Miles's Pentax 645D review

[BernardLanguillier]

Miles, thanks for the interesting review http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/Pentax_645D_review_pt2.html!

It is great to finally have an MF camera you don't have to worry about in tough outdoor conditions.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JohnBrew]

I went to the website and the images are just gorgeous. IMO, Miles is doing everyone a great service with his reporting on this ground breaking camera.

[mhecker*]

Thanks Bernard I'm glad you enjoyed it.   

I also did an interview with SmibsTV today.

See http://smibs.tv/live

We discussed many of the items discussed in the online review. 

[Lacunapratum]

Thanks Miles and "harklee" for sharing your impressions.  Gorgeous photographs. 

Looks like many of the Hasselblad or Phase users are starting with an entirely new system.  Perhaps some of the Pentax users were motivated by an arsenal of P645 lenses in their cabinet.  I had some 20 Pentax lenses waiting and another 20 adapted lenses ready to be used on the Pentax 645D.  I waited until March of this year when curiosity drove me to Samy's Pro Department in LA.  They said they don't have any, all sold out months in advance.  But after some searching they found one that was unspoken for, apparently waiting for me. 

Hard to express the sense of excitement when the camera finally arrived.  The solid feel, the easy use.  Certainly the camera I have been waiting for.  Pentax sent me a letter indicating they enrolled me in their pro program.  Most of the lenses work well, including the 600mm, 400mm, and 300mm APO lenses, the 35mm FA and the 120 macro.  Even an adapted 30mm Kiev fisheye isn't dreadful.  Portraits turn out gorgeous, with dreadfully narrow depth of field and wonderful bokeh. 

Compared to a Sinar Hy6 with 75LV back the Pentax is much more robust.  With the Rolleiflex/Sinar I always worried the grip will break off eventually.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses though.  The Rolleiflex is ideal for the studio and for flash photography and has some awsome lenses.  The Rollei has also endless possibilites for macro photography.  I also prefer the Rollei metering.  The Pentax in comparison is much more versatile for outdoors photography.  It holds up at low temperature and it even can be used handheld.  Together they work well for me and they put all my old glass to good use. 

B&H e-mailed me today indicating that the 645D is back in stock.  Don't need it anymore.   

[ErikKaffehr]

+1

Erik

I went to the website and the images are just gorgeous. IMO, Miles is doing everyone a great service with his reporting on this ground breaking camera.

[ErikKaffehr]

Very nice interview, thank you!

Erik

Thanks Bernard I'm glad you enjoyed it.   

I also did an interview with SmibsTV today.

See http://smibs.tv/live

We discussed many of the items discussed in the online review. 

[Jim2]

miles, awesome photos!

[NigelC]

Miles, you say that the 645D only really shows its extra resolution over say the 5D2 at 24"x30" and above. But I always felt that with film, large format was identifiable even at 8" x 10" or 10"x12", because of the smoothness of gradation (not that I ever had the temperament to use LF). Is this not true of MFD?

[mhecker*]

Film had grain. At the low ISO's we normally shoot landscape photos at, ISO 100 or less on some cameras, large digital sensors have very close to zero noise or grain.

Large format looked better, even at 8x10 because the grain became so small on the print it was "invisible" to the normal human eye and the tonality was superior. That advantage doesn't exist in the digital world. ISO 100 "grain" is simply invisible in the print.

The closest thing to it, would be dithering pattern of the printer.
That's why a print made on an Epson printer at a dot density of 2880x1440, will look better than one made at 1440x720 under close up critical inspection.

[ErikKaffehr]

Miles.

You write in your review: "If you jump to a 24"x30" print the story is different. The 645D will produce prints I would rate A+, the little 35mm guys would yield B+ print quality. The differences would be in micro detail, micro contrast and especially tonality."

I have absolutely now issue with your writing, but I don't understand the tonality issue. Micro detail and and micro contrast, no problem. But what is tonality?

I have actually looked quite a lot at your images, downloaded raws and even printed at similar sizes to yours. Indeed, the Pentax images were better, no question about that. Much better detail (fully expected) and also better color (much less expected).

Bad what is tonality? A combination of DR and gradation curve? Why is it better with a larger sensor? Can you elaborate on the issue?

Best regards
Erik

Film had grain. At the low ISO's we normally shoot landscape photos at, ISO 100 or less on some cameras, large digital sensors have very close to zero noise or grain.

Large format looked better, even at 8x10 because the grain became so small on the print it was "invisible" to the normal human eye and the tonality was superior. That advantage doesn't exist in the digital world. ISO 100 "grain" is simply invisible in the print.

The closest thing to it, would be dithering pattern of the printer.
That's why a print made on an Epson printer at a dot density of 2880x1440, will look better than one made at 1440x720 under close up critical inspection.

[mhecker*]

Tonality is the transition between one shade of a color and another.

Some people make this to be a mystery, but it's really quite simple.
I normally print at 240 pixels per inch on my Epson 9880.

If you have 240 real pixels per inch from the camera between color A and color B  you get the best possible tonality.
If you have less, say 175 real pixels and interpolate with the Image|Size command in Photoshop to 240,  most times you won't get as good a tonal transition. Everyone accepts this with detail, fake interpolated detail is not real, but it's also true with tonality and color transition.

This is why MF or LF looked better printed even in the wet darkroom days.
Less enlargement made for smaller grain size on the print and better tonality.

[ErikKaffehr]

Miles,

Thanks for explaining!

Best regards
Erik

Tonality is the transition between one shade of a color and another.

Some people make this to be a mystery, but it's really quite simple.
I normally print at 240 pixels per inch on my Epson 9880.

If you have 240 real pixels per inch from the camera between color A and color B  you get the best possible tonality.
If you have less, say 175 real pixels and interpolate with the Image|Size command in Photoshop to 240,  most times you won't get as good a good a tonal transition. Everyone accepts this with detail, fake interpolated detail is not real, but it's also true with tonality and color transition.

This is why MF or LF looked better printed even in the wet darkroom days.
Less enlargement made for smaller grain size on the print and better tonality.