Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: gavincato on July 15, 2015, 04:07:37 am
-
Hi guys
Just saying hello. I'm a new 645z owner. Was searching for medium format forums and found here.
I wrote up a review of the 645z here ;
http://www.gavincato.com.au/the-pentax-645z-a-wedding-photographers-medium-format-dream/
And am having good results using the lovely hasselblad 110mm f/2 on it for weddings/portraits.
cheers
Gav
-
Great write up on your blog Gav, thanks for that!
I am considering the 645z myself right now. I own and use a Hasselblad H5d 40 but would like to get the new sensor and the upgrade for my blad would be more than the Pentax with two or three lenses!
Do you ever use tethering with the Pentax? If so, does it work well? I heard mixed things... Tethering is sort of important for me shooting fashion with clients and crew on set...
thanks,
martin
-
The dynamic range mania ;D
(http://www.gavincato.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/28-4000-page/IMGP3122(pp_w948_h464).jpg)
-
Excellent review and the images are all top notch. Pentax should thank you.
-
Hi martin - I've never tried shooting it tethered - I haven't been in a studio for years. Just an outdoor shooter mostly :)
-
Once again the medium format myth: The depth of field is beautiful. On smaller sensor systems the DoF drops off near instantly when using fast aperture tele lenses. On medium format you just get this beautiful roll off to the out of focus regions. I just can’t get enough of this look. I don’t say this to disparage 35mm based systems – Canon & Nikon both make some absolutely beautiful glass. But the way the medium format looks is just more what I am after when shooting people.
There was a recent discussion on this and as I remember it the DOF drop off was dismissed as not existing like it was said in the above statement. It probably comes down to placebo and the differences between lens designs....
-
There's only one plane that is maximally "in focus" - all the others have larger circles of confusion. Enough for theory. Question is, how big can a COC get before it is deemed "out of focus". The practical definition of DOF depends on degree of magnification to final size print, viewing distance, etc, as well as the usually specified field of view, focal length, aperture.
So, Hans and others, you could be entirely correct, or, just plain wrong, depending on the specific conditions of the comparison. I suppose that the real question is, does the depth of field "roll off" (whatever that means - presumably the increase in COC in planes close to the in-focus plane) matter under your particular viewing conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
-
There's only one plane that is maximally "in focus" - all the others have larger circles of confusion. Enough for theory. Question is, how big can a COC get before it is deemed "out of focus". The practical definition of DOF depends on degree of magnification to final size print, viewing distance, etc, as well as the usually specified field of view, focal length, aperture.
So, Hans and others, you could be entirely correct, or, just plain wrong, depending on the specific conditions of the comparison. I suppose that the real question is, does the depth of field "roll off" (whatever that means - presumably the increase in COC in planes close to the in-focus plane) matter under your particular viewing conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
Yes, I'm sorry to say pretty basic, but you have not addressed the issue of differences due to different sensor size ;)
-
There's only one plane that is maximally "in focus" - all the others have larger circles of confusion. Enough for theory. Question is, how big can a COC get before it is deemed "out of focus". The practical definition of DOF depends on degree of magnification to final size print, viewing distance, etc, as well as the usually specified field of view, focal length, aperture.
So, Hans and others, you could be entirely correct, or, just plain wrong, depending on the specific conditions of the comparison. I suppose that the real question is, does the depth of field "roll off" (whatever that means - presumably the increase in COC in planes close to the in-focus plane) matter under your particular viewing conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
There was a similar discussion on this thread http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100851.40
and at least one post regarding DOF rolloff.
-
Hi Gavin,
Wonderful review, that mirrors much of my experience with the camera.
Though Architecture doesn't tend to move around as quickly as your subjects do.
Cheers
Andrew
Hi guys
Just saying hello. I'm a new 645z owner. Was searching for medium format forums and found here.
I wrote up a review of the 645z here ;
http://www.gavincato.com.au/the-pentax-645z-a-wedding-photographers-medium-format-dream/
And am having good results using the lovely hasselblad 110mm f/2 on it for weddings/portraits.
cheers
Gav
-
Once again the medium format myth: The depth of field is beautiful. On smaller sensor systems the DoF drops off near instantly when using fast aperture tele lenses. On medium format you just get this beautiful roll off to the out of focus regions. I just can’t get enough of this look. I don’t say this to disparage 35mm based systems – Canon & Nikon both make some absolutely beautiful glass. But the way the medium format looks is just more what I am after when shooting people.
There was a recent discussion on this and as I remember it the DOF drop off was dismissed as not existing like it was said in the above statement. It probably comes down to placebo and the differences between lens designs....
Hi Hans,
Well I'm either crazy or seeing things. Even my wife who couldn't care less about camera gear noticed it and commented on it completely unprompted.
I have not done proper side by side tests but I have shot at a wedding at similar times with a canon 135/2 on a 1Dx then a few minutes later on the 645z with pentax 150/2.8 - the DoF rolloff, or whatever you want to call it looked a lot nicer to me on the 645z.
But I've noticed a "nicer" dof across most lenses even the humble 55mm.
-
Hi,
I have shooting with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and a Sony Alpha 99 for something like two years. I have very few shots that are comparable, but I would say that I see very little difference whenever I shoot under comparable conditions. Let's say both cameras on tripod, Sony at f/8 and Hasselblad at f/11 same distance and same field of view, I see very little difference.
So, I would agree with Hans on this issue.
Just so you know, Hans was instructor on one of the Phase One workshops, so he had proper access to Phase One equipment. I would say that both Hans and I would acknowledge that the resolution advantage is there with MFDB, we just don't see the magic…
The Pentax 645 is a fine camera, with a state of the art sensor that is probably very similar to the one in the latest Niko, Sony and Pentax cameras. A larger sensor has some advantages, like less noise and higher MTF at a given feature size if all other things are constant, but that is more like physics than magics.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Hans,
Well I'm either crazy or seeing things. Even my wife who couldn't care less about camera gear noticed it and commented on it completely unprompted.
I have not done proper side by side tests but I have shot at a wedding at similar times with a canon 135/2 on a 1Dx then a few minutes later on the 645z with pentax 150/2.8 - the DoF rolloff, or whatever you want to call it looked a lot nicer to me on the 645z.
But I've noticed a "nicer" dof across most lenses even the humble 55mm.
-
Beautiful work Gavin.
Could I pls ask what is your post workflow to add the sunlight flare across the whole images like this, really beautiful:
http://www.gavincato.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/09-4000-page/sam-erin-wedding0031.jpg
Ya
-
There's a gentle rendering character to many Pentax lenses that in my experience works well with higher resolution films & sensors. The 77/1.8 Ltd. is a favorite of mine on Sony's A7r for this reason. The A series 100/2.8 is another. In the 645 range the 75 & 150mm f/2.8s, in particular, have this character. They provide enough spatial resolution (for me anyway) without any hard/harsh qualities.
-Dave-
-
Hi Erik - I do doubt that at small apertures you could see a difference but personally I see a difference at wide apertures - as a wedding guy I generally shoot at fairly fast apertures.
If I didn't see a difference i would stick with my canon gear :)
Having said that this is the first medium format I've owned. Maybe it is the lenses? All I know is I'm liking the results a lot better then on my fast canon lenses.
Cheers
-
Hi there - that's just the beautiful way the 110mm handles flare, it's great.
Beautiful work Gavin.
Could I pls ask what is your post workflow to add the sunlight flare across the whole images like this, really beautiful:
http://www.gavincato.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/09-4000-page/sam-erin-wedding0031.jpg
Ya
-
Hi Gavin,
Good point! You are right that I am mostly shooting medium apertures, both on the Sony and the Blad.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik - I do doubt that at small apertures you could see a difference but personally I see a difference at wide apertures - as a wedding guy I generally shoot at fairly fast apertures.
If I didn't see a difference i would stick with my canon gear :)
Having said that this is the first medium format I've owned. Maybe it is the lenses? All I know is I'm liking the results a lot better then on my fast canon lenses.
Cheers
-
Hi Hans,
Well I'm either crazy or seeing things. Even my wife who couldn't care less about camera gear noticed it and commented on it completely unprompted.
I have not done proper side by side tests but I have shot at a wedding at similar times with a canon 135/2 on a 1Dx then a few minutes later on the 645z with pentax 150/2.8 - the DoF rolloff, or whatever you want to call it looked a lot nicer to me on the 645z.
But I've noticed a "nicer" dof across most lenses even the humble 55mm.
I'm not doubting what you see. Most likely there are several things at play here: The different rendering of the high resolution 645Z sensor relative to the low resolution 1Dx and the lenses that are different. It would be interesting for you to try the new Canon 5Ds in a similar setting with the Canon lenses and to test it against the 645Z. I'm sure it would still look different but I think that you would find the 5Ds quite different from the 1Dx. I haven't tried the 5Ds yet, but the differences in rendering from the Phase One IQ160, the Nikon D800E and D810 and the Canon 5D mkIII and 1Ds III were all quite visible. In addition the different lenses I have had for the Canons and Nikons all rendered differently. So what exactly makes the difference is in my opinion a lot of factors and not just the sensor size. I may be wrong, but then so be it :)
-
I'm not doubting what you see. Most likely there are several things at play here: The different rendering of the high resolution 645Z sensor relative to the low resolution 1Dx and the lenses that are different. It would be interesting for you to try the new Canon 5Ds in a similar setting with the Canon lenses and to test it against the 645Z. I'm sure it would still look different but I think that you would find the 5Ds quite different from the 1Dx. I haven't tried the 5Ds yet, but the differences in rendering from the Phase One IQ160, the Nikon D800E and D810 and the Canon 5D mkIII and 1Ds III were all quite visible. In addition the different lenses I have had for the Canons and Nikons all rendered differently. So what exactly makes the difference is in my opinion a lot of factors and not just the sensor size. I may be wrong, but then so be it :)
Yea.
The thing is no camera or lens work by themselves. The image is a result of the filters>lens>camera/sensor>software/processing. On can isolate each component and evaluate but ultimately one works with a set of components to make an image. The are thousands of possible combinations but some are only possible with certain systems. (you can't process native 645z raw files using C1Pro for example or use leica lenses on the 645z)
-
Very true guys. Thanks for the interesting read ;)
-
Oh btw - hans - I have tried a 5dsr - petty disappointed in it. Sheer resolution aside it looked identical to the 1dx.
Having said that it was only for 10-15 mins but it made me glad I got the 645z.
Cheers.
-
Hi Dave,
What adapter are you using for the K mount lenses on tha A7r?
Have you AF or electronic aperature control?
Cheers
Andrew
There's a gentle rendering character to many Pentax lenses that in my experience works well with higher resolution films & sensors. The 77/1.8 Ltd. is a favorite of mine on Sony's A7r for this reason. The A series 100/2.8 is another. In the 645 range the 75 & 150mm f/2.8s, in particular, have this character. They provide enough spatial resolution (for me anyway) without any hard/harsh qualities.
-Dave-
-
Very generous Gavin. Thanks for so many examples of wide open Bokeh with medium format images. Luscious, images soaked in ambience.
I only have one eye so I have to see clearly through the viewfinder, hence opting for the bigger sensors. The switch back to MF was a godsend as I found the dslr's image size for viewing to be wretchedly inadequate. My old film K1000 Pentax looking almost 3d compared to the mini view in modern DSLRs.
I went for a Blad H5d over the new MF cmos variants primarily for the image size in the viewfinder, plus my work is predominately studio, so ISO not a factor. In your situation, I'd be going down your direction in choice. It's also great to see a wedding photographer getting really serious with image quality over convenience. That discipline keeps our profession a 'profession'.
Image H5d. 120mm overlaid with scanned Tri X film.
-
Oh btw - hans - I have tried a 5dsr - petty disappointed in it. Sheer resolution aside it looked identical to the 1dx.
Having said that it was only for 10-15 mins but it made me glad I got the 645z.
Cheers.
I tried the 645D that one of my workshop participants had brought along and except for resolution it looked like my Canon 1Ds III at the time. That was for landscapes.
I have not made a comparison for shallow dof type shots between the 645D or the Phase One IQ160 and the Canons and Nikons I have. Without mentioning which lens you were using on the 5DsR the short test you made is almost meaningless. I would think that your 110mm f/2 shots could have been done with the Canon 135 f/2L lens or even at a longer distance with the Canon 200 f/2.8L or even the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II at 200mm to give the same or even mor shallow DOF. I must admit that the bokeh in some of the 110mm f/2 shots is not that pleasing to me. I think you make beautiful and romantic images that I'm sure your clients love. I'm also sure they don't even look at the bokeh that much :) I have seen shots taken with the Canon 85 f/1.2L that are stunning with atmosphere and dreamy bokeh, so I'm not that convinced about the Pentax being so superior here in that respect.
The other thing is if you really need that resolution for your wedding shots. Do you print in sizes larger than Super A2 or A1 as part of the package for your clients? I made test prints from Canon 5D III, Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ160 printed on Super A2 and I saw no difference to speak of at a viewing distance of an arm length.
It's great that you are happy with the Pentax and if that gives you more pleasure and confidence in what you do and more happy clients, then that is really great.
-
This image below was shot a couple of weeks ago with the FA 120 Macro f13 - 1/40th
Focused on the windows.
I really like the way the foreground is ever so slightly oof.
-
What adapter are you using for the K mount lenses on tha A7r?
Have you AF or electronic aperature control?
I'm using a straight tube Novoflex adapter…fully manual. Most of the lenses are manual focus anyway (and some even predate auto aperture diaphragm stopdown).
-Dave-
-
I tried the 645D that one of my workshop participants had brought along and except for resolution it looked like my Canon 1Ds III at the time. That was for landscapes.
I have not made a comparison for shallow dof type shots between the 645D or the Phase One IQ160 and the Canons and Nikons I have. Without mentioning which lens you were using on the 5DsR the short test you made is almost meaningless. I would think that your 110mm f/2 shots could have been done with the Canon 135 f/2L lens or even at a longer distance with the Canon 200 f/2.8L or even the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II at 200mm to give the same or even mor shallow DOF. I must admit that the bokeh in some of the 110mm f/2 shots is not that pleasing to me. I think you make beautiful and romantic images that I'm sure your clients love. I'm also sure they don't even look at the bokeh that much :) I have seen shots taken with the Canon 85 f/1.2L that are stunning with atmosphere and dreamy bokeh, so I'm not that convinced about the Pentax being so superior here in that respect.
The other thing is if you really need that resolution for your wedding shots. Do you print in sizes larger than Super A2 or A1 as part of the package for your clients? I made test prints from Canon 5D III, Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ160 printed on Super A2 and I saw no difference to speak of at a viewing distance of an arm length.
It's great that you are happy with the Pentax and if that gives you more pleasure and confidence in what you do and more happy clients, then that is really great.
Hi Hans,
Thanks for the lovely comment and the interesting insights :)
With the canon lenses, I have all of the ones mentioned except the 200/2.8 - I have the 85/1.2, the 135/2, have owned the 70-200/2.8 and 200/2 (and 1.8 before that). In a moment of madness I also used a 300/2.8 for wedding location shoots.
This is being really picky now, but my feeling is that the fast aperture canon glass mentioned - whilst it does do a great job of achieving very shallow DoF, I don't like the way it really obliterates the background. Using the 135/2 for example at f/2 it just completely is mush in the background. And I know thats what a lot of people like - I used to be one of them.
Whether it be the lenses or the bigger sensor or a combination of factors, the f/2 and f/2.8 stuff on the pentax just looks better to me. The background whilst they still get significantly knocked out of focus have a nice texture to them. I love the circular highlights and general look of the bokeh - and I love the fact that I'm getting something that looks a little different to my competition whilst still keeping true to my style for my couples.
I've just printed off a couple of 30x22" prints from the 110mm and they just look incredible. Not hugely sharp (getting it bang on focus wise is tough) but it just has beautiful look about it. Putting it on the wall next to my older 1Dx portfolio shots to my eyes they look miles better.
As you mentioned, it is giving me confidence which is probably more important than anything. The 5Dsr thing, i just mean that generally the files look near identical to what I've been getting from the 1dx for ages - in my opinion the sensor offers no improvement apart from more pixels/rez. I don't think I could tell them apart in lightroom unless i zoomed in. Whereas with the 645z files it's plain as day. Not meaning to start a canon vs 645z thing. I like my canon gear a lot still!
cheers