Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Telecaster on June 27, 2014, 12:30:44 am
-
Mr. Ming owns one of the first production 645Zs, if not the first, available to the public.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/27/review-the-pentax-645z-part-i/
-Dave-
-
Aloha,
Well Duh!
Nicely done!
Thanks for all your effort!
I also also saw a post stating that the first
Production run was sold out whatever that
Means....
-
The images look ded. Sharp, detailed, lifeless.
The one with the bushes seen from the top stuck in my memory as good, nice texture. I also like the pic of the camera itself in the beginning :)
It would be interesting if someone finally put a Z and a D side by side.
Here in Europe the D is selling new for 5KE.
Edmund
PS completely offtopic - but here is what the competition can do (Sigma DP2 Quattro):
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20140626_655138.html
-
The images look ded. Sharp, detailed, lifeless.
Hi Edmund,
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the camera (even less than 645D=CCD versus 645Z=CMOS), and everything with post-processing ...
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. The images on his webpage seem to have the AdobeRGB profile embedded. That makes the way they look browser depended.
-
PS completely offtopic - but here is what the competition can do (Sigma DP2 Quattro):
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20140626_655138.html
Mine should be waiting home by now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nick Devlin and I will be testing one next week.
Michael
-
Hi,
Nice to hear! The 645Z seems to be good news for anyone looking for MFD image quality at affordable price. Check for shutter related vibration, please, it may be the weak point of the offering.
Best regards
Erik
Nick Devlin and I will be testing one next week.
Michael
-
Nick Devlin and I will be testing one next week.
Michael
I look forward to a review with your insights and Nick's humor.
When the 645D was announced in the US, there was no question in my mind that I should pre-order one, which I did and have been delighted with camera. The Z, I'm not so sure; I've adapted a wait-and-see attitude. I'm aware of the improvements in specs over the D, but none of those is an overwhelming factor for my uses. I'm tempted by the size and weight of the A7r or the new Sigma Quattro or maybe something Sony has in mind for this sensor.
Tom
-
Aloha,
Michael,
You will be reviewing the Z or the Sigma?
Thanks, lee
-
My point of comparison is going to the the Sony A7r. I don't expect to do pixel peeping comparisons (heaven forbid), but I will try and get a sense of whether the increased size, weight, bulk and price of the Pentax Z might be worthwhile.
I will say that Nick has been a fan of the Pentax 645D, and the one time I used one in the past I was very impressed with its handling and overall gestalt. Looking forward to next week.
Michael
We are expecting a Sigma for review soon.
-
My point of comparison is going to the the Sony A7r. I don't expect to do pixel peeping comparisons (heaven forbid), but I will try and get a sense of whether the increased size, weight, bulk and price of the Pentax Z might be worthwhile.
I will say that Nick has been a fan of the Pentax 645D, and the one time I used one in the past I was very impressed with its handling and overall gestalt. Looking forward to next week.
Michael
We are expecting a Sigma for review soon.
I think the difference will come down to optics. The A7R has much more options in regards to lenses compared to the 645Z. Obviously Digital Backs are king in that department still but the A7R is close given how shallow the mount to sensor distance is.
-
Add some leaf shutter lenses and this time the game does change completely.
I want the leaf shutter lenses, but not for faster x-synch, but for lower vibration. There's a workaround though, until that bright sunshiny day when we get global shutter: electronic first curtain shutter. Along those lines, I was heartened by the D810 announcement yesterday.
Jim
-
Hi Edmund,
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the camera (even less than 645D=CCD versus 645Z=CMOS), and everything with post-processing ...
Cheers,
Bart
..................................................
Agreed Bart; I downloaded one the jpegs and a few adjustments in ACR completely removed the dull lifelessness of the image. I suspect he is uploading these ASAP with little or no post-processing.
Tom
-
Aloha,
That's a great point of comparison,
And what will nick be comparing it with;
A Nikon coolpix....
Seriously you're having a laugh?
-
Aloha,
That's a great point of comparison,
And what will nick be comparing it with;
A Nikon coolpix....
Seriously you're having a laugh?
Leeonmaui,
I think we all expect the Z to smoke the A7r; but that's not the point, for me anyway. I can't take the D to all the places I'd like to take photographs for all the usual reasons, but a smaller, less conspicuous camera opens new possibilities. The D has raised my file acceptability level; so for me the question is: can smaller cameras produce files I'm happy with and do I use my resources to buy a Z, or keep the D and add smaller cameras? It's pretty clear that the future is smaller, lighter systems; the question is when does the future arrive?
Tom
-
Hi,
Not sure about who is smoking whom. It may also depend a lot on lenses.
Going from 36MP to 50MP is a 17% linear. I would guess that the 645Z will show and advantage when comparing with an A7r image uprezzed to the same size. The 645Z will have an EV advantage in DR, simple coming from sensor size.
Shutter vibration will be an issue with both. Many testers have not noted the shutter vibration on the A7r but it is there.
Best regards
Erik
Leeonmaui,
I think we all expect the Z to smoke the A7r; but that's not the point, for me anyway. I can't take the D to all the places I'd like to take photographs for all the usual reasons, but a smaller, less conspicuous camera opens new possibilities. The D has raised my file acceptability level; so for me the question is: can smaller cameras produce files I'm happy with and do I use my resources to buy a Z, or keep the D and add smaller cameras? It's pretty clear that the future is smaller, lighter systems; the question is when does the future arrive?
Tom
-
Hi,
Shutter vibration will be an issue with both. Many testers have not noted the shutter vibration on the A7r but it is there.
Best regards
Erik
Well, at least that gives Sony a clear way to improve their game with the A8R :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
Yes, I would expect an A9, perhaps to Photokina. I would like a larger battery, electronic first curtain and 36 or 54 MP. I would probably buy. Right now I feel a bit ambivalent about the A7/A7r.
Best regards
Erik
Well, at least that gives Sony a clear way to improve their game with the A8R :)
Edmund
-
Part 2 is up...
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/
-
Hi,
Interesting and actually quite well done, IMHO, but no real surprise. You could read DxO-mark instead ;-)
I happen to shoot Hasselblad V, too, and I don't really agree on the lenses. I am pretty sure that the Hasselblad V lenses are better than Pentax 67 lenses, of which I own five. But, I feel they fell short of modern lenses for DSLRs on edge contrast and colour fringing.
Best regards
Erik
Part 2 is up...
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/
-
Predictably, the Sony CMOS chip does well on things, has huge DR etc. However we haven't seen any decent real-world people pics yet.
Frankly, if I felt so inclined, after looking at this review, I would just go get a D810; at 1/3 of the price of the Pentax Z and 1/10 of the Phase, it looks like a real bargain and camera enough to get any job done decently if not well.
Edmund
Hi,
Interesting and actually quite well done, IMHO, but no real surprise. You could read DxO-mark instead ;-)
I happen to shoot Hasselblad V, too, and I don't really agree on the lenses. I am pretty sure that the Hasselblad V lenses are better than Pentax 67 lenses, of which I own five. But, I feel they fell short of modern lenses for DSLRs on edge contrast and colour fringing.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Yes, if you don't need 50 MP resolution. I may add that I don't think that resolution is all that important. My best pictures were probably made using 12 MP, and they are good enough at A2 size. More pixels have more info, but may be we don't see it in prints.
Best regards
Erik
Predictably, the Sony CMOS chip does well on things, has huge DR etc. However we haven't seen any decent real-world people pics yet.
Frankly, if I felt so inclined, after looking at this review, I would just go get a D810; at 1/3 of the price of the Pentax Z and 1/10 of the Phase, it looks like a real bargain and camera enough to get any job done decently if not well.
Edmund
-
Predictably, the Sony CMOS chip does well on things, has huge DR etc. However we haven't seen any decent real-world people pics yet.
Frankly, if I felt so inclined, after looking at this review, I would just go get a D810; at 1/3 of the price of the Pentax Z and 1/10 of the Phase, it looks like a real bargain and camera enough to get any job done decently if not well.
It really depends on the needs, shooting style, target applications,...
As far as I am concerned, replacing my D800 by a D810 and replacing one tele lens by another one will cost me about the same as buying the 645Z without lenses... but will enable me to perform much better for a given project.
For stitched landscapes I don't see any value for the 645z. There is no Otus in the Pentax line up and nothing coming close to the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO for distant landscape in terms of sharpness nor in terms of weight/image quality ratio. When stitching doesn't apply, 17% additional linear resolution isn't insignificant... but those images are few and appart.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It really depends on the needs, shooting style, target applications,...
As far as I am concerned, replacing my D800 by a D810 and replacing one tele lens by another one will cost me about the same as buying the 645Z without lenses... but will enable me to perform much better for a given project.
For stitched landscape I don't see any value for the 645z. There is no Otus in Pentax line up and nothing coming close to the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO for distant landscape in terms of sharpness nor in terms of weight/image quality ratio. When stitching doesn't apply, 17% additional linear resolution isn't insignificant... but those images are few and appart.
Cheers,
Bernard
The unfortunate corollary here is that there is now little added value of the Phase and Hassy 50MP Cmos solutions except for people who need hi sync speed. With the Sony or Nikon and a Sigma lens you get the same sensor technology with a slightly different aspect ratio and 20% less pixels for 1/10 price of the Phase. Sharpness is probably equivalent, and decent AF is thrown in :)
At some point we're all going to agree that the emperor has few clothes; personally I think the low-rez CCD backs may still have something going for them lookwise, however the crop-CMOS Phase and Hassy solutions are nice additions if you are already in those systems, but don't make sense if you have zero lenses. The equation may change if decent-sized CMOS backs arrive, and we see some real MF again.
Edmund
-
The unfortunate corollary here is that there is now little added value of the Phase and Hassy 50MP Cmos solutions except for people who need hi sync speed. With the Sony or Nikon and a Sigma lens you get the same sensor technology with a slightly different aspect ratio and 20% less pixels for 1/10 price of the Phase. Sharpness is probably equivalent, and decent AF is thrown in :)
At some point we're all going to agree that the emperor has few clothes; personally I think the low-rez CCD backs may still have something going for them lookwise, however the crop-CMOS Phase and Hassy solutions are nice additions if you are already in those systems, but don't make sense if you have zero lenses. The equation may change if decent-sized CMOS backs arrive, and we see some real MF again.
Edmund
The big issue with the Pentax is the lens selection. It is limited. If all one needs is satisfied by what is available then this is a non issue since most lenses are good at f8-f11 and a lot can be had for cheap. With the Nikon and The Sony A7R one has a LOT of different lenses available from extreme wide angles to very fast lenses to extreme teles and of course a selection of Tilt Shift Lenses.
Medium Format Digital Backs offer an amazing variety of lenses available when one includes SLR lenses (which are somewhat system dependent), tech camera lenses and also the 35mm SLR lenses that work with the backs using a system like the Alpa FPS.
As of today nothing matches the edge to edge performance (even when using most of the large image circle) of the current crop of tech wide angle lenses. So if wide angle work is your thing then tech wides are still the best option available in regards to optical performance. It is just stunning.
For normal and slight tele focal lengths then one start getting into the SLR MF systems and the 645Z and D810 are thrown into the mix but still the MF systems from Phase/Hassy/Leica offer the options of flash sync at all shutter speeds and of course the tech camera systems offer the option of in plane back stitching since most lenses in that range have very large image circles.
For tele and extreme tele work the 35mm DSLRs are still the best choice.
For studio still life and macro nothing offers the overall control of a tech or LF camera with movements.
But as usual YMMV and its great to have many choices since ultimately camera system choice is a matter of preference.
I for one love the big sensors and the image quality I get from my IQ160 is just awesome whether I use it on my Hasselblad H or on my Arca. The large file size combined with the physically large sensor just behaves very differently from the 35mm DSLR sensors. Having owned the 645D the difference in size is noticeable between it ad the IQ160 just as the difference in size between the 645D and the D800E is too. As the numbers suggest the difference between the IQ160 sensor size and the D800E sensor size is quite significant, less so when you jump from the D800E size to the 645D (and Z/IQ250) size but the difference is there and it is noticeable.
I also really like the PhaseOne IQ chasis. The screen is awesome, tethering robust and the back just feels very solid. Disregarding the particular sensor it houses the IQ platform is superbly designed and is really EONS ahead of the previous MFDB designs and even the latest H5D backs. Yes we all wish they were lower in price but unfortunately no one else has come up with a product that matches it.
Honestly just like I found the 645D to be in some middle ground that makes it a tough choice (for me at least) the 645Z is too. Nestled between the great Nikon D800/D810 (with its huge Nikon / Zeiss lens lines) and the MFDBs with the versatility of being able to use them in a wide range of systems / setups including tech cameras and their superb lenses.
-
I have a brief unscientific post on my Pentax 645Z here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-645d-medium-format/266813-645z-first-play-date.html#post2864160
My clients spend their time trying to severely crop any image I give them in their sudden desire to re-purpose for who knows what, so a 51 mpx image will always be better than a 12 mpx image if you have many advertising agency or design clients.
My only issue so far with the Pentax is that I can't really use it tethered to C1 which I have always done with my Phase One back. Pentax tethering solution is promised, but probably only with their software. I'm still learning and testing this camera so don't expect to use it on a job for a week or two...
-
Hi,
I would say this is a good point. We see some real great lenses coming from Sigma (Art) and Zeiss (Otus) and I would expect 54 MP or so full frame 135 as the technology in APS-C is already there.
I am not sure that the Pentax 645Z is so much ahead next generation 135 in image quality. That said, the larger sensor has some advantage, and the cost is lower than what you pay for a P45+ back without camera body.
The same may apply to the IQ-250 to some extent.
Best regards
Erik
…
Honestly just like I found the 645D to be in some middle ground that makes it a tough choice (for me at least) the 645Z is too. Nestled between the great Nikon D800/D810 (with its huge Nikon / Zeiss lens lines) and the MFDBs with the versatility of being able to use them in a wide range of systems / setups including tech cameras and their superb lenses.
-
I had an opportunity a few days ago to witness my photographer friend testing both Pentax 645Z and Leica S. Pentax with the tele 150mm and Leicas S with Macro 120mm f2.5, ha gave me couple of raw file to do the comparison and this is the result. Both shot at same EV, WB. The skin tone in Pentax looks flat and couldn't render red very well, not sure if this has anything to do with being CMOS sensor.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2909/14602404145_ae2f0234b7_b.jpg)
*I've posted this in another thread as well.
-
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2909/14602404145_fb52afef01_o.png)
The model seems to prefer the Pentax.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I had an opportunity a few days ago to witness my photographer friend testing both Pentax 645Z and Leica S. Pentax with the tele 150mm and Leicas S with Macro 120mm f2.5, ha gave me couple of raw file to do the comparison and this is the result. Both shot at same EV, WB.
Did that same EV setting result in equal exposure levels of Raw data? IOW, are both cameras equally sensitive, e.g. when set to ISO 100? The White Balance setting upon shooting is not relevant for Raw's, the WB as determined by the Raw converter is.
The skin tone in Pentax looks flat and couldn't render red very well, not sure if this has anything to do with being CMOS sensor.
No, it has nothing to do with CMOS. The only thing that matters are the characteristics of the Bayer CFA filters used. More relevantly, which camera profile was used in C1 for the Leica S and for the Pentax 645Z?
It's known that C1 does not always handle DNGs all that well as other native Raw formats, so that may say more about that than about the camera ... Did you also compare in e.g. Lightroom?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart see remark in other thread. CFAs define color, but skin tone also depends on texture reproduction, and many CMOS camera destroy texture by excessively filtering the Raw files to hide sensor issues.
Edmund
No, it has nothing to do with CMOS. The only thing that matters are the characteristics of the Bayer CFA filters used. More relevantly, which camera profile was used in C1 for the Leica S and for the Pentax 645Z?
Bart
-
Hi Ronald,
I know you say this but what kind of filtering would that be? Have you any proof?
Best regards
Erik
-
Bart see remark in other thread. CFAs define color, but skin tone also depends on texture reproduction, and many CMOS camera destroy texture by excessively filtering the Raw files to hide sensor issues.
Hi Edmund,
We're not talking about consumer grade cameras here that take liberties with noise reduction.
The noise reduction of CMOS devices is known as correlated double sampling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_double_sampling), which has no effect on texture because that requires several neighboring pixels. Double sampling reduces individual pixel noise by removing reset noise thus leaving shot noise and readnoise (the latter of which is usually lower in CMOS as well).
Maybe you are referring to other filtering, I wouldn't know what that is without some examples.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Edmund,
We're not talking about consumer grade cameras here that take liberties with noise reduction.
The noise reduction of CMOS devices is known as correlated double sampling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_double_sampling), which has no effect on texture because that requires several neighboring pixels. Double sampling reduces individual pixel noise by removing reset noise thus leaving shot noise and readnoise (the latter of which is usually lower in CMOS as well).
Maybe you are referring to other filtering, I wouldn't know what that is without some examples.
Cheers,
Bart
I'll see if I can chase something down that shows the extent of CMOS pattern noise.
Anyway, we'll son have a ton of samples to look at. For myself, I believe that the fact that the same matrices as for the A7R work indicate that the 50MP chips have the same CFAs as the A7R, and Sony probably provides a software SDK that realizes A7R-style pattern noise reduction quality - so the A7R should be a baseline for what we should be seeing. Have we seen A7R portraits?
Even if there is some noise reduction smearing, it should be at pixel scale, while the image scales up with a larger sensor, meaning Pentax/Phase/Hassy images should be perceived as better than the A7R, if equivalent glass were used. I don't know how an average MF lens stacks up next to the new breed of dSLR super-lenses but I'm sure real world experience will soon make speculation moot.
Edmund
-
Hi,
One thing that comes to my mind is that non OLP filtered MF-backs will create artificial low frequency detail, which can add structure.
Doug Peterson's library pictures has indicated that the Iq-250 has much less aliasing, at least much less colour aliasing, than IQ-260 and IQ-280. This may depend on the gapless microlenses on the IQ-250, which increase the fill factor. Hard to find any other explanation.
I guess some of the MFD look comes from aliasing.
Best regards
Erik
Bart
I'll see if I can chase something down that shows the extent of CMOS pattern noise.
Anyway, we'll son have a ton of samples to look at. For myself, I believe that the fact that the same matrices as for the A7R work indicate that the 50MP chips have the same CFAs as the A7R, and Sony probably provides a software SDK that realizes A7R-style pattern noise reduction quality - so the A7R should be a baseline for what we should be seeing. Have we seen A7R portraits?
Even if there is some noise reduction smearing, it should be at pixel scale, while the image scales up with a larger sensor, meaning Pentax/Phase/Hassy images should be perceived as better than the A7R, if equivalent glass were used. I don't know how an average MF lens stacks up next to the new breed of dSLR super-lenses but I'm sure real world experience will soon make speculation moot.
Edmund
-
Part Three of Mr. Ming's review is now up.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/15/the-pentax-645z-review-part-iii-sdm-lenses-and-long-exposures/
-Dave-
-
Hi,
Interesting read, but pretty much what I (and you) would expect.
Best regards
Erik
Part Three of Mr. Ming's review is now up.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/15/the-pentax-645z-review-part-iii-sdm-lenses-and-long-exposures/
-Dave-
-
Part Three of Mr. Ming's review is now up.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/15/the-pentax-645z-review-part-iii-sdm-lenses-and-long-exposures/
-Dave-
Given what he's already found regarding its excellent high ISO shadow detail (beating the D800E at full res, and the D4 when downsampled to match MP), and now these long exposure dark noise results (several times better than the D800E, apparently), the 645Z would appear to be the current most suitable single-shot-colour astro camera.
I'd be thrilled about that, and saving my cents for one, if only it could reach infinity with M645 lenses! But alas that's impossible, and there's nothing in the Pentax lineup to correspond to must-haves like my 24/4 fisheye, 80/1.9, 200/2.8 APO...it's been said many times that the only real weak point of the Pentax MFD option is the lens range, and I fully concur. Meanwhile, the IQ250 is way out of my budget.
Phamiya: got the lenses, can't afford the CMOS sensor. Pentax: can afford the CMOS sensor, doesn't have the lenses. :-[
What I need is someone to build an A7R-like (better still, an X-T1 like) short-flange mirrorless body using the 645Z sensor!
And just think of the other possibilities, such as Hartblei/Alpa-FPS style use of 35mm lenses on a medium format sensor ;D.
Ray
-
The images look ded. Sharp, detailed, lifeless.
The one with the bushes seen from the top stuck in my memory as good, nice texture. I also like the pic of the camera itself in the beginning :)
It would be interesting if someone finally put a Z and a D side by side.
Here in Europe the D is selling new for 5KE.
Edmund
PS completely offtopic - but here is what the competition can do (Sigma DP2 Quattro):
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20140626_655138.html
I get that impression from all the MF CMOS sensor backs.
The great something of MF doesn't seem to be there in CMOS backs. More resolution, but very technical.
It's as if the fine tones of light aren't there, as if there was just blunt, factual recording, cutting out the finer moments.
-
Hi,
I would expect the Pentax 645 to perform better on noise than the Nikons, because of sensor size alone. I would also assume that the sensor is quite similar to late generation Exmors. Dark exposure capability is another thing.
Best regards
Erik
Given what he's already found regarding its excellent high ISO shadow detail (beating the D800E at full res, and the D4 when downsampled to match MP), and now these long exposure dark noise results (several times better than the D800E, apparently), the 645Z would appear to be the current most suitable single-shot-colour astro camera.
I'd be thrilled about that, and saving my cents for one, if only it could reach infinity with M645 lenses! But alas that's impossible, and there's nothing in the Pentax lineup to correspond to must-haves like my 24/4 fisheye, 80/1.9, 200/2.8 APO...it's been said many times that the only real weak point of the Pentax MFD option is the lens range, and I fully concur. Meanwhile, the IQ250 is way out of my budget.
Phamiya: got the lenses, can't afford the CMOS sensor. Pentax: can afford the CMOS sensor, doesn't have the lenses. :-[
What I need is someone to build an A7R-like (better still, an X-T1 like) short-flange mirrorless body using the 645Z sensor!
And just think of the other possibilities, such as Hartblei/Alpa-FPS style use of 35mm lenses on a medium format sensor ;D.
Ray
-
I get that impression from all the MF CMOS sensor backs.
The great something of MF doesn't seem to be there in CMOS backs. More resolution, but very technical.
It's as if the fine tones of light aren't there, as if there was just blunt, factual recording, cutting out the finer moments.
We seem to be the only ones with this assessment of the images.
Interestingly, Ming has a review of the H4D40, and the H4D40 pictures are superb with no rework, but he doesn't realize just how good they are (http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/25/medium-format-h4d-40/) and thinks they are D800 -equivalent. I disagree :)
At least Ming is consistent - when given an MF-sized D800 he loves it.
It's possible that the firmware for the CMOS backs will be fixed once they realize they really do have an issue.
Edmund
-
Could it be the great something is false detail?
Does it matter?
Like film before it, CCD is going away.
The CCD look is going away, like the analogue look which preceded it.
Photographers and customers will adapt their esthetics.
The immediate and soon to come workflow advantages of CMOS are again a huge step forward: Huge ISO (cheap lighting), Huge DR (latitude), liveview, video, main sensor AF, preview look and color balance in efinder during liveview, electronic first shutter curtain means no vibration, and of course full frame still extraction from a video stream which will revolutionize fashion.
If medium format shooters wanted better files, rather than faster cheaper catalog shoot tools, they would need to demonstrate that they can recognize them. As most photographers cannot see a difference, they don't need anything different from what is being sold to them.
Edmund
PS. I will wait a few years and then I will buy up some old Hassies or even a Leica S - that will solve *my* camera problem.
-
Like film before it, CCD is going away.
The CCD look is going away, like the analogue look which preceded it.
I'm not going to leap into a ccd look vs a cmos vs film or anything debate because like the ten million 35mm vs. medium format "discussions"
those go absolutely nowhere.
Some think they see a difference in capture mediums, some think they don't, some think it doesn't matter.
I just know of life through my experience and have experienced creatives selecting 25 or 15, or 30 something images from our repertoire
that all we're shot with ccd cameras.
It could be that we spent more effort in lighting given the lower iso, (though many were daylight)
It could be that we sharpen ccd images differently.
It could just be that they do look different and in the world of commerce even a slight difference is good.
I know it doesn't matter to anyone but the image maker and sometimes the people paying.
Leica M9's are hard to find and in demand by people that think they see a difference,
others think they don't, but photographer's willing to pay a premium for an older camera would be hard to convince otherwise.
Doesn't mean either views are right or wrong.
Except for creative briefs that don't resonate.there usually isn't a right or wrong in image making for commerce.
In regards to the comment that a certain look is departing, I don't see it exactly that way.
What overall sensibilities I see changing in commercial imagery is two trends.
1. A real life look where there is limited on set production and either light or minimal or maybe
even inexperienced post production, usually due to budget, sometimes because less fussy imagery is considered more believable.
(BTW: I love beautifully constructed, real looking imagery and from experience can say it's one of the most
difficult things in the world to pull off. Just shooting for shooting sake doesn't really do it.)
2. A very effected post production look, with 10x's more effort weighted to the backend, but once again usually due to budget, though not always.
The capture device really is a small part of the process, no matter how many of us are tempted by gleaming new
boxes and promises of new is better than old, regardless of pixel peeping testers, or budget conscious naysayers.
For 5 years and today budget and time are much more compressed in the professional image making world than ever before,
regardless of the medium, regardless of the capture device, regardless of your role, from creative, to writer,
photographer/director/imager maker, to post production team.
As far as medium format cameras moving/adding cmos, that was inevitable, given it allows for higher iso, real live view and
expands the medium format market, which is the goal of any camera maker, whether they sell 20 or 20,000 cameras a month.
The bottom line is really the bottom line. Higher iso, smaller form factors usually make for speedier production and faster
production usually costs less money, at least on the front end.
If the results are better or worse, is the purchase worth it, that's a real judgment call.
What I do find surprising is some of the negative responses on this forum about the Pentax.
People have been quite vocal for an under 10 grand medium format cameras for years and now they have them, or at least one of
them and I'd think the response would have been overwhelmingly positive.
IMO
BC
-
J,
I agree the response to the Pentax has been underwhelming. Maybe the pix will save it; for me, the issue is that it is a huge beast with a comparatively small sensor and finder - about as sexy as a rhinoceros; I don't like it. The obvious jokes about an arranged marriage to a very large and ugly woman for dowry reasons come to mind: the size of the dowry doesn't make her pretty, just marriageable. BTW, the original and now $5K Pentax 645D is a really good deal.
I don't know how more much time compression and budget compression is compatible with "constructed" still photography of people. The budget compression and global campaigns also seem to have eradicated most of the middle class of product photographers. In the news business the transformation is complete, and news still photojournalists are all but extinct. Maybe staged sets and constructed lighting etc will only be used commercially in the future when video budgets are available, and what we now see as studio still photography will be practiced as a supplement to video, except for the few at the narrowing apex of the pyramid.
On the other hand, I am enthused by the number of nice cheap used cameras that will be flooding the market over the next few years - photographically excellent Leica M8's are now around $1.2K, used consumer dSLRs and "high end" point and shoots are flea market items. If one only outputs to web, or prints at A3 size, then the practice of photography becomes one of the cheapest and most accessible art forms or hobbies imaginable - almost right there with drawing on restaurant napkins :)
Edmund
I'm not going to leap into a ccd look vs a cmos vs film or anything debate because like the ten million 35mm vs. medium format "discussions"
those go absolutely nowhere.
Some think they see a difference in capture mediums, some think they don't, some think it doesn't matter.
I just know of life through my experience and have experienced creatives selecting 25 or 15, or 30 something images from our repertoire
that all we're shot with ccd cameras.
It could be that we spent more effort in lighting given the lower iso, (though many were daylight)
It could be that we sharpen ccd images differently.
It could just be that they do look different and in the world of commerce even a slight difference is good.
I know it doesn't matter to anyone but the image maker and sometimes the people paying.
Leica M9's are hard to find and in demand by people that think they see a difference,
others think they don't, but photographer's willing to pay a premium for an older camera would be hard to convince otherwise.
Doesn't mean either views are right or wrong.
Except for creative briefs that don't resonate.there usually isn't a right or wrong in image making for commerce.
In regards to the comment that a certain look is departing, I don't see it exactly that way.
What overall sensibilities I see changing in commercial imagery is two trends.
1. A real life look where there is limited on set production and either light or minimal or maybe
even inexperienced post production, usually due to budget, sometimes because less fussy imagery is considered more believable.
(BTW: I love beautifully constructed, real looking imagery and from experience can say it's one of the most
difficult things in the world to pull off. Just shooting for shooting sake doesn't really do it.)
2. A very effected post production look, with 10x's more effort weighted to the backend, but once again usually due to budget, though not always.
The capture device really is a small part of the process, no matter how many of us are tempted by gleaming new
boxes and promises of new is better than old, regardless of pixel peeping testers, or budget conscious naysayers.
For 5 years and today budget and time are much more compressed in the professional image making world than ever before,
regardless of the medium, regardless of the capture device, regardless of your role, from creative, to writer,
photographer/director/imager maker, to post production team.
As far as medium format cameras moving/adding cmos, that was inevitable, given it allows for higher iso, real live view and
expands the medium format market, which is the goal of any camera maker, whether they sell 20 or 20,000 cameras a month.
The bottom line is really the bottom line. Higher iso, smaller form factors usually make for speedier production and faster
production usually costs less money, at least on the front end.
If the results are better or worse, is the purchase worth it, that's a real judgment call.
What I do find surprising is some of the negative responses on this forum about the Pentax.
People have been quite vocal for an under 10 grand medium format cameras for years and now they have them, or at least one of
them and I'd think the response would have been overwhelmingly positive.
IMO
BC
-
One of the rental houses/dealers in London has an open day and will I presume be stocking the pentax and obviously doing rental, they are also a phase one dealer.
Wonder if any others will follow suit? Even the official hassleblad dealer/rental/importer hires phase one too and used to do pentax 6x7 back in the film days.
-
One of the rental houses/dealers in London has an open day and will I presume be stocking the pentax and obviously doing rental, they are also a phase one dealer.
Wonder if any others will follow suit? Even the official hassleblad dealer/rental/importer hires phase one too and used to do pentax 6x7 back in the film days.
The Pentax has a realistic list price and probably makes good pictures - I'm not sure rental houses appreciate its existence because the inflated Phase list prices really increased their margins -and the backhanders to photographers in "latin" markets.
Edmund
-
if there is a demand for it they will rent it. but the rental will be £150 p/day not £350
-
Hi,
If you need a state of the art DSLR with 50 MP, the Pentax 645Z may the camera to get…
Best regards
Erik
The Pentax has a realistic list price and probably makes good pictures - I'm not sure rental houses appreciate its existence because the inflated Phase list prices really increased their margins -and the backhanders to photographers in "latin" markets.
Edmund
-
I get that impression from all the MF CMOS sensor backs.
The great something of MF doesn't seem to be there in CMOS backs. More resolution, but very technical.
It's as if the fine tones of light aren't there, as if there was just blunt, factual recording, cutting out the finer moments.
I don't really get your point. The only thing any digital camera does is "blunt, factual recording" of light. A camera has no appreciation of the quality of light or the right place or moment to make an exposure. So what you're really complaining about is the decisions of the photographer, and given that this was just a test review shoot, I don't think it's fair to complain about that either.
Ray
-
The only thing any digital camera does is "blunt, factual recording" of light.
Really?! The use of CFAs alone introduces subjectivity and taste into the datapath. Then we get to processing firmware & outboard software, which are required to massage the sensor's data into something resembling the product of human vision. More subjectivity.
-Dave-
-
I don't really get your point. The only thing any digital camera does is "blunt, factual recording" of light. A camera has no appreciation of the quality of light or the right place or moment to make an exposure. So what you're really complaining about is the decisions of the photographer, and given that this was just a test review shoot, I don't think it's fair to complain about that either.
Ray
Speaking as an engineer, I've never understood all this BS about how important a "photographer" is - the body that owns, maintains and relocates the equipment, unpacks it, and makes the shutter go click by pressing the button. Everybody owns one or several cameras these days, eg. in their phones and most have the good sense not to call themselves "photographers".
Edmund
-
Really?! The use of CFAs alone introduces subjectivity and taste into the datapath. Then we get to processing firmware & outboard software, which are required to massage the sensor's data into something resembling the product of human vision. More subjectivity.
-Dave-
You don't need to tell me about CFA differences, Dave - I seem to spend my life pointing out to certain people that CFA tweaking is a big part of why they think CMOS is inferior to the "CCD look".
No, I was questioning rather why he expects "fine tones of light" to feature in the kind of everyday shots that Ming posted in his review. And in particular what "the finer moments" - something temporal and presumably fleeting - has to do with evaluating sensor quality. I reiterate that "The only thing any digital camera does is "blunt, factual recording" of light.": or to put it another way, it's just "photons in, electrons out" - the sensor does what it does, regardless of the "fine-ness" of the scene.
Ray
-
You don't need to tell me about CFA differences, Dave - I seem to spend my life pointing out to certain people that CFA tweaking is a big part of why they think CMOS is inferior to the "CCD look".
No, I was questioning rather why he expects "fine tones of light" to feature in the kind of everyday shots that Ming posted in his review. And in particular what "the finer moments" - something temporal and presumably fleeting - has to do with evaluating sensor quality. I reiterate that "The only thing any digital camera does is "blunt, factual recording" of light.": or to put it another way, it's just "photons in, electrons out" - the sensor does what it does, regardless of the "fine-ness" of the scene.
Ray
I don't know about Ming, but Joe Average overexposes some of every shot, underexposes another part, gets stranded in strongly channel-unbalanced lighting, takes several shots in a row and overheats the sensor...stressing the poor camera in a novel way with each new incompetent attempt to capture an image. The poor thing gets so stressed it cannot function objectively and dispassionately do much blunt, factual recording" of light.
That's why Joe Average is called a "camera user" and not a "photographer". A "photographer" is somebody who sets up clean lighting, puts a DR-limited test chart in front of the camera, uses a sturdy tripod, and manages to find the shutter button and click it. Photographers are so smart and technically competent that they can employ any camera :)
Edmund
-
That's why Joe Average is called a "camera user" and not a "photographer". A "photographer" is somebody who sets up clean lighting, puts a DR-limited test chart in front of the camera, uses a sturdy tripod, and manages to find the shutter button and click it. Photographers are so smart and technically competent that they can employ any camera :)
The way I heard it, if you buy a violin, you own a violin, but if you buy a camera, you are a photographer.
Jim
-
The way I heard it, if you buy a violin, you own a violin, but if you buy a camera, you are a photographer.
Jim
As my japanese friends would say, "that sounds about light".
Edmund
-
Hi,
I would agree with the camera bluntly recording light. On the CFA thing, I don't know. It is always the question of CFA and colour conversion matrix combination. With DNG, colour conversion matrix varies with colour temperature.
Colour temperature choice in raw conversion matters a lot. I happened to change defaults for my P45+ in LR5 by mistake so default is a measured WB from a grey card, so my conversions are much better now. A lucky mistake. (Now I have change default WB to a known ColorChecker exposure.)
Sensors add some shot noise, PRNUnoise and readout noise of their own, and so add some fake detail unless stopped down enough to eliminate aliasing artefacts (f/16 on my P45+).
Best regards
Erik
You don't need to tell me about CFA differences, Dave - I seem to spend my life pointing out to certain people that CFA tweaking is a big part of why they think CMOS is inferior to the "CCD look".
No, I was questioning rather why he expects "fine tones of light" to feature in the kind of everyday shots that Ming posted in his review. And in particular what "the finer moments" - something temporal and presumably fleeting - has to do with evaluating sensor quality. I reiterate that "The only thing any digital camera does is "blunt, factual recording" of light.": or to put it another way, it's just "photons in, electrons out" - the sensor does what it does, regardless of the "fine-ness" of the scene.
Ray
-
A typical example of a "camera user" rather than "photographer" is this guy called Cooter or something who keeps posting here. He insists on changing the illuminant in his shoots, often mixes uncontrolled "natural" light with proper studio lights, creates scenes that have deep shadows and highlights rather than nice uniform lighting, and also he uses models who have speculars on their hair and faces. These he even sets up against windows, stressing the DR of the camera to a point which is technically excessive. And he lets his models wear textile clothes, which are a known potential source of Moiré! These are the sort of people which camera designers have to work around - they all think they are artists of some sort.
Then there's this other guy who does interior design he keeps insisting that he needs to show the inside of the house and the stuff outside the windows - ridiculous! Anybody could tell you that's going to be a headache -
Oh, yeah, there's also this landscape guy, he always wants both land, sky, and sea speculars to show on his pics. I don't understand some of them, I mean anybody could tell you that's just asking too much, and there's going to be a problem with the camera if the sun is in the picture.
:) :) :)
Edmund
-
Welcome to the silly season.
I'm sorry, I must have had a senior moment :)
Edmund
-
I blame the heat.
I blame the camera ;D It's never the photographer.
-
Speaking as an engineer, I've never understood all this BS about how important a "photographer" is - the body that owns, maintains and relocates the equipment, unpacks it, and makes the shutter go click by pressing the button.
Are you suggesting that, a la Dawkins, we are just vehicles for the reproduction of selfish cameras?
-
Are you suggesting that, a la Dawkins, we are just vehicles for the reproduction of selfish cameras?
Have you seen those extensible rods which girl tourists now carry around so they can take selfies with a background?
I suggest photographers were a biological antecedent of these metallic telescopic rods :)
Edmund
-
I suggest photographers were a biological antecedent of these metallic telescopic rods :)
I always thought photographers acquired big cameras to compensate for their lack of telescoping rods.
-
I always thought photographers acquired big cameras to compensate for their lack of telescoping rods.
Apparently these novel helping hands are called selfie sticks :)
Edmund
-
I had an opportunity a few days ago to witness my photographer friend testing both Pentax 645Z and Leica S. Pentax with the tele 150mm and Leicas S with Macro 120mm f2.5, ha gave me couple of raw file to do the comparison and this is the result. Both shot at same EV, WB. The skin tone in Pentax looks flat and couldn't render red very well, not sure if this has anything to do with being CMOS sensor.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2909/14602404145_ae2f0234b7_b.jpg)
*I've posted this in another thread as well.
I know this is an old post, but I thought of adding by 2cents.
I have been shooting with the 645z for over a year now, and found that the image adjustment settings of the camera are actually captured and adjusted in the raw file. Thus comparing a raw picture from the 645z with another camera's raw does not tell you much. You will have to edit out the settings from the camera in an editor, such as PS Raw or LR, to be able to compare side by side with another camera.
Thus the pale skin color of the 645z shot on the right could be a setting on the 645z, which was included in the dng file. Of course a raw editor can change that.
Theuns
Correction: Apologies for my incorrect statement above, not all image adjustment settings are captured in the DNG file. I double checked and from what I could see it is only the WB & Tint that is written into the DNG file on the camera.
Also to be noted is that PS Raw editor defaults to the Adobe camera color profile, which makes colors very flat. If you switch to the "embedded" profile then the colors come back to life. I presume the "embedded" profile was written into the DNG by the camera.
Theuns
-
Hi,
This may be a perfectly good example of the benefits of spending 10 k$US on a better camera instead of spending 15 minutes on better profiles…
Best regards
Erik
I know this is an old post, but I thought of adding by 2cents.
I have been shooting with the 645z for over a year now, and found that the image adjustment settings of the camera are actually captured and adjusted in the raw file. Thus comparing a raw picture from the 645z with another camera's raw does not tell you much. You will have to edit out the settings from the camera in an editor, such as PS Raw or LR, to be able to compare side by side with another camera.
Thus the pale skin color of the 645z shot on the right could be a setting on the 645z, which was included in the dng file. Of course a raw editor can change that.
Theuns