Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: OldHickory30 on May 06, 2014, 11:49:02 am
-
Having owned several P1's and Hasselblad, I was contemplating returning to Phase One until the Pentax 645z came out, utilizing the same Sony sensor, with considerably more functionality. People have questioned the fact several times on P1's forums why the IQ250 is 400% more then the 645Z, the specs (http://thenewcamera.com/hasselblad-h5d-50c-vs-phase-one-iq250-vs-pentax-645z/) are identical, of course we don't have any solid field tests of the 645z, however the 645z, does also include wether sealing, video capability, and an unbelievable ISO range, with what looks like a simple UI.
Phase One has become quite defensive on the forums, even locking people out of the when the question is posed, what am I getting for 400% more in cost?
My gut feeling is Pentax has accepted lower margins being a much larger organization. I have been shooting commercially for 20+ years with a technology background, and in my opinion, when shooting in RAW, the sensor and the lens are pretty much what makes up the image. So again why is the P1 IQ250 $ 34K and the Pentax is $8496... a 400% difference!
-
Having owned several P1's and Hasselblad, I was contemplating returning to Phase One until the Pentax 645z came out, utilizing the same Sony sensor, with considerably more functionality. People have questioned the fact several times on P1's forums why the IQ250 is 400% more then the 645Z, the specs (http://thenewcamera.com/hasselblad-h5d-50c-vs-phase-one-iq250-vs-pentax-645z/) are identical, of course we don't have any solid field tests of the 645z, however the 645z, does also include wether sealing, video capability, and an unbelievable ISO range, with what looks like a simple UI.
Phase One has become quite defensive on the forums, even locking people out of the when the question is posed, what am I getting for 400% more in cost?
My gut feeling is Pentax has accepted lower margins being a much larger organization. I have been shooting commercially for 20+ years with a technology background, and in my opinion, when shooting in RAW, the sensor and the lens are pretty much what makes up the image. So again why is the P1 IQ250 $ 34K and the Pentax is $8496... a 400% difference!
this has been discussed so many times. you are paying for a better dealer group. better service if you have problems. the ability to use on different camera bodies as well as tech cameras. better lens lineup. 16 bit vs. 14 bit. and you are paying a premium for the name. it is up to each person considering a purchase of the product if it is worth the extra money.
-
The real question remains to be answered, and only time will tell the whole story.
How many 645Z cameras will actually be bought by users?
-
Just to be pedantic: it is 300% more (or difference), not 400% ;)
-
... So again why is the P1 IQ250 $ 34K and the Pentax is $8496...
Why not? It is first-mover advantage (FMA) to charge whatever they want or can get away with. Then, of course, competition arrives at some point and puts the pressure on the FMA price. Time will tell whether it will drive this price significantly down. Let's face it, they are not exactly identical products, even if the specs are. The most important part is interchangeability: backs can be used on systems and with lenses pros already have (or different systems if rented), while with Pentax, they are locked in and have to buy everything new (unless they've been already with Pentax). If you are a newcomer to the medium format, then, yes, Pentax is a serious contender.
-
8300 x 400% = $33,200 The IQ 250 is $34,900 and change unless my calculator is broke? ;D
-
Paying for a better dealer group, like Calumet, who recently filed Chapter 7 and closed their doors overnight? Besides I'd rather deal with the OEM.
Regarding service, I will say, servicing my P1's in the past, was certainly nothing to write home about, in addition the backs had to be shipped internationally, through the dealer. Also each P1 back is deigned for a particular camera body. As far as the the glass, that will be something that really needs to be compared in the field. Yes, 14 vs 16 bit, I will give you that one but then again, you really only benefit off a 16bit file when doing high-end graphics. Your right, this topic has been discussed several times but I think it's import when your talking the VAST difference in cost, 400%!. P1 and Hassy used to have the MF market exclusively, that's certainly going to change.
Good news for photographers, regarding cost and options. The 645z is an industry disrupter and so far looks like for the good.
-
... Yes, 14 vs 16 bit, I will give you that one...
No need to... check this thread here on LuLa: 16 Bit Myth (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0)
-
Totally agree...I still remember paying over 2k for my original Canon 5D 10years ago and was told by the dealer that, 12mp was as far as DSLR's could be pushed.
Technology has a way of reducing the cost while improving the product.
-
Thanks! Actually I have my D800E RAW files @14bit and still have many P1 P45+ files @16 bit, the difference is negligible.
-
... unless my calculator is broke? ;D
It isn't, but it can not read our minds. It translates 400% as 4x, which is wrong or right depending on context. Since you are using the context of "more" or "difference," it is wrong.
You can say 32K is 400% OF 8K, just as you can say 8K is 100% OF 8K.
But the moment you say "more" or "difference" the game changes:
If you add, say 25% MORE to 8K, it becomes 10K (i.e., 8 x 1.25 = 10)
If you add 100% MORE to 8K, it becomes 16K, or 2x more
If you add 200% MORE to 8K, it becomes 24K, or 3x more
If you add 300% MORE to 8K, it becomes 32K, or 4x more
I know, I know, the basic confusion between percentage share and percentage growth. :)
-
How about if I say it's a hell / heck of a lot more? ;D
-
Hi,
My guess is that Phase One & Co lives in an echosystem with high prices. They cannot increase production without great expense and they have a lot of people to feed. So prices are high.
It seems that Pentax is willing to make the P6545Z with low margins. Their echosystem is fed by both Ricoh and Pentax sales. Pentax can also reuse existing technology from other camera systems.
Best regards
Erik
Having owned several P1's and Hasselblad, I was contemplating returning to Phase One until the Pentax 645z came out, utilizing the same Sony sensor, with considerably more functionality. People have questioned the fact several times on P1's forums why the IQ250 is 400% more then the 645Z, the specs (http://thenewcamera.com/hasselblad-h5d-50c-vs-phase-one-iq250-vs-pentax-645z/) are identical, of course we don't have any solid field tests of the 645z, however the 645z, does also include wether sealing, video capability, and an unbelievable ISO range, with what looks like a simple UI.
Phase One has become quite defensive on the forums, even locking people out of the when the question is posed, what am I getting for 400% more in cost?
My gut feeling is Pentax has accepted lower margins being a much larger organization. I have been shooting commercially for 20+ years with a technology background, and in my opinion, when shooting in RAW, the sensor and the lens are pretty much what makes up the image. So again why is the P1 IQ250 $ 34K and the Pentax is $8496... a 400% difference!
-
...Phase One & Co lives in an echosystem with high prices.
Love it, Erik, whether it was intentional or not.
Jim
-
Paying for a better dealer group, like Calumet, who recently filed Chapter 7 and closed their doors overnight? Besides I'd rather deal with the OEM.
Regarding service, I will say, servicing my P1's in the past, was certainly nothing to write home about, in addition the backs had to be shipped internationally, through the dealer. Also each P1 back is deigned for a particular camera body. As far as the the glass, that will be something that really needs to be compared in the field. Yes, 14 vs 16 bit, I will give you that one but then again, you really only benefit off a 16bit file when doing high-end graphics. Your right, this topic has been discussed several times but I think it's import when your talking the VAST difference in cost, 400%!. P1 and Hassy used to have the MF market exclusively, that's certainly going to change.
Good news for photographers, regarding cost and options. The 645z is an industry disrupter and so far looks like for the good.
i hope you did not think i was being argumentative. the reasons i gave imo are the perceived differences between the camera platforms by different photographers. i agree that the prices for some backs are out of line but only the market can dictate prices. if people continue to pay the extra money for a phase one or hasselblad db at the prices that they charge and both companies stay profitable than there is nothing any of us can do.
-
"you are paying a premium for the name"
I really struggle with this concept. The software is great but the backs and cameras have hardly amazed with their construction or user interface and the glacial introduction of working USB3 and screen that was usable was a joke.
The warmed over mamiya bodies are certainly not worthy of being called "premium"
-
No problem, I understand, I certainly was not trying to be argumentative either. However, based on the cost difference it's something that Hassy and P1 need to address. You are correct, if people are willing to pay a premium, why not, although up until now there has been zero options in regards to MF, so we'll see.
-
You are exactly right regarding construction on the P1. I do like C1 software just can't justify 35k then another 3-5k in glass.
The 645z looks appears to have solid construction while taking many features like the focusing points, from their DSLR line. The H3 was almost impossible to handle when I shot on location or had to travel with it and the current HD-50 is around 30k!
-
Jim,
Not intentional, but I won't fix it as you like it:-)
Best regards
Erik
Love it, Erik, whether it was intentional or not.
Jim
-
It is an old question and only the only real answer is will photographers continue to purchase the IQ250 when the P645z does ship. There are some things to take into consideration however.
1. The Phase One backs, all the way back to the P45+/P25+ family of mid 2007 early 2008 were very well made. I have owned several different backs and have always felt that they were rock solid. Sure when one needed service, it had to most times go back to Denmark, but Pentax will be going back to Japan, as they don't currently have a service center in the U.S. (not sure on Europe). The Value Add warranty from Phase is a great asset to the owner and it moves with the back if you sell it. 4 years plus the base warranty and during all those years, a loaner back delivered to your business most times within 24 hours. Sure you can purchase 2 645z's, but to me that is not a smart move. It behooves you to purchase a Phase One back from a authorized dealer as that is the designed front end. It's very hard to reach out to Phase One directly, that is what the dealer is for besides many other things.
2. The DF+ body is long in the tooth I agree, but for landscape work it did OK for me till I moved on to the tech body. The body of the 645z should be much more advanced in features for sure.
3. The 645z is a fixed body, thus no ability to move to a tech solution. The ability to have a removable back, which allows me to work with a tech camera/lenses is an important feature. Pentax has a bit of a hill to climb on lenses. Currently their line up is in a bit of disarray. They seem to bringing back the old FA series from 2003-2008 as these are now listed again on the BH website, but the only current modern wide is the 25mm which is as much as the Mamiya/Phase 28mm.
4. If you are looking for a 1/1600 flash sync, then I don't think Pentax has any LS style modern lenses. There are some very old 67 LS lenses, but not sure if they are going to adapt to the 645z and allow the 1/1600 flash sync.
6. Tethering solution, Phase has this figured out, period. Still not sure if the 645z will have a USB3 tethering solution, if so who's software. So far all they have mentioned is a wifi solution, but that is not the same thing, as there is no way you will be able to transfer the full files via wifi. The 645z has USB3 so hopefully a software solution will available to tether. Yes it took Phase a long time to get to USB3, but they did! and it works! excellently.
I realize there is huge gap between the two, but only purchases over time will determine if the gap will close any due to price reductions by Phase One.
Paul
-
I thought the Phase back was also 14bit? I seem to remember some mumblings about this a while back...
-
Hi,
I agree with Paul, I mostly do. The P45+ back I have is well made and the newer backs are probably quite nice. Paul's observations on tethering are correct, but it is quite probable that the P645Z will work decently well with Lightroom. You use the manufacturers application for shooting. BCooter works this way with his Leica S2 and he seems quite happy.
An advantage with the P645D was that the body was weather proofed, the late Miles Hecker has used the P645D in real awful weather conditions with great satisfaction. He's reviews are here:
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt1.html
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt2.html
Pentax says, probably with some justification, that they can build the body to very good precision due to the tight integration.
Being able to use the MFD back with technical cameras is an obvious advantage with a removable back.
The final question is of course how the Pentax 645Z will affect the competition. The P645D did probably do little harm to the competition, but the situation may be different now. One aspect may be that Pentax/Ricoh may be solidly standing behind the product and offering a large set of lenses. It may have been the case that the P645D was mainly an offer for existing customers of the P645 looking for a digital option.
Best regards
Erik
It is an old question and only the only real answer is will photographers continue to purchase the IQ250 when the P645z does ship. There are some things to take into consideration however.
1. The Phase One backs, all the way back to the P45+/P25+ family of mid 2007 early 2008 were very well made. I have owned several different backs and have always felt that they were rock solid. Sure when one needed service, it had to most times go back to Denmark, but Pentax will be going back to Japan, as they don't currently have a service center in the U.S. (not sure on Europe). The Value Add warranty from Phase is a great asset to the owner and it moves with the back if you sell it. 4 years plus the base warranty and during all those years, a loaner back delivered to your business most times within 24 hours. Sure you can purchase 2 645z's, but to me that is not a smart move. It behooves you to purchase a Phase One back from a authorized dealer as that is the designed front end. It's very hard to reach out to Phase One directly, that is what the dealer is for besides many other things.
2. The DF+ body is long in the tooth I agree, but for landscape work it did OK for me till I moved on to the tech body. The body of the 645z should be much more advanced in features for sure.
3. The 645z is a fixed body, thus no ability to move to a tech solution. The ability to have a removable back, which allows me to work with a tech camera/lenses is an important feature. Pentax has a bit of a hill to climb on lenses. Currently their line up is in a bit of disarray. They seem to bringing back the old FA series from 2003-2008 as these are now listed again on the BH website, but the only current modern wide is the 25mm which is as much as the Mamiya/Phase 28mm.
4. If you are looking for a 1/1600 flash sync, then I don't think Pentax has any LS style modern lenses. There are some very old 67 LS lenses, but not sure if they are going to adapt to the 645z and allow the 1/1600 flash sync.
6. Tethering solution, Phase has this figured out, period. Still not sure if the 645z will have a USB3 tethering solution, if so who's software. So far all they have mentioned is a wifi solution, but that is not the same thing, as there is no way you will be able to transfer the full files via wifi. The 645z has USB3 so hopefully a software solution will available to tether. Yes it took Phase a long time to get to USB3, but they did! and it works! excellently.
I realize there is huge gap between the two, but only purchases over time will determine if the gap will close any due to price reductions by Phase One.
Paul
-
Hello Tjv,
Yes you are correct the information from Phase/Leaf that there backs shoot 16bit is marketing BS or in other words a lie.
Cheers
Simon
-
How fast is that Volvo of yours? The speedometer goes to 150 MPH!
Best regards
Erik
Hello Tjv,
Yes you are correct the information from Phase/Leaf that there backs shoot 16bit is marketing BS or in other words a lie.
Cheers
Simon
-
Paul, on Pentax lenses:
It is correct to point out that most (14) of Pentax's lens line up is old, i.e. screw drive autofocus, not weather sealed, and designed for their film MF cameras. Not all, but some (e.g. 35mm, 120mm & 150mm) of these are still excellent quality. In relative terms these are not expensive, the price probably being pegged down by the used lens market. The 25mm is indeed new, and so is the 55mm and the 90mm macro. I think these are all weather sealed, and at least one has SDM autofocus. They are expensive, but it would be possible to buy these three and the body plus quite a few FA lenses for less than a P1 back.
Pentax have published a 645 lens roadmap which indicates three new zoom lenses including one wide angle zoom, which will probably be released this year.....but I shouldn't count my chickens! :D
I don't see many Hassy or P1 owners or organisations wanting to switch systems for many of the reasons you state, it would be too much of a wrench. On the other hand, professional photographers considering moving into MF may well be tempted, especially if there are limited funds to invest. Amateurs like myself who are interested in landscape and architecture, however, are beginning to think that maybe the Pentax 645Z will just be affordable, especially coming from a Pentax 645N system with a fair crop of FA lenses. I suspect there are quite a few in a similar position to myself and this is most likely to comprise much of the 645Z market - i.e. photographers new to MF. The poor development of fast synch flash speeds, use of flu card instead of tethering, fixed integrated backs, etc., will not appeal to the high end professional market who require a tech solution.
In the UK we are fortunate to have a good dealer network of Pentax Pro dealers, (n.b. they have continued to sell the full range of 645 lenses). Is it not likely that if the 645Z takes off, then surely a Pro dealer network and service centre would follow? But yes, it should be the other way round.
Looking forward to reviews of the Z,
Ronnie.
-
The real question is,
Why do people continue buying Audis when a Skoda offers pretty much the same platform for a lot less?
-
A good question.
On the other hand, a young lady I happen to know was longing for an Audi TT and was saving until she could buy her dream car. Pretty soon, after owning that Audi for a couple of months she found out that it was pretty uninspiring and replaced it with a Volvo S40 which was a fun car to drive. A pretty smart lady, by the way.
A guy whom I also happen to know got rid of his BMW at wreck price, because he was tired of all problems and got a small Citroën instead. A pretty smart guy, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
The real question is,
Why do people continue buying Audis when a Skoda offers pretty much the same platform for a lot less?
-
I say buy what works for you. Work flow and personal preference to ergonomics go a lot further than numbers. (sometimes the numbers count though :) )
-
A good question.
On the other hand, a young lady I happen to know was longing for an Audi TT and was saving until she could buy her dream car. Pretty soon, after owning that Audi for a couple of months she found out that it was pretty uninspiring and replaced it with a Volvo S40 which was a fun car to drive. A pretty smart lady, by the way.
A guy whom I also happen to know got rid of his BMW at wreck price, because he was tired of all problems and got a small Citroën instead. A pretty smart guy, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
Anecdotal evidence counts as fact, right?
I actually know a few people who saved up for Audis and are still driving and enjoying them.
Pretty smart people, by the way.
-
Hi,
The two stories I mention are facts, as they really have happened. I wouldn't say they are anecdotal. If you retell the story, it would be anecdotal, because the information would be hearsay.
The story I tell essentially says your mileage may vary.
Best regards
Erik
Anecdotal evidence counts as fact, right?
I actually know a few people who saved up for Audis and are still driving and enjoying them.
Pretty smart people, by the way.
A good question.
On the other hand, a young lady I happen to know was longing for an Audi TT and was saving until she could buy her dream car. Pretty soon, after owning that Audi for a couple of months she found out that it was pretty uninspiring and replaced it with a Volvo S40 which was a fun car to drive. A pretty smart lady, by the way.
A guy whom I also happen to know got rid of his BMW at wreck price, because he was tired of all problems and got a small Citroën instead. A pretty smart guy, by the way.
Best regards
Erik
-
Just for the record, the 645Z is not available yet. The H5D-50c and the IQ250 are.
Also, New, recently introduced PhaseOne backs have never been high value items. The IQ250 is no exception. It does not make it a bad product. Let's not forget that it is a back that can be used in a wide range of systems. It is great to have that option available in the market. Would it be great for it to be much lower in price? Absolutely. That applies to a lot of things.
You want the highest image quality for your dollar? Look elsewhere than even the 645Z.
-
Hi
Really relevant comments. You don't happen to having a background accounting?
Best regards
Erik
Why not? It is first-mover advantage (FMA) to charge whatever they want or can get away with. Then, of course, competition arrives at some point and puts the pressure on the FMA price. Time will tell whether it will drive this price significantly down. Let's face it, they are not exactly identical products, even if the specs are. The most important part is interchangeability: backs can be used on systems and with lenses pros already have (or different systems if rented), while with Pentax, they are locked in and have to buy everything new (unless they've been already with Pentax). If you are a newcomer to the medium format, then, yes, Pentax is a serious contender.
-
Hi,
Just to make a small point, the IQ-250 is 14 bit according to Phase One marketing. It is the CCD backs that claims to be 16 bit. Phase One claims 14 EV (14 bits) of DR for the IQ-250 and 13 EV (13 bits) of DR for the I-260 and the IQ-280. That essentially means that 7/8 of the 16 bit signal from the CCD-backs is noise. So yes, you get more noise for Dollar, but less bang for the buck.
Best regards
Erik
this has been discussed so many times. you are paying for a better dealer group. better service if you have problems. the ability to use on different camera bodies as well as tech cameras. better lens lineup. 16 bit vs. 14 bit. and you are paying a premium for the name. it is up to each person considering a purchase of the product if it is worth the extra money.
-
Hi,
The two stories I mention are facts, as they really have happened. I wouldn't say they are anecdotal. If you retell the story, it would be anecdotal, because the information would be hearsay.
The story I tell essentially says your mileage may vary.
Best regards
Erik
My point was that people have different priorities and reasons and not everyone makes a purchase decision based on the sticker price of the commodities. Unfortunately, sarcasm isn't your forte.
-
Hi,
Let's say it this way I am not very impressed by your sarcasm.
Just to make a small point the reason my colleague dumped the Audi for the Volvo was not the sticker price but the extra 80 HP and the driveable chassi. She simply found the Audi TT boring.
I can also add that I feel it is perfectly OK to be a bit polite.
Best regards
Erik
Another anecdote fact is that the Audi TT caused a lot of serious accidents, because it lost down force on the back axis at high speeds (at around 180 km/h). The company needed to redesign the chassis, with the well know lift spoiler on the back, stiffer chassis and other modifications including electronic stability control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/20/automobiles/audi-offers-tt-fix-after-5-deaths.html
My point was that people have different priorities and reasons and not everyone makes a purchase decision based on the sticker price of the commodities. Unfortunately, sarcasm isn't your forte.
-
it might help if you can remember that I don't post exclusively for you, not am I talking literally while making analogies.
-
The real question is,
Why do people continue buying Audis when a Skoda offers pretty much the same platform for a lot less?
For the same reason people buy leica compact cameras that are polished by hand for hours.
-
I guess Pentax must be putting time into polishing glass* instead of aluminum - see link.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/ex/img/ex-pic02.jpg (click on image to view full size)
Clearly the Pentax 645 D FA90mm macro is not appropriate for portraits, far too many blemishes show up, but fun for the pixel peeper!
* Of course, Leica do that as well.
-
I guess Pentax must be putting time into polishing glass* instead of aluminum - see link.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/645z/ex/img/ex-pic02.jpg (click on image to view full size)
Clearly the Pentax 645 D FA90mm macro is not appropriate for portraits, far too many blemishes show up, but fun for the pixel peeper!
* Of course, Leica do that as well.
Perfect of example of how digital can make skin look like plastic. Yikes! I am gonna give the 645Z the benefit of the doubt and blame this one the jpg processing.
-
I guess we see what we want to. To my eye the plastic effect is an outcome of make-up, restrained as it is except around the eyes.
If you want real skin, maybe look at the shoulder. Pity it's not in focus, but it ain't plastic.
-
Love it, Erik, whether it was intentional or not.
Jim
You needed to double post to get the full effect
-
The bottom line to this is how many photographers that have fancied shooting MF but were put off by the silly prices are now going to jump on the Pentax?
I would imagine a decent amount.
As much as my heart wanted the figures to justify a Phaseone, they don't come close, the Pentax on the other hand I can make work, then again adding a Sony 7r and 7s to my 1D X makes even more sense on paper.
I'm in business to make money not fund camera companies milking every penny they can out of me, I've done the getting excited over a camera bit, it's not worth it. Phaseone and Hasselblad can't bullshit their way out of this one, they can only get cheaper.
-
A somewhat similar discussions appeared on forums relating to Apple computers around 2005 when Steve Jobs announced that Apple will make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors.
For a long time Apple fans could claim that you can't really compare PPC based Apple hardware to PC hardware based on Intel processors (CCD vs CMOS, OS X vs Windows, MF vs 35mm debates perhaps). You could argue that a PC would give you better performance for less money spent.
Just for fun, we could imagine that the Pentax 645Z is the PC equivalent while Phase One and Hasselblad are the Apple equivalents (at least in terms of price points but not necessarily market share). There are still many people who prefer to buy the more expensive Apple products although the price differential isn't as large.
As long as there is a large enough number of customers willing to pay more to keep P1 and Hasselblad profitable, these companies will naturally try to hold on to their margins while silly little ordinary humans like me will engage in non-objective online discussions about which company/brand provides the product capable of reproducing superior skin tones :)
-
A somewhat similar discussions appeared on forums relating to Apple computers around 2005 when Steve Jobs announced that Apple will make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors.
For a long time Apple fans could claim that you can't really compare PPC based Apple hardware to PC hardware based on Intel processors (CCD vs CMOS, OS X vs Windows, MF vs 35mm debates perhaps). You could argue that a PC would give you better performance for less money spent.
Just for fun, we could imagine that the Pentax 645Z is the PC equivalent while Phase One and Hasselblad are the Apple equivalents (at least in terms of price points but not necessarily market share). There are still many people who prefer to buy the more expensive Apple products although the price differential isn't as large.
As long as there is a large enough number of customers willing to pay more to keep P1 and Hasselblad profitable, these companies will naturally try to hold on to their margins while silly little ordinary humans like me will engage in non-objective online discussions about which company/brand provides the product capable of reproducing superior skin tones :)
Please don't lets make it an Apple v PC thread
-
So you don't miss echo of the "echosystem".
BR Erik
You needed to double post to get the full effect
-
Please don't lets make it an Apple v PC thread
That was not the intention of my musings - it was just an example that lead to a similar point made by synn. I may have been a little unclear or you may have misunderstood my point. In either case, I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a 645Z when it's available to demo, as I think it represents great value for me. It's because of this that I wouldn't even consider the other two systems. I'm sure there are photographers out there who are able to justify the price difference to themselves, their wives/husbands... I'm just not one of them :)
-
Perfect of example of how digital can make skin look like plastic. Yikes! I am gonna give the 645Z the benefit of the doubt and blame this one the jpg processing.
I was thinking along the same lines, but actually about the color of the flowers in her hair which IMHO lack tonality and color detail.
-
Regarding the price differences - I'm just thinking if people that buy the Pentax will use the Phase profiles like some do with their sony chipped DSLR's? Point being there may be some reasons why the Phase back is priced higher…
-
Regarding the price differences - I'm just thinking if people that buy the Pentax will use the Phase profiles like some do with their sony chipped DSLR's? Point being there may be some reasons why the Phase back is priced higher…
Can it work since C1 doesn't support Pentax 645D and probably won't 645Z either? I do use IQ250 profile for my D800E now, but I always used C1 with D800E anyway. Honestly, I don't see significant difference between D800E Generic and IQ250 C1 profiles.
-
The bottom line to this is how many photographers that have fancied shooting MF but were put off by the silly prices are now going to jump on the Pentax?
I would imagine a decent amount.
As much as my heart wanted the figures to justify a Phaseone, they don't come close, the Pentax on the other hand I can make work, then again adding a Sony 7r and 7s to my 1D X makes even more sense on paper.
I'm in business to make money not fund camera companies milking every penny they can out of me, I've done the getting excited over a camera bit, it's not worth it. Phaseone and Hasselblad can't bullshit their way out of this one, they can only get cheaper.
Hasselblad prices coming down......
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/promotions/h5d-40-promo.aspx
I wonder why !
Pete
-
Hasselblad prices coming down......
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/promotions/h5d-40-promo.aspx
I wonder why !
Pete
Things are getting interesting ;D
This is the same price like 645Z.
-
No need to... check this thread here on LuLa: 16 Bit Myth (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0)
Actually "16 bit" is even more a myth than most people think :)
Yes it's true that the last bits are just noise, but some still think that this noise is somehow an advantage to the image quality. The problem with that is that the raw format is not even storing this supposedly precious noise, as there is no engineering reason to do so. The Phase One IIQ L files store 14 bit samples, which then are scaled up to 16 bits during loading. Does not change the fact that stored sample information is "only" 14 bit.
If you look at the MOS format (Leaf Aptus) the file format range is 14 bit or 13 bit for higher ISOs. I think Hasselblad actually stores 16 bit though in their 3FR format, I'm not sure haven't looked at that format in detail. There a few older backs with older file formats that also store full 16 bits as far as I know. But the most commonly used backs do not.
It's quite interesting that "16 bit" has been so extensively used in marketing, and sometimes still is, when many/most digital backs have not even stored the bits.
-
The new price on the Hasselblad, £12,295, rather embarrasses some of the used stock prices:
http://procentre.co.uk/sales-secondhand-medium-format-digital.php
New H5D or used H4d 50 or 60 ???
-
Hi,
MF, myth and reality…
I actually feel a bit more credibility would make MFD good. There is a subtle change to Phase One marketing. IQ-280 and IQ-260 still have 13 EV DR at 16 bits but IQ-250 has 14EV DR at 14 bits.
I would ask myself if it would be possible to make a CMOS sensor that works well with non retrofocus wide angles? That would be some interesting stuff to be exited about.
In reality, I guess that MFD is in a real competition right now. Otus lenses from Zeiss and Art-series from Sigma. 54 MP Sony sensor around the corner? 135 digital is moving into MFD territory fast
Best regards
Erik
Actually "16 bit" is even more a myth than most people think :)
Yes it's true that the last bits are just noise, but some still think that this noise is somehow an advantage to the image quality. The problem with that is that the raw format is not even storing this supposedly precious noise, as there is no engineering reason to do so. The Phase One IIQ L files store 14 bit samples, which then are scaled up to 16 bits during loading. Does not change the fact that stored sample information is "only" 14 bit.
If you look at the MOS format (Leaf Aptus) the file format range is 14 bit or 13 bit for higher ISOs. I think Hasselblad actually stores 16 bit though in their 3FR format, I'm not sure haven't looked at that format in detail. There a few older backs with older file formats that also store full 16 bits as far as I know. But the most commonly used backs do not.
It's quite interesting that "16 bit" has been so extensively used in marketing, and sometimes still is, when many/most digital backs have not even stored the bits.
-
My point was that people have different priorities and reasons and not everyone makes a purchase decision based on the sticker price of the commodities. Unfortunately, sarcasm isn't your forte.
Sadly, much of humanity cannot aspire to your degree of subtle courtesy, which contributes so greatly to this forum's pleasant atmosphere.
There's an unwritten rule here - you should always pretend that every other member has a working brain and reasoned opinions. And if you're a real gentleman you might even feel good while adhering to this rule.
Edmund
-
Pentax seems to put DSLR technology into the MF camera.
Also:
The thread title is Pentax 645X vs Phase One vs Hasselblad.
Where are the comments about Hasselblad?
And why is it only a price debate?
I must say I was shocked when I saw the test images from the Pentax 645 II. Maybe they hired bad photographers to introduce their camera - or the look is really this terrible. I prefer my 5DIII to this.
-
Great post, Edmund! Pleasure to read.
-
Hi,
Cost does matter to a lot of people. Honestly the 645Z is within my budget limit the IQ-250 is not. I set my budget limit around 13000$US including some lenses. I bought my P45+ when I found a good back at 10000$US (actually 9900, just to be honest). I spent a bit more on lenses than planned, of course.
The way I see it, Pentax is an integrated camera with the FP shutter as main issue. A slow FP shutter has long X-synced exposure times so it will not work well with outdoor flash in many cases, and shutter may cause problems. Also if you need removable back, go somewhere else.
Hasselblad is well integrated, but with a removable back. The major weakness is that it does not have live view. A nice thing with Hasselblad is that they are in charge of the entire system. Also, Hasselblad has some smart stuff like the HTS 1.5, that is integrated in Phocus.
Phase One has live view. A major advantage.
To that comes that the CMOS cameras are crop 1.3 (to full frame 645). Also when on a technical camera, they will not work well with Schneider wide angles, because of the beam angle. In many cases CCD based cameras are a better choice as they at least for now have less crop factor and less issues with beam angle.
I won't buy any of these, I am quite happy with my P45+, in spite of the systems limitations.
Also, I may be wrong but I see a Sony A9 on the horizon, 54 MP and next generation EVF. That camera with a few nice Zeiss lenses and a Mirex T&S adapter for my V-series lenses complemented with the Canon 17 and 24 T&S lenses may be the ultimate solution for me.
Or, I just stay with what I have and spend my money on travel. Alternatively, I may save for an 8K projector coming in 5-6 years that can show the pixels I already have. Full HD (1080) -> 2MP, 4K -> 8MP and 8K -> 32 MP.
Best regards
Erik
Pentax seems to put DSLR technology into the MF camera.
Also:
The thread title is Pentax 645X vs Phase One vs Hasselblad.
Where are the comments about Hasselblad?
And why is it only a price debate?
I must say I was shocked when I saw the test images from the Pentax 645 II. Maybe they hired bad photographers to introduce their camera - or the look is really this terrible. I prefer my 5DIII to this.
-
+1
Erik
Great post, Edmund! Pleasure to read.
-
If someone will want to compare the image quality of these three cameras on equal post processing, I have the software to convert Hasselblad and Pentax raws into a Phase One raw, and then you can process all in C1 as if they were IQ250 files. Assuming CFA is equal and there's not too much cooking in the hardware, the colors should match.
The reason I have this is to provide my Lumariver HDR users that own Phase One backs with a better raw workflow (C1 is not too good with DNG). That it's possible to convert other camera formats into IIQ was a side effect, and will probably not be in the released product. Phase One locks out the other Mf cameras for a reason and they probably won't like if we open this up. But I can convert a few files for demonstrational purposes.
-
Hi,
Would be interesting, would we have three comparable raw files from the three cameras.
Best regards
Erik
If someone will want to compare the image quality of these three cameras on equal post processing, I have the software to convert Hasselblad and Pentax raws into a Phase One raw, and then you can process all in C1 as if they were IQ250 files. Assuming CFA is equal and there's not too much cooking in the hardware, the colors should match.
The reason I have this is to provide my Lumariver HDR users that own Phase One backs with a better raw workflow (C1 is not too good with DNG). That it's possible to convert other camera formats into IIQ was a side effect, and will probably not be in the released product. Phase One locks out the other Mf cameras for a reason and they probably won't like if we open this up. But I can convert a few files for demonstrational purposes.
-
Would be interesting, would we have three comparable raw files from the three cameras.
Yep, I've tested the concept by converting a Hasselblad CF-22 3FR into a Phase One P25+ IIQ, and colors turned out well. With the H5D-50c, Pentax 645z and IQ250 if shooting the same subject it could very well turn out that the files look more or less exactly the same. I'm not sure though, I think (don't know for sure) that Hasselblad does some slight raw data cooking for color in their backs, as a part of their "Hasselblad Natural Color Solution", and that would mean that there would be some slight color differences. Differences in IR filter could also affect color somewhat.
What I expect the experiment to show is that the differences between these systems is not about the back's image quality, and you got to justify the $20k extra for the IQ250 with other properties. Actually, I think the Capture One converter is a pretty strong component for many that make them choose IQ250, that's why I think it's an important business decision by Phase One to not support Hasselblad or even worse Pentax 645z, because then they would remove one of the key differentiators.
I'm looking for a Hasselblad H5D-50c raw file for the moment, not really for this (I'd try it though out of curiousity) but for general 3FR format testing in the raw projects I'm involved. Haven't succeeded getting one yet though :-\. For 645z there's some waiting to do until it's released of course.
-
Do you have software to write synthetic raws in some known raw format?
I would like to do some raw converter tests.
Edmund
If someone will want to compare the image quality of these three cameras on equal post processing, I have the software to convert Hasselblad and Pentax raws into a Phase One raw, and then you can process all in C1 as if they were IQ250 files. Assuming CFA is equal and there's not too much cooking in the hardware, the colors should match.
The reason I have this is to provide my Lumariver HDR users that own Phase One backs with a better raw workflow (C1 is not too good with DNG). That it's possible to convert other camera formats into IIQ was a side effect, and will probably not be in the released product. Phase One locks out the other Mf cameras for a reason and they probably won't like if we open this up. But I can convert a few files for demonstrational purposes.
-
Do you have software to write synthetic raws in some known raw format?
I would like to do some raw converter tests.
The short story is that I unfortunately probably do not have the program you need for your testing :(
The full story is this; I contribute to RawTherapee (open source project) where I've made some key contributions to support medium format gear, and I'm also one of the developers making the commercial software Lumariver HDR, which does high class merging, tonemapping, and flatfield (LCC) correction and supports raw-in-raw-out workflow, primarily native-raw-in-DNG-out. The commercial value of supporting MF gear is not exactly big, but as I'm a MF shooter myself and need those features myself we do it anyway.
Anyhow, Capture One is popular among MF shooters, and Capture One happens to be poor at tonemapping (good for us) but also quite poor at dealing with DNG files (bad for us), which cripples Lumariver HDR's raw-in-raw-out workflow. The solution to this problem was to take the most popular MF format, Phase One's IIQ, and make a format writer for that. So then you can take your Phase One native IIQ raw, import that to Lumariver HDR, LCC-correct (crosstalk cancellation feature coming), tonemap, and then export to an IIQ raw which you then open as any normal raw file in Capture One. (This feature has not yet been released.)
As a side effect of having an IIQ writer it's also possible to import say a Hasselblad H5D-50c or Pentax 645z file and write an IQ250 IIQ file. It will only work color-wise if sensor CFA matches, and since Capture One ignores lots of its own IIQ tags and just goes on the model id tag, sensor size must also match an existing Phase One digital back model. The IIQ writer is not part of my open source effort so I can't just give it away. The feature is intended for Phase One digital back owners, so in the released product we will most likely not enable the possibility to import another format and write an IIQ (it won't work in most cases anyway for the reasons described).
I'm myself very curious about comparing these three cameras though, so if anyone provides raw files to me I can convert them so people can play around with it.
If you with synthetic raws means synthetic image data content it's not adapted to do that (ie the raw image data must come from a raw file). It's quite easy to add such a feature though, but we've had no reason to do so so far. The two raw formats we write is DNG and IIQ, and as said the only reason we write IIQ is because Capture One's DNG support is not satisfactory, at least not yet.
-
Torger.
Any chance lumariver HDR will be ported to a win platform in the future?
Thanks
Paul
-
Hi,
Realising that Lumariver HDR can handle raw input and output I got so impressed I ordered it directly, after checking the documentation.
One thing I would suggest you could look into would be this:
The way I use the gradient tool in Lightroom is mostly with the "Highlights" slider, this gives an ample compression of highlights without affecting midtones and darks very much. So, I can darken the sky without affecting say treetops. Something similar could be nice.
I am normally not that much in HDR, because I feel that I seldom need it. But, I'm going on a workshop in the Dolomites and I understand that we are going to look into HDR, and I felt it may be a good opportunity to test.
Best regards
Erik
The short story is that I unfortunately probably do not have the program you need for your testing :(
The full story is this; I contribute to RawTherapee (open source project) where I've made some key contributions to support medium format gear, and I'm also one of the developers making the commercial software Lumariver HDR, which does high class merging, tonemapping, and flatfield (LCC) correction and supports raw-in-raw-out workflow, primarily native-raw-in-DNG-out. The commercial value of supporting MF gear is not exactly big, but as I'm a MF shooter myself and need those features myself we do it anyway.
Anyhow, Capture One is popular among MF shooters, and Capture One happens to be poor at tonemapping (good for us) but also quite poor at dealing with DNG files (bad for us), which cripples Lumariver HDR's raw-in-raw-out workflow. The solution to this problem was to take the most popular MF format, Phase One's IIQ, and make a format writer for that. So then you can take your Phase One native IIQ raw, import that to Lumariver HDR, LCC-correct (crosstalk cancellation feature coming), tonemap, and then export to an IIQ raw which you then open as any normal raw file in Capture One. (This feature has not yet been released.)
As a side effect of having an IIQ writer it's also possible to import say a Hasselblad H5D-50c or Pentax 645z file and write an IQ250 IIQ file. It will only work color-wise if sensor CFA matches, and since Capture One ignores lots of its own IIQ tags and just goes on the model id tag, sensor size must also match an existing Phase One digital back model. The IIQ writer is not part of my open source effort so I can't just give it away. The feature is intended for Phase One digital back owners, so in the released product we will most likely not enable the possibility to import another format and write an IIQ (it won't work in most cases anyway for the reasons described).
I'm myself very curious about comparing these three cameras though, so if anyone provides raw files to me I can convert them so people can play around with it.
If you with synthetic raws means synthetic image data content it's not adapted to do that (ie the raw image data must come from a raw file). It's quite easy to add such a feature though, but we've had no reason to do so so far. The two raw formats we write is DNG and IIQ, and as said the only reason we write IIQ is because Capture One's DNG support is not satisfactory, at least not yet.
-
Hi,
I had a feeling somehow that being able to tweak a raw file and then dump it back into Raw so it can be read by an existing converter might allow some interesting experiments eg. corrections (crosstalk, flare; deconvolution), superposing exposures etc, but maybe it is irrealistic to expect to do it in a general way. Software is complex, I guess. I'm a "computer scientist" by trade which means I deal in small algorithms of a page or so, not "software". Bricks rather than buildings.
Edmund
The short story is that I unfortunately probably do not have the program you need for your testing :(
The full story is this; I contribute to RawTherapee (open source project) where I've made some key contributions to support medium format gear, and I'm also one of the developers making the commercial software Lumariver HDR, which does high class merging, tonemapping, and flatfield (LCC) correction and supports raw-in-raw-out workflow, primarily native-raw-in-DNG-out. The commercial value of supporting MF gear is not exactly big, but as I'm a MF shooter myself and need those features myself we do it anyway.
Anyhow, Capture One is popular among MF shooters, and Capture One happens to be poor at tonemapping (good for us) but also quite poor at dealing with DNG files (bad for us), which cripples Lumariver HDR's raw-in-raw-out workflow. The solution to this problem was to take the most popular MF format, Phase One's IIQ, and make a format writer for that. So then you can take your Phase One native IIQ raw, import that to Lumariver HDR, LCC-correct (crosstalk cancellation feature coming), tonemap, and then export to an IIQ raw which you then open as any normal raw file in Capture One. (This feature has not yet been released.)
As a side effect of having an IIQ writer it's also possible to import say a Hasselblad H5D-50c or Pentax 645z file and write an IQ250 IIQ file. It will only work color-wise if sensor CFA matches, and since Capture One ignores lots of its own IIQ tags and just goes on the model id tag, sensor size must also match an existing Phase One digital back model. The IIQ writer is not part of my open source effort so I can't just give it away. The feature is intended for Phase One digital back owners, so in the released product we will most likely not enable the possibility to import another format and write an IIQ (it won't work in most cases anyway for the reasons described).
I'm myself very curious about comparing these three cameras though, so if anyone provides raw files to me I can convert them so people can play around with it.
If you with synthetic raws means synthetic image data content it's not adapted to do that (ie the raw image data must come from a raw file). It's quite easy to add such a feature though, but we've had no reason to do so so far. The two raw formats we write is DNG and IIQ, and as said the only reason we write IIQ is because Capture One's DNG support is not satisfactory, at least not yet.
-
I'm a "computer scientist" by trade which means I deal in small algorithms of a page or so, not "software". Bricks rather than buildings.
Hehe, I was once part of a programming team nicknamed "The Bricklayers" due to our (relatively early) enthusiasm for OOP. Our fantasy rock & roll band got the name ARP/RARP & the WAN Woes, which I still wish I'd thought of. :D
-Dave-
-
I had a feeling somehow that being able to tweak a raw file and then dump it back into Raw so it can be read by an existing converter might allow some interesting experiments eg. corrections (crosstalk, flare; deconvolution), superposing exposures etc, but maybe it is irrealistic to expect to do it in a general way. Software is complex, I guess. I'm a "computer scientist" by trade which means I deal in small algorithms of a page or so, not "software". Bricks rather than buildings.
Yes, that's what we intend with Lumariver HDR. I have a crosstalk cancellation prototype algorithm ready and working for example. In the current version you can merge several exposures into one (HDR) so you get a super-low-noise raw file into your raw converter. Tonemapping you can apply to the raw file and export a "cooked" one, which is a good idea especially for Capture One whose own tonemapping is not particularly good if you ask me.
Many corrections, like deconvolution is probably better made after demosaicing though, so it's a mix of things. Raw converters like lightroom capture one etc already today does some corrections pre demosaicing but most post.
The reason we write raw is because we're doing a small speciality software which focuses at being best at a relatively narrow set of features, and as such it should work in various workflows including your favourite raw converter. A big player like Adobe has little/no reason to have raw-in-raw-out support as they offer software for virtually everything in the whole processing chain and want you as a user to use only their products of course.
Getting raw files to add support for medium format cameras have been proven to be quite difficult though, especially for Hasselblad for some reason, probably because it's less used in tech cameras, I get most my test files from the tech cam community which somehow seems a bit more open. If you intend to buy a camera I suppose it's easy to get files, but if you say it is to support the camera in third-party software it's more difficult to get response.
(Better bring this on topic soon or I sound too much like a salesman... hehe)
-
torger -
If you ever need more RAW files from IQ250, P45+ Achromatic or IQ180, just ping me.
Kind regards,
Gerald.
-
Gerald,
I appreciate you helpful and positive attitude!
I can add that I started playing with Lumariver HDR and it holds a lot of promise. Works better than anything I tried, but I am not a HDR freak.
The raw to raw workflow holds some promise, even if I just tested dng to dng. Writing to IIQ is still in development, but your files may be most helpful.
Needlessly said, I obviously bought a license, this is HDR stuff I am going to use!
Best regards
Erik
torger -
If you ever need more RAW files from IQ250, P45+ Achromatic or IQ180, just ping me.
Kind regards,
Gerald.
-
Gerald,
I appreciate you helpful and positive attitude!
I can add that I started playing with Lumariver HDR and it holds a lot of promise. Works better than anything I tried, but I am not a HDR freak.
The raw to raw workflow holds some promise, even if I just tested dng to dng. Writing to IIQ is still in development, but your files may be most helpful.
Needlessly said, I obviously bought a license, this is HDR stuff I am going to use!
Best regards
Erik
I simply think torger deserves all the help he can get. He has gained some pretty fundamental insight into issues which have affected me, and which Phase One were unable to solve.
I'm fortunate to have access to those three backs, pretty much the entire Rodenstock line of lenses (I'm just missing the 28), and a whole bunch of Canons too, so I can probably supply more back/lens combination files than most others could.