Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on July 23, 2015, 09:11:03 pm
-
Which camera is better *as a camera*? They have the same sensor, and we will take off the table that the XF back and viewfinder can be detached, and that C1 is very good and that the XF takes leaf shutters. We'll also take off the table the fact that the Pentax costs about 1/3 or 1/4 of the Phase/IQ250C combo.
Just compare the two as far as straight SLR shooting ergonomics, and ability, with their existing lens range.
Edmund
-
Not going to lie, based on the criteria you posted, the Pentax would be the best in my opinion (and I voted that way as well). Same sensor, same color fieldality, you can get essentially the same image (may have to process the files a little more to emulate the color of one to the other) lenses are nice, etc. If you need an all around camera that you will be using to shoot a few different genres of work, especially if you work on the fly, the Pentax is it.
If you need leaf shutters though and good support and always light you work and a better user experience with using the camera (sorry Edmund, I have held both cameras and like the XF better), then the P1 system would work better. However, if you did all that and needed leaf shutters, you might as well go with a CCD back and get the better color field too.
-
Not going to lie, based on the criteria you posted, the Pentax would be the best in my opinion (and I voted that way as well). Same sensor, same color fieldality, you can get essentially the same image (may have to process the files a little more to emulate the color of one to the other) lenses are nice, etc. If you need an all around camera that you will be using to shoot a few different genres of work, especially if you work on the fly, the Pentax is it.
If you need leaf shutters though and good support and always light you work and a better user experience with using the camera (sorry Edmund, I have held both cameras and like the XF better), then the P1 system would work better. However, if you did all that and needed leaf shutters, you might as well go with a CCD back and get the better color field too.
Joe,
Thanks for looking at the topic - and giving the opinion of somebody who has already looked at both cameras, and works for neither company :)
Edmund
-
Is the CCD Skin tone difference noticeable? I am just contemplating which camera to buy with limited budget. If there's a noticeable difference I will get a used IQ1 or P45/65 back or even a Hassy. Otherwise I may go for 645Z or 5Ds.
Is H5D much better than H2 body in terms of focusing? Not talking about True Focus here.
-
Is the CCD Skin tone difference noticeable? I am just contemplating which camera to buy with limited budget. If there's a noticeable difference I will get a used IQ1 or P45/65 back or even a Hassy. Otherwise I may go for 645Z or 5Ds.
Is H5D much better than H2 body in terms of focusing? Not talking about True Focus here.
All around, I feel CCDs just give you better color, regardless if it is skin tones or building materials (I shoot architecture and interiors). I just always get a sense of smoothness when working on a file from a CCD camera as opposed to a CMOS. Even at 200 or 400 ISO. I know some will disagree, but I just never like the color a CMOS sensor gives (although I am curious about the new Leica S2 since Leica advertises as a 16-bit CMOS, a first of its kind).
However, if you are working at 200 or 400, you better nail it with the exposure and lighting, because you have little meat in the file for anything else beside noise reduction. (Pretty much at that ISO pick adequate noise reduction or pushing/pulling the file, not both.)
To me color is paramont, everything else is secondary. But I work slow, plan and light all of my shots so I need as little work in post as possible, and I have the clients who allow me to do it.
For others, better ISO performance may be a priority, or something else a CMOS does better. In that case, the Pentax would be best (unless you need to use a tech camera or leaf shutters, like me too).
If you really need leaf shutters though, then I would assume you are the type of shooter who plans and lights your images. If that is the case, to me it just does not make sense to spend the money on a P1 system and not buy a CCD base back. (With a tech camera, I will concede that for some a CMOS based back would be better.)
-
I'm lucky enough to have a Credo 60 and the 645Z, though I've never used the Credo on a DF or XF body. I did look at them, but then the Z came into my life.
My vote given the criteria is the Pentax.
Having shot Pentaxes for 20 years the 645Z was like picking my K5iis (though an overweight or gym buffed one). Pentax has kept usability a slowly evolution through all their bodies. They aren't substantially different from one body to the other.
I didn't have to think about anything with it.
I've shot similar compositions with the tech cam and the 645z and can share if people would like.
Felix, on a limited budget...I'd go the 645z without a doubt.
-
Looks like Phase owners are less vocal about the virtues of their camera :)
Edmund
-
I've shot both, love the IQ system, but the Z in hand really fun to work with.
-
645z no question...
-
Looks like Phase owners are less vocal about the virtues of their camera :)
Edmund
I can be vocal about my Phase One back, however your criteria for comparison sucks all the marrow out of it.
-
Maybe they're not in the mood for trolling right now.
Be patient, grasshopper.
-
I can be vocal about my Phase One back, however your criteria for comparison sucks all the marrow out of it.
To be fair, I have removed price as a criterium as well :)I was thinking of something like travel/documentary camera, a bit like Philip Bloom uses his MF camera (http://philipbloom.net/blog/pentax645z/), or wedding on-location use, like Doug showed us how he uses his personal Phase gear. (http://www.doug-peterson.com) Philip Bloom is well known as a videographer, and I guess travels with some Sony video gear that also provides him with telephoto ability if he needs it.
If one chases down the Philip Bloom link above, one sees some amazing crops, which show why it may be worth schlepping an MF camera even in a daypack as a snapshot camera. A lot of non-professionals do read these forums, and it may be useful for them to know what works well for what job. I would be the first to recommend a C1/Phase setup to anyone who wants to do intensive studio or repro work, although I am sure such a person wouldn't need to ask me :)
Edmund
-
...we will take off the table that the XF back and viewfinder can be detached, and that C1 is very good and that the XF takes leaf shutters. We'll also take off the table the fact that the Pentax costs about 1/3 or 1/4 of the Phase/IQ250C combo.
Just compare the two as far as straight SLR shooting ergonomics, and ability, with their existing lens range.
Edmund
I've yet to shoot with either, but the XF does feel better in my hands. That said, I'm curious as to what you are trying to understand in posing the question the way you do. You take the interchangeable viewfinder off the table, yet it extends the flexibility of the XF's ERGONOMICS. You take C1 off the table, yet it is a part of the Phase's ABILITY, especially for tethered shooters. And you take the leaf shutters off the table, yet is it a part of Phase's EXISTING LENS RANGE and paramount for those who require them. Nevermind the fact that the Pentax does NOT have a full frame 60 or 80 MP capability even if it were 10x the price.
Looks like Phase owners are less vocal about the virtues of their camera :)
Edmund
Vraiment??? ::) With the new Phase cameras being available for a little over a month, how many XF owners are there here realistically? ???
Call me the naïve newbie lurker, but sometimes you seem to have an axe to grind with Phase One. Did you have a bad experience with them?
I like what the Z offers so far. In fact, it's on the table for me right now. Interestingly, the things you take off the table are among the top things that have me interested in the Phase system. Besides, chacun son goût, non?
Alvin
-
Not an option on your poll, but I've tried both XF and 645Z and I'll be keeping my Hy6 Mod2
-
Which camera is better *as a camera*? They have the same sensor, and we will take off the table that the XF back and viewfinder can be detached, and that C1 is very good and that the XF takes leaf shutters. We'll also take off the table the fact that the Pentax costs about 1/3 or 1/4 of the Phase/IQ250C combo.
Just compare the two as far as straight SLR shooting ergonomics, and ability, with their existing lens range.
Edmund
Let's compare a Ferrari and a Lada, ignore the Ferrari's engine, suspension and electronics and just to be fair, ignore that the Lada is cheap as shit.
No offense to the Pentax owners here, it"s a great camera, but the caveats attached to this comparison are asinine.
-
How many Phase owners have done more than hold an XF?
How many Pentax owners have done more than hold an XF?
Those are interesting and relevant question(s) which merit a wider reformulation.
How many buyers have actually been able to locate dealers for each MF brand (Phase, Hassy, Leica, Pentax) and seriously try out each?
How many people on this forum have already (pre)ordered a 5DSR or an A7II, a Pentax or even a Phase XF without a real tryout of the final commercial version?
I think that with the haphazard buying patterns evidenced on this forum my poll makes as much sense as most presidential elections - for which as we all know there is no real try before you buy.
Edmund
-
Not an option on your poll, but I've tried both XF and 645Z and I'll be keeping my Hy6 Mod2
I guess I forgot the option entitled "A plague on both their houses" :)
Edmund
-
Eronald, you've outdone yourself on this thread, truly brilliant.
Personally I'd like to know which is best between the iphone and the Z, lets ignore resolution, interchangeable lenses, ISO, tilt screen and concentrate on which can make a phone call and fit in your pocket.
Mat
-
According to the Urban Dictionary, a troll is "one who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
Does anyone think that the OP is interested in which camera is better?
-
According to the Urban Dictionary, a troll is "- ne who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
Does anyone think that the OP is interested in which camera is better?
Exactly:
Here is the thread starter, just pick one ;D:
-
Exactly:
Here is the thread starter, just pick one ;D:
I already provided a profile icon ;D
Edmund
-
I've no doubt there are plenty. Buyer's remorse feeds these forums.
Klaban,
Look here -XF blind buy, posted here now:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102341.0
And you know, I don't think the guy is anything out of the ordinary, it's just become hard to actually evaluate MF gear, and some people have more money than time.
Edmund
-
Phase One is all about leaf shutters, interchangeability, tethering performance and so on. You can't strip the Phase system of everything that people pay a premium for in the first place.
How about we compare lawn mowers to combines?
-
Phase One is all about leaf shutters, interchangeability, tethering performance and so on. You can't strip the Phase system of everything that people pay a premium for in the first place.
How about we compare lawn mowers to combines?
It's a valid remark. But then maybe Phase dealers have historically been very good at getting people to buy combines when they need more agile industrial lawn mowers, and this poll shows that now that there is a heavy lawn mower manufacturer in town, agile and cheap "heavy lawn mowers" are starting to sell real well, and are actually appreciated by professional lawn maintainers for the fast effective job they do, not only their price. That's why I removed price from my criteria.
It's nice to have long do-everything feature lists. However.
- What percentage of MF SLR buyers genuinely need/want these features: high resolution , high DR, the "MF look", fast accurate focus, a decent rear screen and focus check, and a decent frame rate?
- What percent of MF SLR buyers genuinely need/want any of these features : leaf shutter, tethering, swap-back, and tech cam wide-angle lens use to supplement the MF dSLR body ?
Edmund
PS I'm not disrespecting the tech-cam and Alpa crowd. It's just that I'm not convinced that they're rushing out to buy an XF :)
PPS I would call the Hassy an agile combine with a full-combine price.
-
The Q has been answered in the first few posts but as a Pentax 645z and 5DSr owner it's a question of am I even the slightest bit interested in the XF?
F*** no, it offers me nothing that I need and is much more costly. Nice to look at sure, but so is my wife and she's a much better long term investment.
-
The Q has been answered in the first few posts but as a Pentax 645z and 5DSr owner...
Why do you own both if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...or more money than sense?
...and some have more time than money or sense.
Case in point, the first post in this thread.
-
Why do you own both if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
It's quite complicated. Forgetting the 645z for a moment, I'm a wedding photographer and shoot 50 weddings a year give or take a few. Before getting the 5Dr my wedding kit bag would consist of a 5D3 on the left and a 1DX on the right with the 645z for formals and couple shots.
The 5Dsr interested me as a replacement for the 1DX which I love for it's speed and the edge it had over the 5D3. The 5D3 can only fire 6 shots before the buffer fills and there was less button programming available vs the 1DX. The 5Ds and r have addressed this shortfall, 20 shots in a buffer, smoother operation (not quicker as such) and the AF 'feels' faster, more accurate and the ai servo mode is better imho. Plus as I stay late at most weddings the weight difference is appreciable.
So happy I am with it I'm thinking of getting another and running two 5Ds's although I might not get another r for no reason other than I already have one and price. Initially I thought to lose the 1DX but I'm sure it's something I should be keeping for high speed stuff that happens. I'm 'that guy' who throws stuff out or sells it only to find he needs it badly the next week for something!
The 645z was never really in question, love it and the glass is definitely better than the Canon stuff older than 5 years. I like the framing of it, the sensor size and the tilt screen.
The 5DSr seems to of been overlooked with all the A7rii hype, deservedly so I guess but a lot of it IS hype. I don't think the A7 bodies are pro level and it doesn't matter what they throw at the a7 it's still got the feel and operation of a consumer camera and that's no good for me or my workflow. I'm rambling but just trying to explain my thought process.
But as you can see both are complimentary. In the field I can use the 5Ds for faster moving and tracking, there's more af points and the dynamic range IS MUCH BETTER THAN ANY CANON BODY TO DATE and the colours are lovely to look at out of the camera. There's talk of Canon needing to use a Sony sensor but scale that sensor down to 25mp, double the pixel size and I can't see Canon having problems.
Both the 5Ds and 645z are complimentary, if the 5Ds had a tilt screen and focus peaking I might sell the 645z at a push, like if I needed some cash quickly but both bought together with several lenses are still cheaper than an XF with a 150mm lens.
If anyone is considering getting a 5DS, try it, it's really good.
-
+1 Gel - the 5DsR is a great camera, and there is no match for the big white glass in the MF world.
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue. I am sure the 5DsR is a very compelling camera. Many of the Canon lenses are clearly excellent.
Although I have the Sony A7rII on order, I would agree that it is not a professional level body, Sony also agrees, else they would call it Sony A9 and they don't.
For me, the camera is an imager. I am a slow tripod mounted user shooting stuff like landscape.
I have no views about Phase XF IQ250 vs Pentax 645Z, except that price is a factor I cannot ignore. The Pentax 645D was within my considerations, but that I went with an old Hasselblad with older Zeiss lenses at very low prices. A real deciding factor was the 1.3X crop on the Pentax - that makes real wide angles very expensive.
The XF has some nice innovations, like shooting from live view mode. Good idea with leaf shutters.
But the XF/IQ is beyond my means, so why speculate about it?
Best regards
Erik
It's quite complicated. Forgetting the 645z for a moment, I'm a wedding photographer and shoot 50 weddings a year give or take a few. Before getting the 5Dr my wedding kit bag would consist of a 5D3 on the left and a 1DX on the right with the 645z for formals and couple shots.
The 5Dsr interested me as a replacement for the 1DX which I love for it's speed and the edge it had over the 5D3. The 5D3 can only fire 6 shots before the buffer fills and there was less button programming available vs the 1DX. The 5Ds and r have addressed this shortfall, 20 shots in a buffer, smoother operation (not quicker as such) and the AF 'feels' faster, more accurate and the ai servo mode is better imho. Plus as I stay late at most weddings the weight difference is appreciable.
So happy I am with it I'm thinking of getting another and running two 5Ds's although I might not get another r for no reason other than I already have one and price. Initially I thought to lose the 1DX but I'm sure it's something I should be keeping for high speed stuff that happens. I'm 'that guy' who throws stuff out or sells it only to find he needs it badly the next week for something!
The 645z was never really in question, love it and the glass is definitely better than the Canon stuff older than 5 years. I like the framing of it, the sensor size and the tilt screen.
The 5DSr seems to of been overlooked with all the A7rii hype, deservedly so I guess but a lot of it IS hype. I don't think the A7 bodies are pro level and it doesn't matter what they throw at the a7 it's still got the feel and operation of a consumer camera and that's no good for me or my workflow. I'm rambling but just trying to explain my thought process.
But as you can see both are complimentary. In the field I can use the 5Ds for faster moving and tracking, there's more af points and the dynamic range IS MUCH BETTER THAN ANY CANON BODY TO DATE and the colours are lovely to look at out of the camera. There's talk of Canon needing to use a Sony sensor but scale that sensor down to 25mp, double the pixel size and I can't see Canon having problems.
Both the 5Ds and 645z are complimentary, if the 5Ds had a tilt screen and focus peaking I might sell the 645z at a push, like if I needed some cash quickly but both bought together with several lenses are still cheaper than an XF with a 150mm lens.
If anyone is considering getting a 5DS, try it, it's really good.
-
Erik,
I am curious - since you already have the back, and as you say work off a tripod, why don't you use a tech cam where you can get those spectacular pseudo symmetric wides? It would really seem that you should be entirely happy with your existing Phase imager, and just looking to put something in front of it.
Edmund
-
should be entirely happy with your existing Phase imager,
Edmund
I'm not speaking for Erik but from many of his posts it is clear his P45 is not making him entirely happy. Not even C1 seems to produce the required magic. I think Erik suffers from buyers remorse which is usually impossible to shake off. I bet he can tell you to the cent (or equivalent) what he paid, a sure sign. If the gear pleases the cost in financial terms quickly gets forgotten. I suspect it is due to the V mount. I certainly find the H system a much more pleasant and productive shooting platform than than the V and I have both with backs in both ( at the moment). Which by a circuitous route brings us back on topic: Better in the context of your question is down to the shooting experience, which very few currently have and may well be coloured by the novelty of the new as yet.
-
Hi Chris,
You are not entirely correct in your presumptions…
The way it is I am an engineer having a long time interest in the science of photography. That said I am also a quite keen amateur photographer.
Now, being interested in the technology, I felt that there were a lot of presumptions about advantages that simple were not reasonable from engineering standpoint, foremost the often stated 6-stop advantage in DR, which was often discussed when I bought my back. I also had an interest into going into MFD, but I felt MFD was to expensive.
Renting an MFD back was out of question, but I felt that an MFD at around 10k $US would be acceptable. I also had a few Hasselblad lenses I wanted to put in use, so when I found a back for around 10k I decided to jump into MFD.
Obviously, first things I have done was to verify the stuff that I felt reasonable and unreasonable. I found no great surprises. The P45+ was a bit weak on DR. Colour rendition is a bit to taste. What I have found here is that auto white balance on the Sony was quite reliable, the P45+ less so.
Regarding sharpness, the P45+ delivers, but focusing a Hasselblad V system is not easy. I use it with a Zeiss monocular (recommended by Joseph Holmes), that helps a lot.
So what I would say it performs as expected:
- DR slightly below my Sony stuff
- Color rendition is much dependent on profiles
- Sharpness was up to expectations
So I was and still am shooting along with it happily. But I feel that the only real benefit is higher resolution.
So I don't fell buyers remorse as the system works almost exactly as I expected. Compared to expectations there are plus and minus points.
The major plus is that I like shooting with it and I actually like the 49x37 crop.
Now, why didn't I go on with a technical camera? Three reasons
- Sustainability - repair/replacement costs
- Focusing, need a sliding adapter
- Live view would be optimal on a technical camera, but todays CMOS sensors are 1.3X crop
- Not practical on travel as I also need a 135 kit.
So, next buy is a Sony A7rII with a Canon 24/3.5 T&S and a new Sony Macro. But I keep the P45+ kit, I like shooting with it. I shot about the same number of images on the P45+ the latest two years.
So I am not unhappy with my expenditure, but I feel that it was not a very smart outlay.
So, my suggestions are simply:
- MFD has a resolution advantage (or used to have)
- MFD has an advantage of sensor size
- There is no magic about MFD - same physics apply as to any digital camera.
- Those factors need to be considered before buying into MFD
Regarding H vs. V, I have little doubt that the H-system is superior, but building a complete system with lenses would be much more expensive.
Question here is Phase One XF or Pentax 645Z? For me, neither. Phase One is to expensive. With Pentax 645 I am a bit considered about the lenses. Pentax 645D was on my shopping list, from time to time.
Best regards
Erik
I'm not speaking for Erik but from many of his posts it is clear his P45 is not making him entirely happy. Not even C1 seems to produce the required magic. I think Erik suffers from buyers remorse which is usually impossible to shake off. I bet he can tell you to the cent (or equivalent) what he paid, a sure sign. If the gear pleases the cost in financial terms quickly gets forgotten. I suspect it is due to the V mount. I certainly find the H system a much more pleasant and productive shooting platform than than the V and I have both with backs in both ( at the moment). Which by a circuitous route brings us back on topic: Better in the context of your question is down to the shooting experience, which very few currently have and may well be coloured by the novelty of the new as yet.
-
Hi Edmund,
It is about costs. I planned to buy a HCam-B1 about this time but went Sony A7rII instead.
Also, I would say that technical cameras make best sense with live view backs.
Just to say, Chris Barret has a nice thread about switching from Phase One IQ-260 to Sony A7r: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=101458.0 , my reasons may be similar.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I am curious - since you already have the back, and as you say work off a tripod, why don't you use a tech cam where you can get those spectacular pseudo symmetric wides? It would really seem that you should be entirely happy with your existing Phase imager, and just looking to put something in front of it.
Edmund
-
---------snip-------------
Question here is Phase One XF or Pentax 645Z? For me, neither. Phase One is to expensive. With Pentax 645 I am a bit considered about the lenses. Pentax 645D was on my shopping list, from time to time.
Erik
Yes, the original 645D was marketed as a landscape amateur camera in Japan, originally; obviously the new Z is a different beast, just as the XF is a step up from the Phamiya.
Regarding DR, as an ex-P45+ owner I learnt two things:
- The DR is really there at base ISO, it was a decent product for its time, but to see it you need to expose around ISO 40 instead of ISO 100 - the ISO is overstated deliberately by 1-2 stops. Not all chips are equal though.
- White balance is really crucial, you should use a mini-colorchecker or something like it, and recompute a profile in each site. The CCD backs are very different from the dSLRs when it comes to color rendering.
Edmund
-
Certainly in my early testing I find the P45 much more sensitive to white balance changes, and I will need to look at being more methodical in using a Q card or colour checker, it is very different in this regard than my P20 which is more forgiving/robust in that aspect.
I apologise to Eric for my presumptions.
-
The XF system has the new Schneider 35mm LS f/3.5, which is unmatched, except for tech cam lenses. The Pentax has nothing of the sort. The XF is clearly a better system, and it's also way more expensive.
What's the point of this thread?
-
The XF system has the new Schneider 35mm LS f/3.5, which is unmatched, except for tech cam lenses. The Pentax has nothing of the sort. The XF is clearly a better system, and it's also way more expensive.
What's the point of this thread?
The point of this thread is to hear you say that you prefer to use an XF because it can use the new Schneider 35. :)
However the poll seems to indicate that it is not "clearly" the better system - other photographers have seem to have different priorities.
Edmund
-
BTW, what is a Pentax 645C?
If you're going to troll, at least do it right. :D
-
BTW, what is a Pentax 645C?
If you're going to troll, at least do it right. :D
My humblest apologies, Darth Ducati :D
Edmund
-
"The XF system has the new Schneider 35mm LS f/3.5, which is unmatched, except for tech cam lenses. The Pentax has nothing of the sort. The XF is clearly a better system, and it's also way more expensive.
What's the point of this thread?"
The Pentax has 28-45mm....
-
Couldn't agree more.
I doubt my cameras measure up to and appear in the all time top 100 DickXO camera sensor charts and I could care less.
Just choose a camera - any camera - that you love using and use it.
Exactly. Also, the complete workflow is very important to those interested in photography and not just the body.
When I got my Credo, the 645D was about 50% and an H4D about 10-15% cheaper, but I needed a solution that tethers robustly, uses leaf shutters and plays nice with C1P. I am not and will never ignore those criteria and focus "Only on the body" or whatever that the trollmasters set as a judgment criteria.
A body alone isn't making images for me. The entire workflow is.
However the poll seems to indicate that it is not "clearly" the better system - other photographers have seem to have different priorities.
Priorities such as not bothering to answer troll polls, yes.
-
The Pentax has 28-45mm....
Not in the same league.
The point of this thread is to hear you say that you prefer to use an XF because it can use the new Schneider 35. :)
However the poll seems to indicate that it is not "clearly" the better system - other photographers have seem to have different priorities.
Uh huh. Are you using this data to publish another article, with your Ph. D. in Trolling?
-
Uh huh. Are you using this data to publish another article, with your Ph. D. in Trolling?
I think the profession prefers the appellation "Controversialist".
Of course one shouldn't overdo it :) but sometimes one does get interesting outcomes after the first reactions.
Paradoxically, a thread where these features have been excluded has demonstrated that if somebody needs leaf shutters, robust tethered workflow and a removable sensor then the XF is probably a no-brainer. Synn is a good representative of customers who have found in Phase a product that is ideal for them, can articulate it, but for some strange reason believe that their criteria are universal.
Another conclusion is that we all agree that the Phase software output quality is very very good. Phase really need to work to keep their software at the top of its game.
Another thought for now is that P1 has a protected market -see above- and that therefore the firm which is going to get hit hardest and first by the demonstrable popularity of Pentax and the price differential may not be Phase but strangely enough Hassy.
Pentax has clearly now got mindshare. Will this translate into the corresponding sales? It should, but 35mm seems to also being eating into the 645 buys ... again. But we all knew that, it's a cyclic thing, 35mm chewing and swallowing the 645 cake one bite at a time.
Last, not least, I think the good people at Pentax are watching this thread carefully and are probably putting tethering and leaf shutters on their priority list :)
Edmund
-
Synn is a good representative of customers who have found in Phase a product that is ideal for them, can articulate it, but for some strange reason believe that their criteria are universal.
I never said that my criteria are universal. I know plenty of people whoa re happy with MF systems other than Phamiya and fully understand and respect their choices.
What I said was that this thread and the criteria you have posted in it are stupid and that you're a garden variety troll. I stand by that statement.
-
I own the 645z and while I like the image quality, I much prefer my 3 year-old Canon 5D3. It just feels very good in my hands, and I don't have to question which lenses are appropriate for the client's needs. The menu is intuitive, as are the controls on the camera body. Doesn't compete with MF in terms of detail, but the camera has been a pleasure to use and a reliable workhorse for commercial advertising. For the work I shoot, which is primarily key art (posters) for entertainment projects, the size I work in is 27"x40" and the 5D works just fine within those parameters. I've also used the 5D to shoot video on nearly a hundred EPK's, so this camera has paid for itself nearly 1000 times over in the time I've owned it.
The only reason I bought the 645z is because clients are now demanding higher resolution files. In the past I've rented Phase and Hassy, and they feel about the same as the 645z. There's really not too many distinctions between the cameras. If you use a certain brand long enough, it becomes intuitive and a pleasure to use.
-
Owner of 645z,p30+ on Contax, plus canons. Hopefully the question from the OP was slightly serious but as the professionals on here know mostly unanswerable without putting the answers in context. If I'm doing a job when the client wants to hang about micro-managing on a big screen as I shoot then the p30 plus Contax rules. If I'm booked to go on a tricky location with little time for tethering or no need for client supervision, plus need the quality of MF then the Pentax rules. If the job involves people, animals or objects moving about at speed then the canons rule.
Never tried the Phase XF, all these cameras do me fine at the moment.
Best feature of the Pentax, that great flip out screen, my knees thank you Mr Pentax.
-
Last, not least, I think the good people at Pentax are watching this thread carefully and are probably putting tethering and leaf shutters on their priority list :)
Edmund
Well....that's embarrassing.
-
Owner of 645z,p30+ on Contax, plus canons. Hopefully the question from the OP was slightly serious but as the professionals on here know mostly unanswerable without putting the answers in context. If I'm doing a job when the client wants to hang about micro-managing on a big screen as I shoot then the p30 plus Contax rules. If I'm booked to go on a tricky location with little time for tethering or no need for client supervision, plus need the quality of MF then the Pentax rules. If the job involves people, animals or objects moving about at speed then the canons rule.
Never tried the Phase XF, all these cameras do me fine at the moment.
Best feature of the Pentax, that great flip out screen, my knees thank you Mr Pentax.
David,
Your response was exactly the type of answer I was hoping for. Thank you for that information.
Edmund
-
Well....that's embarrassing.
I doubt it. It's a camera that is probably selling fast enough as is. Although the Zii...that could prove interesting.
-
Owner of 645z,p30+ on Contax, plus canons. Hopefully the question from the OP was slightly serious but as the professionals on here know mostly unanswerable without putting the answers in context. If I'm doing a job when the client wants to hang about micro-managing on a big screen as I shoot then the p30 plus Contax rules. If I'm booked to go on a tricky location with little time for tethering or no need for client supervision, plus need the quality of MF then the Pentax rules. If the job involves people, animals or objects moving about at speed then the canons rule.
Never tried the Phase XF, all these cameras do me fine at the moment.
Best feature of the Pentax, that great flip out screen, my knees thank you Mr Pentax.
Great point about the flip out screen. As the body ages the low ground angles become less attractive. The waist level finder on the XF is nice but to me not as good as a modern flip screen. I am amazed the Nikon and Canon are also slow to figure this out with their high end MP bodies.
I had hoped Phase woukd bring out a flip screen design on the IQ3 bodies. Should not be that hard to design. Since Phase only has the 50MP cmos back for now it might not be a major design point for them. For a CCD the flip out style screen would less useable for live view due to the inherent issues CCDS have with live view.
Paul
-
I had hoped Phase woukd bring out a flip screen design on the IQ3 bodies. Should not be that hard to design.
Paul
Some of the original Kodak backs already had flip-up screens.
A Canon rep explained to me why their pro bodies do not have the flip-out screens which video guys love, while the consumer models do:
Rental houses hate flip screens, they are the first thing to break. They *demand* cameras without flipouts.
Phase has a big rental market ...so no flip screens on breakaway arms.
No flip-up turns a focus check on a tripod into a nightmare when shooting waist-high, especially, with middle aged eyes and the wonderful P-series screens - although of course waist-high is eye-level for a troll :)
Edmund
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1eHKf-dMwo
-
I doubt it. It's a camera that is probably selling fast enough as is. Although the Zii...that could prove interesting.
I wasn't knocking Pentax. My comment was referencing this thread.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1eHKf-dMwo
Is this some of your video work? :)
-
Some of the original Kodak backs already had flip-up screens.
A Canon rep explained to me why their pro bodies do not have the flip-out screens which video guys love, while the consumer models do:
Rental houses hate flip screens, they are the first thing to break. They *demand* cameras without flipouts.
Phase has a big rental market ...so no flip screens on breakaway arms.
No flip-up turns a focus check on a tripod into a nightmare when shooting waist-high, especially, with middle aged eyes and the wonderful P-series screens - although of course waist-high is eye-level for a troll :)
Edmund
Personally I can't believe that Canon or Nikon pro body design, is being driven by the "rental" market. If so, then that is a sad state of affairs.
I also can see how a true flip out screen, like the one on the Canon Rebel or Sony A99(wonderful design) might be a liability for a rental house, but to me that's their issue. What would be the numbers?, i.e. sold to a single rental house or all the independent consumers? I would tend to think the latter. But the traditional flip out screen, like used by the P645z or Sony A7r, to be would be a vast improvement vast. For as you point out unless you are the height of a troll and want to work down low, most pro bodies screen with no movement are taxing. Especially when you are over 50.
If Phase would just enable a flip out screen on the IQ back, that would be a huge advantage. Now is the time to design, so say they allowed for a screen lock? That would a nice feature.
Oh well.
Paul
-
Personally I can't believe that Canon or Nikon pro body design, is being driven by the "rental" market. If so, then that is a sad state of affairs.
I was told that Canon are facing falling buys of pro bodies by real pro photographers, who buy prosumer bodies. One corollary would be an increasing leverage of affluent customers and rental houses with respect to the pro body division.
Falling sales, the migration to video and economic ups and downs in much of the developed world are playing havoc with the product hierarchy and design parameters in the whole industry.
Edmund
-
It is true, I'd love a flip out screen so that means I need to get a crappy 70D.
Yet I spend 10k a year on pro bodies, none of which have that. Crazy loopy Canon.
BTW, the rental market does not dictate the design of a camera, it's not big enough.
This is a good opportunity to let off some steam on the subject. FFS camera manufacturers, before you guys go 'Super Awesome' over a new camera, how about you do something radical and actually run these ideas past a selection of normal working Joe's and when ready, give us the prototypes to bugger about with to really see what can be changed or improved. Not just a couple of Ambassadors but like 500 working pros. You'll sell more cameras if there's nothing to complain about with them.
It's almost as if someone took the common sense out of the camera manufacturers brains and let themselves run wild with their own OCD's. WTF was that thing with Hasselblad re-badging the Sony bodies. I mean do they think people are that stupid? Is that the issue with the camera industry? That they think we are? I'm sure it's something like that.
I understand bringing new products to the market is a difficult thing. But Canon deliberately cripples their bodies and holds back features. Nikon do not test their cameras properly. Hasselblad, hell I have no idea what Hasselblad is doing right now and Phase are living in another dimension and nobody can reach them. Pentax, they just seem to be a shell releasing products and not having any representation anywhere, no common voice or open plan of action despite having the best medium format option for most of the population.
It's frustration to see companies fall over their own arses like they have been for the last 6 years I've been operating as a photographer. Same frustrations amongst users and to the public's credit they are telling Canon, Nikon, Phase, Pentax Hassy, Sony etc what's up.
They're just not paying any attention.
-
And things will get more complicated now that Hasselblad comes with their new H6d-80mp with Cmos sensor..... interesting times......
-
And things will get more complicated now that Hasselblad comes with their new H6d-80mp with Cmos sensor..... interesting times......
Did I miss this?
Paul
-
Phase would counter that the IQ2/3 have a detachable screen - iOS app on a device. The Z has a nice articulating screen - one that Canon would do better to mimic, rather than the spin and twist style of their consumer screens.
The current level of interaction between brands and their users is severely lacking. I had a CPS membership for a few years, only time I heard from them was renewal time, and about 4 months after I let it expire. Technology is such that there should be more back and forth - I don't see it currently happening.
-
Phase would counter that the IQ2/3 have a detachable screen - iOS app on a device. The Z has a nice articulating screen - one that Canon would do better to mimic, rather than the spin and twist style of their consumer screens.
The current level of interaction between brands and their users is severely lacking. I had a CPS membership for a few years, only time I heard from them was renewal time, and about 4 months after I let it expire. Technology is such that there should be more back and forth - I don't see it currently happening.
Joe,
Video shooters often stand on the side next to, or even below a high-mounted video camera on a tripod. That's why video shooters love these contortionist screens, and why Sony never provide them on their still cameras, as another way of crippling them.
Edmund
-
Joe,
Video shooters often stand on the side next to, or even below a high-mounted video camera on a tripod. That's why video shooter love these contortionist screens, and why Sony etc never provide them on their still cameras, as another way of crippling them.
Edmund
+1. But we are getting off topic.
I want to see more on the 80MP CMOS Hasselblad.
Paul
-
we will have to wait a couple of weeks ....
-
we will have to wait a couple of weeks ....
If this is real back this is IMO a huge announcement that totally slipped under the radar. I have to assume it's also full frame.
Looking forward to reading more on this.
Paul
-
Phase would counter that the IQ2/3 have a detachable screen - iOS app on a device. The Z has a nice articulating screen - one that Canon would do better to mimic, rather than the spin and twist style of their consumer screens.
The current level of interaction between brands and their users is severely lacking. I had a CPS membership for a few years, only time I heard from them was renewal time, and about 4 months after I let it expire. Technology is such that there should be more back and forth - I don't see it currently happening.
It is an interesting situation: The major brands are japanese, and the japanese very strongly believe in listening to their customers, domestic or foreign. However their sales personnel in the large foreign markets are themselves not japanese, and therefore do not directly participate in any design decision process, nor can they make the votes of their own customers count in any meaningful way.
Edmund
-
Peter, where did you find out? It gives me the goose bumps!
Because eventually Pentax (I believe) will come with its own body version equipped with this sensor at one third the price.
If this sensor is Sony made, it will surely happen.
It will mark the end of my absence from MF for 12 long years.
Am I seeing the light at the end of tunnel?
Eduardo
we will have to wait a couple of weeks ....
-
I would rather have the fully articulating screen than the only-tilt one.
The latter one is less awkward to use in landscape orientation, but when you wish to use the camera for portrait orientation this advantage becomes a disadvantage.
Maybe for video guys is perfect but I am a photographer and I love the vertical format.
Eduardo
Phase would counter that the IQ2/3 have a detachable screen - iOS app on a device. The Z has a nice articulating screen - one that Canon would do better to mimic, rather than the spin and twist style of their consumer screens.
The current level of interaction between brands and their users is severely lacking. I had a CPS membership for a few years, only time I heard from them was renewal time, and about 4 months after I let it expire. Technology is such that there should be more back and forth - I don't see it currently happening.
-
And things will get more complicated now that Hasselblad comes with their new H6d-80mp with Cmos sensor..... interesting times......
Really?
It will be interesting to see where this sensor is sourced from. It's unlikely to be coming from Sony, which probably leaves CMOSIS?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would rather have the fully articulating screen than the only-tilt one.
The latter one is less awkward to use in landscape orientation, but when you wish to use the camera for portrait orientation this advantage becomes a disadvantage.
Maybe for video guys is perfect but I am a photographer and I love the vertical format.
Eduardo
Video guys also like the fully articulated screens AFAIK.
Btw vertical video is considered a heresy by many, but it is becoming popular thanks to cellphones and in-store displays.
Edmund
-
If this is real back this is IMO a huge announcement that totally slipped under the radar.
Well, Michael Reichmann posted that he's " .. on vacation on Prince Edward Island this week and shooting with the G3X along with a new pre-production medium format camera, which I won't name."
-
+1. But we are getting off topic.
I want to see more on the 80MP CMOS Hasselblad.
Paul
Surely we all agree that size matters :)
So, if this is not a Sony sensor, then it will doubtless precipitate the release of a larger version of the Sony sensor.
Which will probably mean a lower price for the IQ250C as the market cannot bear a $50K camera.
And possibly an even lower price of the Pentax 645Z. The natural price for the Z would seem to be about 2x of the Sony FF35.
Edmund
-
Surely we all agree that size matters :)
So, if this is not a Sony sensor, then it will doubtless precipitate the release of a larger version of the Sony sensor.
Which will probably mean a lower price for the IQ250C as the market cannot bear a $50K camera.
And possibly an even lower price of the Pentax 645Z. The natural price for the Z would seem to be about 2x of the Sony FF35.
Edmund
I guess this topic, that of a possible 80MP CMOS HB back, needs a new topic. All I have been told on the future for Phase One CMOS full frame is 1 year out and late next year.
If Hasselblad has such a back, i.e. a 80MP CMOS, they will have a pretty good jump over their competition, for at least a year.
Personally, as a Phase One user, not planning to move, I will be a bit shocked, but will definitely take my hat off to Hasselblad if they can deliver such a back before late 2016, in fact in the next 2 weeks?
Edmund, this part does go back to your original topic, as this new back, if it's only a Hasselblad implementation, but most surely not work with C1, and for me C1 is a must have.
But like you point out, it might put some pricing pressure on others.
I still have to wonder if it's only a 80MP CCD from Hasselblad, i.e. a follow up to the IQ380. It's my understanding that the lock Phase One had on the Dalsa chips that have the 1 hour exposure time in CCD has expired and now other companies can use this tech.
My bet is that this is what the new HB back is, their version of the IQ380 and CCD. but time will tell.
Paul
-
At a guess though, if Hassy had a full frame 80mp Cmos then so would everyone else too.
-
At a guess though, if Hassy had a full frame 80mp Cmos then so would everyone else too.
That's what logically makes sense. So if they do come out of a 80MP CMOS, they will have a real Kudo!
Paul
-
That's what logically makes sense. So if they do come out of a 80MP CMOS, they will have a real Kudo!
Paul
*Hugs his Pentax Glass*