we have 5-7 units ready to go. Let me know what lenses your going with and I can get you a good price on this.
Regards,
---------------------------------
Phil Gallagher
AquaTech
www.aquatech.net