Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mhecker* on January 19, 2011, 04:28:07 pm
-
I've done some initial testing indoors with my 645D vs 5Dmk2
Halogen lighting, still life, ISO 100 RAW
5dmk2, 100mm macro lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 120mm macro lens @ f11 autofocus
The focus point was just above Grants ear.
After capture colorbalance in LR, no sharpening.
Sharpening in CS5 5D shot USM 350,0.4,1 645D USM 250,0.4,1
A little more sharpening on 5Dmk2 because of its AA filter
Links.
5Dmk2 http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/5Dmk2_Still_Life.jpg
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/645D_Still_Life.jpg
Warning big files 5DMk2 is 16MB, 645D file is 32MB
Additional warning 645D file will set off CS5 counterfit alarm. You must view it in browser or Lightroom 3.0
Enjoy....
-
some blocky noise in the blacks with the 5dII. if you shoot at 160 asa instead of 100 it should disappear.
-
My program cs5 photoshop tells me it will not display banknotes...?!!!! ( and I am sure only dollars are the problem)
What the Heck !
Now I know why Photoshop is so slow...
next thing will be naked women( men, and especially children)
and as always violence is not a problem ...
-
You can download the GNU open source GIMP photo editor program for free and it will read both files...... :o
-
Why only with the 645D file? Really curious
Ed
-
Why only with the 645D file? Really curious
the 5d2 file is too soft ;D
-
I resized the 5D2 file too. I share these comments to the full. The 645D sensor is only 1.6 times bigger. Not enough really to make a difference. I think is the pixel count that makes most of the difference. I can see more difference from aps to full-frame which is twice as big.
I've said before (from a lot of personal brainstorming) that for me, digital medium format starts at 48X36, which is twice as big. Doubling the sensor size is the minimum requirement for all the hassle and expense of jumping to a bigger format.
This comparison affirms my belief. Thanks for sharing.
Eduardo
PS A good one tho-mas! :D
What's interesting is upsizing the 5DII file to match the 645D file and viewing both side by side, sure the 645D is crisper, no argument, but it goes to show how small of a difference there is between a $2500 camera and a $10K camera which has twice the resolution.
In prints, at normal viewing distances, I wouldn't really worry too much about using the Canon. That may piss some people off, but if it costs 4x to get "a little better", most people should just worry about great content, great images and save a few bucks.
Thanks for posting. It will be a contentious debate I'm sure.
-
The Pentax needs better optics, IMO.
If the Canon was shot with a Zeiss ZE 100mm, it might be even better, even though both 100mm Canon macro lenses are pretty darn good already.
-
mhecker thanks for sharing, are you able to do the same with a landscape comparison and upload the files too?
without taking price into consideration the canon looks like a point & shoot next to the pentax and I am not a fan of either...
-
What I find most interesting about this comparison is the range of opinions on the files, showing that much of the never-ending debate is a product of teh divergent meaning of "good" and "good enough" amongst fair-minded, experienced photographers.
Me, I see two excellent files, one of which has an enormous advantage in detail.
Good times all around.
- N.
ps. The detail in the bill on the 645D file shows in graphic form why PS, and a lot of devices like high-end copiers, have algorithms which detect and prevent the reproduction of actual currency. These tools have become so good that counterfeiters were using them extensively. You might laugh, but this is actually a pretty serious issue.
-
I will be heading to Yosemite with David Brookover on Jan 27.
We will do an in the field shootout with his D3x, and my 645D and 5Dmk2.
I will eventually publish the results online.
Full size comparison jpegs will be made available online.
I think it very interesting how different people look at the same two images here and see very different things.
Perhaps IQ ultimately is in the eye of the beholder. :)
-
Hi,
Here is my 'standard comparison'. Both images cropped (so photoshop doesn't complain about forged bill). the crop resized to 40cm width at 240 PPI, corresponding to a print about 129 cm wide. The second screen dump has some extra sharpening applied on the Canon image.
The Pentax has significantly better detail. Check Grant's rig eye. Pentax resolves nicely while Canon "invents" fake detail.
I'd like to thank Miles for publishing a good comparison! Will be nice to hear how things worked in the field and with additional lenses.
Check also this (and click on images fora actual pixel view, please!): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/51-a-closer-look-at-pentax-645d-image-quality
Best regards
Erik
I've done some initial testing indoors with my 645D vs 5Dmk2
Halogen lighting, still life, ISO 100 RAW
5dmk2, 100mm macro lens @ f8 live view manual focus
645D, 120mm macro lens @ f11 autofocus
The focus point was just above Grants ear.
After capture colorbalance in LR, no sharpening.
Sharpening in CS5 5D shot USM 350,0.4,1 645D USM 250,0.4,1
A little more sharpening on 5Dmk2 because of its AA filter
Links.
5Dmk2 http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/5Dmk2_Still_Life.jpg
645D http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/645D_Still_Life.jpg
Warning big files 5DMk2 is 16MB, 645D file is 32MB
Additional warning 645D file will set off CS5 counterfit alarm. You must view it in browser or Lightroom 3.0
Enjoy....
-
the up-ressed file of the 5d is close to collapse, i doubt i would give my client that 5d file. a fairer comparison is keep up-ressing untill the best of the bunch is starting to look like a bad orange peal filter, then look at the worst at that same range. i think you will find the 5d completely unusable.
ive used 5d and 1dsmk3 files a lot, and at most uses its ok. but if you get forced to crop significantly, medium format can save your ass.
paul
-
Hi,
The difference would be much less obvious in print.
It's quite clear that P645D resolves some detail where the Canon creates fake detail due, possibly due to aliasing. Another factor may be that both images are enlarged from JPEG, the Canon much more enlarged than the Pentax. Some of the false detail may come from JPEG and not the image it self.
I would say that it is fully expected that the Pentax has better resolution than the Canon. It also seems that the lens tested is good enough, at the center.
I hope that Miles also will publish some nature shots and share his experiences about working in the field with the Pentax 645D. Also I'm glad that Miles found a digital camera for all his Pentax 645 lenses. I'm not really sure about where Pentax is going. Will they develop a new lens line for the P645D or is it just intended for owners of existing P45 lenses? Will they make an adapter for Pentax 67 lenses.
Best regards
Erik
the up-ressed file of the 5d is close to collapse, i doubt i would give my client that 5d file. a fairer comparison is keep up-ressing untill the best of the bunch is starting to look like a bad orange peal filter, then look at the worst at that same range. i think you will find the 5d completely unusable.
ive used 5d and 1dsmk3 files a lot, and at most uses its ok. but if you get forced to crop significantly, medium format can save your ass.
paul
-
The Pentax has significantly better detail. Check Grant's rig eye. Pentax resolves nicely while Canon "invents" fake detail.
Even the both lenses only resolve to the same total amount of details (i.e., the 645D lens does not reach the sensor resolution limit), MF files are still greatly preferable, with their better tonality and smoother color transitions. Much less Bayer demosiacing artifacts too for very sure, and less noise.
Thanks for Erik's work -- you can see not only the 5DII file "one the edge of breaking down", it contains vast amount of artifacts. For one, all the fine details are artificially increased in size, an effect I often call "line thickening". It is not usually not very noticeable, until you see a MF shoot, or the real object to realize. Look again and look close. The cold hard fact is Bayer sensors need 4 pixel square per resolved element to really do a great job. So, more pixels is always better, even when the lenses are not up to the task (of ultimate resolution).
-
I'm not really sure about where Pentax is going. Will they develop a new lens line for the P645D or is it just intended for owners of existing P45 lenses? Will they make an adapter for Pentax 67 lenses.
Erik
Pentax already makes an adapter for the 67 lenses, which works just fine, as do the lenses. They are huge and hard to focus and offer no obvious advantages over the 645 glass.
The company's level of commitment to the system is the real question. Pentax has been for sale for ages, and the 645D will no doubt give the financials a much needed up-swing. But wither the 645D? Or whither the 645D?
This system could be a real winner and money make for Pentax, if the right corporate leadership get behind it. They have built the best MF camera body to date, and excited many segments of the market. If we see a couple of new lenses in the next year, things bode well. But who knows.
Then again, I don't think that the continued existence of any of the other MF companies is at all a certainty, either.
A lot of pros are still perfectly happy with their P30s and H2's with 39MP backs. Similarly, the 645D could make me happy in a lot of my work for a lot of years to come, by which time the second or third "next thing" will have come along. So perhaps it doesn't matter.
- N.
-
Pentax already makes an adapter for the 67 lenses, which works just fine, as do the lenses. They are huge and hard to focus and offer no obvious advantages over the 645 glass.
True in general; however, the 67 90mm and 105mm are small, fill a gap in the 645 offerings, and appear to work well on the 645D. Also, there is no 645 lens equivalent to the 400mm f/4 ED or 800mm f/5.6 ED.
The company's level of commitment to the system is the real question. Pentax has been for sale for ages, and the 645D will no doubt give the financials a much needed up-swing. But wither the 645D? Or whither the 645D?
This system could be a real winner and money make for Pentax, if the right corporate leadership get behind it. They have built the best MF camera body to date, and excited many segments of the market. If we see a couple of new lenses in the next year, things bode well. But who knows.......
That's my concern with this camera. If Pentax had to be sold, I wish it had been to Samsung or Panasonic or even Sony. Companies that appear to have a real commitment to cameras. Everything I‘ve seen (admittedly little), implies that Hoya considers the camera division of Pentax to be something of an albatross.
-
What Pentax need to sort out quick smart is the ability to tether. I think the omission of this is a monumental cock up, they could have had great leverage at release with some extra thought.
it makes it a total non option for me.
-
A lot of pros are still perfectly happy with their P30s and H2's with 39MP backs. Similarly, the 645D could make me happy in a lot of my work for a lot of years to come, by which time the second or third "next thing" will have come along. So perhaps it doesn't matter.
- N.
Professional or not you buy cameras for a reason. Have to . . . want to, but still a reason.
To me if a camera has a fixed prism it's a strike down in usability, or better put if an expensive camera doesn't have view point options and a fixed prism it's too much like a d3x or a 5d2, regardless of perfect conditions image quality.
I recently used my 5d2 for an 16 page spread and I had never used our 5d2 for anything but motion. It's a plastic lump, but it shoots fine, actually shoots more than fine. It has all the romance and tactile feel of a hair dryer, but it worked and had we shipped our contax' to the shoot I never would have used it for stills, but it worked fine.
A lot of people got excited early on with the Pentax, partly because the medium format world finally produced a camera with a decent lcd and an in camera preview that was usable, uh oh yea and the cost of around 10 grand.
But that excitement faded when the tethering options were limited and the lens line seems to be listed a TBD. So when you think about it, saving a few thousand on a pentax vs. a hasselblad, seems like a somewhat adventurous notion.
Regardless I believe with all my heart that the days of traditional cameras with any prism are numbered. Forget about brands, formats, this will do more to change things than anything else.
(http://www.red.com/images/products/accessories/p_displays.png)
We just shot 10 days straight with the RED One. The camera is a monster, (a good monster, but still a monster), but the lcd and that articulating arm is a work of art.
You can manually track focus, zoom in live focus and it works. We sometimes mount two to the camera, one at waist level, one at a higher view point and you can go from both views in an instant.
We shot in bright sun, low light, high light, back light and never once thought about the viewfinder. It's just important to set your exposure at a proper eye angle, but after that your good to go.
Wait until this type of lcd has touch autofocus and tracking and then the camera becomes a box, the viewfinder becomes a screen and then the days of optical prisms are over. It may take some time, but I know this is the future.
IMO
BC
-
The 645D is irritatingly close to just-right. It has an HDMI port, which can drive the exact sort of external monitor you show above. With a live image to that from the sensor, we'd be cooking with gas.
Tethering through wi-fi (sending small jpegs to an ipad or Mac from teh 2nd SD slot while writing the RAWS to the other) is also almost there. Connection time-outs on the Eye-fi card and the weak processeor on the iPad are the only obstacles.
Having an iPad talk back and forth to the camera, with touch-zoom and maybe touch-focus is tantalizingly close, yet still so very far away.
In fairness, Pentax didn't make this camera for studio shooters. Ironic, because that's where its performed best for me.
First company who gets that it's about ease and useability and not mega-pixels wins. Pentax did well in-paradigm on useability on the 645D - moved the bar way up in my view - but it's still inside the SLR paradigm. RED is creating its own paradigm but, like you say, it's still a monster.
- N.
-
Hi,
I don't think that the adapter is still in production. There are probably quite a few photographers sitting on a lot of Pentax 67 lenses who would like to use them on a digital camera.
Best regards
Erik
Pentax already makes an adapter for the 67 lenses, which works just fine, as do the lenses. They are huge and hard to focus and offer no obvious advantages over the 645 glass.
-
Professional or not you buy cameras for a reason. Have to . . . want to, but still a reason.
To me if a camera has a fixed prism it's a strike down in usability, or better put if an expensive camera doesn't have view point options and a fixed prism it's too much like a d3x or a 5d2, regardless of perfect conditions image quality.
I recently used my 5d2 for an 16 page spread and I had never used our 5d2 for anything but motion. It's a plastic lump, but it shoots fine, actually shoots more than fine. It has all the romance and tactile feel of a hair dryer, but it worked and had we shipped our contax' to the shoot I never would have used it for stills, but it worked fine.
A lot of people got excited early on with the Pentax, partly because the medium format world finally produced a camera with a decent lcd and an in camera preview that was usable, uh oh yea and the cost of around 10 grand.
But that excitement faded when the tethering options were limited and the lens line seems to be listed a TBD. So when you think about it, saving a few thousand on a pentax vs. a hasselblad, seems like a somewhat adventurous notion.
Regardless I believe with all my heart that the days of traditional cameras with any prism are numbered. Forget about brands, formats, this will do more to change things than anything else.
(http://www.red.com/images/products/accessories/p_displays.png)
We just shot 10 days straight with the RED One. The camera is a monster, (a good monster, but still a monster), but the lcd and that articulating arm is a work of art.
You can manually track focus, zoom in live focus and it works. We sometimes mount two to the camera, one at waist level, one at a higher view point and you can go from both views in an instant.
We shot in bright sun, low light, high light, back light and never once thought about the viewfinder. It's just important to set your exposure at a proper eye angle, but after that your good to go.
Wait until this type of lcd has touch autofocus and tracking and then the camera becomes a box, the viewfinder becomes a screen and then the days of optical prisms are over. It may take some time, but I know this is the future.
IMO
BC
ive been shooting video wth a 5d and a 7d, and i bought a "smallhd" monitor to work with. its very nice shooting from a monitor, almost a whole different way of working.
being able to see an HD image on a 9" screen (hd when using the 7d, not 5d) to compose with, and even being able to focus accurately is great.
its a pity these cameras have a delay in live view when you press the shutter.
its interesting how you can focus by eye very accurately when you are only looking at a 720p screen, even though the res of the photo is far greater. reminds me when i use to shoot with the canon (when usb was going slow with apples), i would get it to send small jpegs to the laptop /canon software and write raws onto card.
we could actually check focus on images 4 x times less res accurately. i think our eyes are very good at seeing sharpness.
so hd monitors are already here, so the camera makers have to hurry up get the live view thing working. it must be a heap cheaper to make cameras without mirror boxes as well.
paul
-
The adapter appear to be a current production item, available in Japan.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/PENTAX-%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA%E7%94%A8-%E3%82%A2%E3%83%80%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC-645-38454/dp/B000NTQMJ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295656261&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.co.jp/PENTAX-%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA%E7%94%A8-%E3%82%A2%E3%83%80%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC-645-38454/dp/B000NTQMJ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295656261&sr=8-1)
The nice folks at White Rabbit can probably get one for you no problem:
http://www.whiterabbitpress.com/
- N. (http://www.whiterabbitpress.com/)
-
Nick,
Thanks for info on the adapter and also for pulling the White Rabbit from the hat!
I have something like 5-6 Pentax 67 lenses. I'm not really sure that the lenses I have would work well on the P645D but I may or may not make the plunge.
Best regards
Erik
The adapter appear to be a current production item, available in Japan.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/PENTAX-%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA%E7%94%A8-%E3%82%A2%E3%83%80%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC-645-38454/dp/B000NTQMJ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295656261&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.co.jp/PENTAX-%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA%E7%94%A8-%E3%82%A2%E3%83%80%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC-645-38454/dp/B000NTQMJ6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295656261&sr=8-1)
The nice folks at White Rabbit can probably get one for you no problem:
http://www.whiterabbitpress.com/
- N. (http://www.whiterabbitpress.com/)
-
I like 5d file more. :(
-
I like 5d file more. :(
I agree. To my eyes, in my web browser the 5DII files looks markedly better.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Which images are you talking abbot? Still life or house?
Browser?! I guess that the idea is to download the image and check out in Photoshop. That's what I have done.
Best regards
Erik
I agree. To my eyes, in my web browser the 5DII files looks markedly better.
Edmund
-
I agree. To my eyes, in my web browser the 5DII files looks markedly better.
Edmund
Funny, I thought the opposite. What did you see that made you come to your conclusion?
-
Funny, I thought the opposite. What did you see that made you come to your conclusion?
Looked at it 5 seconds. At small size the still life textile colors look better; the rez qualityof the 645 is much greater, but on the small size image the colors looked better at first glance. But these are Jpegs ...
Feel free to disagree with my point of view. I'm really not a great fan of the 5D2, I have a 50/1.8 on mine and usually it is ... my travel compact.
Edmund
-
There's two things I see:
1. The Canon is a bit cooler with a more magenta cast. I think that might show off the textile colors better to some eyes (mine included).
2. If you concentrate on the red ring in the top left circle design of the center panel, the red color is brighter, but less saturated in the 5DII image. I don't know which is "better," but they certainly are different.
Like others I can't open the 645D image because of the $ bill warning, so I can't compare RGB or Lab values.
I shoot with a 5DII, and in certain images the reds and oranges are just weird. I have profiled my 5DII, but when there are reds/oranges in an image, I still find myself switching between the custom profile, adobe's standard and some of the other presets in LR because it "seems" off.
Dave
Looked at it 5 seconds. At small size the still life textile colors look better; the rez qualityof the 645 is much greater, but on the small size image the colors looked better at first glance. But these are Jpegs ...
Feel free to disagree with my point of view. I'm really not a great fan of the 5D2, I have a 50/1.8 on mine and usually it is ... my travel compact.
Edmund
-
I got these different profiles and found myself switching back&fort all the time. The problem always is the reds, oranges and skin tone. Luckily, the 5D2 is much better than 5D in this respect.
Eduardo
There's two things I see:
1. The Canon is a bit cooler with a more magenta cast. I think that might show off the textile colors better to some eyes (mine included).
2. I you concentrate on the red ring in the top left circle design of the center panel, the red color is brighter, but less saturated in the 5DII image. I don't know which is "better," but they certainly are different.
Like others I can't open the 645D image because of the $ bill warning, so I can't compare RGB or Lab values.
I shoot with a 5DII, and in certain images the reds and oranges are just weird. I have profiled my 5DII, but when there are reds/oranges in an image, I still find myself switching between the custom profile, adobe's standard and some of the other presets in LR because it "seems" off.
Dave
-
25mm lens is rumored for Pentax 645 :
http://photorumors.com/2011/01/28/pentax-d-fa-645-25mm-f4-lens-medium-format-to-be-announced-soon/
-
Nothing rumoured about it. It's coming. Sure hope it's good! (And not $4000).
- N.
-
Hello, long time reader, first time poster. I have an interest in Pentax 645D and tried to follow as much information about it as possible. The new lens will be announced next week (but available quite a bit latter) and will have AW (all weather) finish, SDM motor, ABC (Aero Bright Coatings) and the (list) price is rumored to be between 3 and 3.5 K USD.
Radu
-
...........(list) price is rumored to be between 3 and 3.5 K USD.
Radu
Consistent with what I've read, approx 300,000 yen. If you want a shock, see the lens prices at Yodobashi.
http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/category/index.html?word=FA+645&cate=&searchbtn=true