Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23   Go Down

Author Topic: Pentax 645Z  (Read 156092 times)

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #420 on: August 26, 2014, 08:24:24 pm »

Regarding the M9, they seem to have a sensor or cover glass issue, and Leica is running out of repair parts.

I hadn't heard that yet, too bad.  I bought mine last year.  Extremely pleased with the character and the look of the files.

Although CCD it cannot be compared with my P30+ or S2 IMO.

As a matter of fact I wished the S2 files looked a little bit more like the M9… :)

« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 09:33:10 pm by JV »
Logged

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #421 on: August 26, 2014, 08:39:07 pm »

A comment about 645D / 645Z service and reliability.

Check out these recent posts by users / owners:

...

Doesn't sound good but I am sure you can find stories like these for any brand.

The Pentax 645Z is an amazing value proposition compared to Hasselblad and Phase and people are going to buy it despite stories like these.

I really hope this camera is successful and that it lights a fire under the combined asses of Phase and Hasselblad!
Logged

Royce Howland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
    • Vivid Aspect Photography
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #422 on: August 26, 2014, 09:16:27 pm »

In the interests of balanced reporting :) I'm one of the ones quoted above about trouble with Pentax digital 645 cameras, from posts on another forum. Yes, my first 645Z was DOA and had to be exchanged right away. Yes, I've blown through two shutters in my first 645D body (nearly 4 years old), and which has yet to return from the shop after the 2nd shutter replacement. Yes, Pentax currently doesn't have much to offer by way of professional-level support (at least in Canada, I can't speak from direct knowledge elsewhere). Myself and numerous others have provided very clear feedback about this to our dealers & reps, and it sounds like Ricoh is working on coming out with something. But it's probably going to take some time yet before they launch whatever they come up with.

Having said all of that... resoundingly YES, the images I have been getting and will continue to get from these cameras satisfy me in every way. I've put 10's of thousands of frames through my Pentax 645D bodies, and already over 4K frames through the new 645Z while I test it out. I have zero regrets investing in this system starting 4 years ago, and have been progressively doubling down on it in anticipation that the Z would correct some of the things that I wished were improved about the D. That move was not a mistake, for me. I will keep on shooting this system for a long time, I expect. Right now I don't see who would come out with something with a significantly better enough bang-for-buck, along with other camera qualities that I value, to tempt me to switch to anything else.

The new Z in particular is really quite ideal for somebody like me, doing landscapes, travel, architecture, street and various other generalist work with an aim primarily at very well-printed fine art work.

So there's a positive note from somebody who probably is close to holding the world record for serious hardware trouble with the Pentax digital 645's. If I'm still bullish on the system, how bad can it be... :)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #423 on: August 26, 2014, 09:34:57 pm »

I should like to tell the story of my P45+ which I bought with a Valued Added warranty in Paris, bundled with a Mamiya AFDII. The Mamiya developed a synch fault which caused the bottom of some images to stripe magenta. My Phase dealer promptly informed me gleefully that in the buy only the back was warranteed for fast service, and the camera needed to be sent back to Japan, a matter of waiting a few months. I bought a used Mamiya from *another* dealer.

Moral of this story: When you buy Phase, your experience will be exactly as good as your dealer. If your dealer is good your life will be great, if your local dealer likes to sell in quantity to museums and institutions and not to individuals you are better off buying a dSLR, with the big japanese companies' repair service and different problems again.  I have no doubt that if Doug or Steve sold Pentax, they would have loaner units, couriers and all the other services of a good dealer, including doubtless the services of a local repair technician for minor adjustments.

For a positive story, I blew two Canon 1Ds shutters, they were quickly replaced by Canon Paris, for free.

Edmund


In the interests of balanced reporting :) I'm one of the ones quoted above about trouble with Pentax digital 645 cameras, from posts on another forum. Yes, my first 645Z was DOA and had to be exchanged right away. Yes, I've blown through two shutters in my first 645D body (nearly 4 years old), and which has yet to return from the shop after the 2nd shutter replacement. Yes, Pentax currently doesn't have much to offer by way of professional-level support (at least in Canada, I can't speak from direct knowledge elsewhere). Myself and numerous others have provided very clear feedback about this to our dealers & reps, and it sounds like Ricoh is working on coming out with something. But it's probably going to take some time yet before they launch whatever they come up with.

Having said all of that... resoundingly YES, the images I have been getting and will continue to get from these cameras satisfy me in every way. I've put 10's of thousands of frames through my Pentax 645D bodies, and already over 4K frames through the new 645Z while I test it out. I have zero regrets investing in this system starting 4 years ago, and have been progressively doubling down on it in anticipation that the Z would correct some of the things that I wished were improved about the D. That move was not a mistake, for me. I will keep on shooting this system for a long time, I expect. Right now I don't see who would come out with something with a significantly better enough bang-for-buck, along with other camera qualities that I value, to tempt me to switch to anything else.

The new Z in particular is really quite ideal for somebody like me, doing landscapes, travel, architecture, street and various other generalist work with an aim primarily at very well-printed fine art work.

So there's a positive note from somebody who probably is close to holding the world record for serious hardware trouble with the Pentax digital 645's. If I'm still bullish on the system, how bad can it be... :)
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 09:55:52 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #424 on: August 26, 2014, 09:41:31 pm »

No doubt both the 645D and Z are good cameras and are providing the owners with excellent results.  

The comments from Royce, pretty much nail the issues on the head, mainly that if things go wrong, you are looking at the 10 weeks wait.  It still seems that the bodes stll have to go back to Japan for repair.  I had hoped to see Pentax create some form of a North American repair center, for Canada and US warranty work.  I realize for the price of the other companies single product, you can purchase 2 of the Z's and have a backup.  Not sure what the cost of shipping/insurance is for such a return, but I am sure it's not cheap.  

Might not be a bad idea, as products do fail and the failures tend to happen at the most inopportune times.  

I am battling with Nikon right now with a potentially lost brand new D810 that had to go back for the white dot issue and it's not going well so far.  So I can fully understand the issues.  

Hopefully Pentax address the service issue in the future.  

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #425 on: August 26, 2014, 09:55:47 pm »

I generally agree with your thoughts, but I must take exception to this one.  Despite my interest in the Z, I have not subscribed to Lloyd's site.  I did when he reviewed the 645D and I even supplied some of the lenses he tested.  I like his writing style, although it is bit caustic at times,  and he often has valuable insights, but I discovered his results and mine don't always agree even using the same lenses.

No worries Tom, I clearly have not used the 645Z myself and my overall view is that it is an amazing camera, the only MF camera I could seriously consider purchasing.

I just meant to say above that, for those interested in Lloyd's views - and I agree that some of his views may not be aligned with the views of actual long term users of the equipment - it would be fair to pay to get access to the details of the review and not just a quick summary by me. ;)

It is of course totally legitimate not to be interested and to prefer first hand experience. At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #426 on: August 26, 2014, 10:01:13 pm »

As the linked examples show, that lens suffers from swirly bokeh wide open, which means that the background appears to rotate around the subject. This is an artefact that results from the entrance of the lens designed too small for the maximum aperture, so that the side of the entrance of the lens vignette the sides of the diaphragm. Typically, the image of out of focus point lights will be round near the center and will have a cat eye shape near the sides.

This is an artefact that is typical of the combination of two factors: large aperture and physically small lens. Nikon engineers could have avoided the problem by making the lens twice as large. The effect also disappears when the aperture is closed down, typically to f/2.0-f/2.8 on this kind of lens. It is actually a good example of the artefacts that arise from the constraints of 24x36 lenses. MF lenses are typically slower and quite large and avoid that particular artefact as a consequence.

Jerome,

Perhaps, I guess that our bokeh taste differs. :) I personally find overall the bokeh generated by the 58mm f1.4 to be the most pleasing I have seen in a normal to short tele lense but I am sure there are many lenses I have never seen at work that may be even nicer though.

I also like the total blur generated by the Canon 85mm f1.2 @ 1.2, but that is closer to what you get with a 200mm f2.0. Very nice, but the background is pretty much reduced to large color spots. You would get the same with a PS blurred studio background image lit of correctly, so I am not sure it is most adequate for environmental portraiture, but that is again merely a matter of taste.

Cheers,
Bernard

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #427 on: August 26, 2014, 10:29:24 pm »

There is no question that Pentax service is not what it once was (pre Hoya).  I once had a long conversation with the tech working on my 67 lens in the Colorado repair center.  I have also taken lenses to the Mississauga repair center in Canada and had face-to-face discussions with the techs.  Those repair centers are now closed.  Pentax USA had been using CRIS in Arizona.  I had one repair from them; it was prompt and well done, but when I called I couldn't get past the receptionist.  Pentax USA is moving repairs to Precision Cameras.  I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

On  a more positive note: I've had the 645D since 2010 and it has required no repairs and no cleaning.  The camera even maps out its bad pixels, of which there haven't been many.
Logged

tsjanik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #428 on: August 26, 2014, 10:55:02 pm »

.................... At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard:

I agree, but the hard part is determining which equipment achieves that.   

Best,

Tom
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #429 on: August 26, 2014, 11:45:25 pm »

I agree, but the hard part is determining which equipment achieves that.  

It may be hard to determine which equipment is the very best at achieving that, but I think that finding something which is "good enough" is in fact easier than we (I) sometimes think.

Would the 645Z be superior to my D810 for the landscape part of what I like to do? I guess it probably would to some extend, but I clearly feel that the D810 is more than good enough and is in no way limiting me today.

As a jack of all trade camera, I find that it does extremely well at the different styles of photography below and is never far from the very best in each category.











Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 11:52:13 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #430 on: August 27, 2014, 12:01:13 am »

Hi,

If you happen to have a set of fine Pentax 645 lenses and can afford it, the P645Z is a no brainer. It is the best camera you can put on those lenses. If the P645Z is too expensive, the P645D is now available at much lower price.

Little doubt that the P645Z will offer a small improvement of image quality in print over the P645D, peeping pixels may be another thing, as the images are viewed larger at actual pixels with the P645Z.

Some of the older Pentax 645 lenses were very, as far as I can recall, like all ED IF telephoto lenses.

On the other hand, if someone builds an equipment from scratch the it is not obvious that Pentax 645Z is the way to go.

Best regards
Erik


No worries Tom, I clearly have not used the 645Z myself and my overall view is that it is an amazing camera, the only MF camera I could seriously consider purchasing.

I just meant to say above that, for those interested in Lloyd's views - and I agree that some of his views may not be aligned with the views of actual long term users of the equipment - it would be fair to pay to get access to the details of the review and not just a quick summary by me. ;)

It is of course totally legitimate not to be interested and to prefer first hand experience. At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #431 on: August 27, 2014, 12:13:53 am »

Hi,

Just a few comments:

Lloyds review of the P645Z is still on going. It seems that he warms up to the camera, the more experience he gains the more he likes it. He is in the progress of going trough the results from shooting in the field for one or two weeks.

Reading reviews like Lloyd's is helpful if planning into buy a system. It may be that personal experience may be preferable, but it may also be that a short test is not giving a good insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a system.

Best regards
Erik





I just meant to say above that, for those interested in Lloyd's views - and I agree that some of his views may not be aligned with the views of actual long term users of the equipment - it would be fair to pay to get access to the details of the review and not just a quick summary by me. ;)

It is of course totally legitimate not to be interested and to prefer first hand experience. At the end of the day, the reality is that the only thing that matters is the ability of the equipment we select to meet our creative needs.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #432 on: August 27, 2014, 12:36:07 am »

Hi,

Either of those photographers use a 50 MP camera with a 44x33 mm sensor? It has 27% larger linear size than 24x36 (on the diagonal)
and (50/39)^0.5 * 100 -100 = 13% more linear pixels than a 39 MP DSLR.

Is that 13% advantage enough to make wall size prints that can be viewed really close?

For best sharpness from a single exposure, I would still guess that large format film drum scanned at high PPI (6000-10000) and expertly processed still is king, the next best is probably a high end digital back on a technical camera with Schneider or Rodenstock HR lenses using optimum aperture. With stitching, essentially any resolution can be achieved, but there are many cases where stitching is not practical.

Just to say, my experience is with 6x7 film (Pentax 67), Hasselblad V-series and P45+ (being trough eight different Zeiss lenses) and Sony 24MP cameras. I am not really happy about film, but I have seen some decent samples of drum scanned film.

If you check Hasselblad MTF curves, it is quite obvious that the new H-series lenses are better than the old Zeiss lenses, almost without exception, that may explain some of the differences between your experience and mine. I feel the Pentax my 67 lenses are a bit weaker than my Zeiss lenses for the "blad", that doesn't say anything about Pentax 645 lenses I don't have. This thread happens to be about the P645Z, I know.

Tim Parkin made some tests with large format film and also including both P45+ (which I happen to have) and a Phase One IQ 180, the difference between the P45+ and the IQ-180 was a bit larger than I would have expected.

Some examples here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

Best regards
Erik

....
You should try to go to a museum exhibiting pictures by Andreas Gursky or Hiroshi Sugimoto.

This discussion is ridiculous. In effect, you are saying that people do not need any more than so many pixels because they only have A2 printers and when they have bigger printers the public should not be allowed to come close to the prints, etc... I have seen this argument many times.

Except that they are photographers who print huge pictures, hang them in museums and the public is allowed to come close. And the effect of these large prints is extraordinary. Size matters.

Now, let us suppose that I want to make wall-size pictures that will look as sharp as the real thing up close because I want to duplicate that overwhelming experience. What camera should I get?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 01:13:38 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z (Print sizes)
« Reply #433 on: August 27, 2014, 02:59:47 am »

Hi,

Just to put things a little bit in perspective, we can discuss print sizes. Many sources, like the Bruce Faser/Jeff Schewe book on sharpening mentions 180 PPI needed for a good print. Epson's native resolution is either 360 PPI or 720 PPI, with Canon it is 300 PPI or 600PPI.

180 PPI corresponds to 50 (20") cm viewing distance with 20/20 vision, while 360 PPI corresponds to 25 cm (10") distance still with 20/20 vision.

Standing in front of an image at 'arms length' is something like 80 cm.

If we use the 180 PPI criterion, we would have the following figures:

80 MP digital back:  57.6" x 43.4" (1.46 x 1.10 m)
Pentax 645Z:  45.8" x 34.4" (1.16 x 0.87 m)
36MP DSLR: 41"x27.3" (1.04 x 0.69 m)

For the really critical viewer, looking at 25 cm the sizes would be divided by 2. So if someone is looking with 20/20 vision at 25 cm the maximum size would be 73 cm x 55 cm for the 80 MP back and 52 cm x 27 cm for the DSLR.

In reality we can print much larger. Reasons are:

Generally, large prints are viewed at longer distances than small prints. Also, most viewers say above 40 years of age have no perfect close vision, and very few viewers look at images at 25 cm with reading glasses, and not even reading glasses are optimized for 25 cm.

Another main reason we can print larger is that the eye is more sensitive to low frequency detail than high frequency detail.

Lenses obviously play a major role.

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #434 on: August 27, 2014, 07:34:17 am »

for those photographers who dont print but send images to print any ‘print size’ discussion is moot.
it’s only really relevant for adshel or exhibition pull-ups where the viewer is close to the image but for billboard the dots are like golf balls so 12mp is fine.
it’s nice to have the crop ability and the 100% view on screen to appease clients but at the end of the day a clean 100meg tiff is more than most clients need.
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #435 on: August 27, 2014, 07:37:30 am »

From a professional standpoint, where the Pentax shines is the ability to have 50mpx in a 4:3 crop (if that's your cup o tea) and being a focal plane camera, the ability to build a very interesting lens set like tilt shifts, older pentax 6x7 lenses which have beautiful roll off along with more modern lenses for the "micro detail is everything crowd".

The other huge advantage is 645d's can be had on the cheap so an A cam and backup doesn't cost the price of a BMW 335.  

The one thing Pentax must do is offer competent and robust tethering for the Z but make it backwards compatible for the older D model.

You see a lot of negativity about pricing traditional medium format cameras, but the one up Phase has on almost every camera maker is they continue to upgrade and support their older legacy backs/ That and they offer excellent professional dealer support.

Every professional camera should have a professional dealer network.

My p21+, p30+ are better today than when I purchased them, due to software and firmware upgrades.  That made adding a Leica S2 a simple process knowing my phase backs with Contax lenses made the system virtually interchangable with the S2 because Leica made full featured convertors for my Zeiss Contax lenses.

Every maker should look at how well Phase supports their equipment and every maker should strongly think about making lens adapters that offered all functions, so moving to a new or different platform is a seamless process.

My Contax Zeiss as well as Hasselblad H lenses work as well on a  S series Leica as they do in their native cameras.

If the Z did the same it would get my attention and I assume many Hasselblad owners as well.*

IMO

BC

*Well get attention, though I doubt if I'd buy, just because I'm really happy with the Leica and my older Phase backs and most of our equipment budget goes toward digital cinema cameras.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 08:12:14 am by bcooter »
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #436 on: August 27, 2014, 09:12:35 am »

Either of those photographers use a 50 MP camera with a 44x33 mm sensor?

Andreas Gursky used sheet film for his earlier works and scanned it and now uses a Phase 1 back.

Hiroshi Sugimoto uses sheet film and enlarges it optically.

I think that I will close that discussion here, because nobody here has actually seen wall size fine art prints.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #437 on: August 27, 2014, 09:25:42 am »

Nice image!
Erik



Hi Bernard:

I generally agree with your thoughts, but I must take exception to this one.  Despite my interest in the Z, I have not subscribed to Lloyd's site.  I did when he reviewed the 645D and I even supplied some of the lenses he tested.  I like his writing style, although it is bit caustic at times,  and he often has valuable insights, but I discovered his results and mine don't always agree even using the same lenses.

I have many of the Pentax 645 lenses and most are excellent unless you shoot wide open and even then the 600mm f/5.6, 300mm f/4 (I use the 67 version) and 120 macro are very good.  The 120 macro (both the FA and older A version) out resolve the 645D sensor.  This is just my experience, but it agrees with any number of posts from users of the camera and I find this collective consensus more reliable than one tester's report.

Best,

Tom

A wide open example using the 600:

_IGP8972 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #438 on: August 27, 2014, 10:02:33 am »

Hi,

Either of those photographers use a 50 MP camera with a 44x33 mm sensor? It has 27% larger linear size than 24x36 (on the diagonal)
and (50/39)^0.5 * 100 -100 = 13% more linear pixels than a 39 MP DSLR.

Is that 13% advantage enough to make wall size prints that can be viewed really close?

For best sharpness from a single exposure, I would still guess that large format film drum scanned at high PPI (6000-10000) and expertly processed still is king, the next best is probably a high end digital back on a technical camera with Schneider or Rodenstock HR lenses using optimum aperture. With stitching, essentially any resolution can be achieved, but there are many cases where stitching is not practical.

Just to say, my experience is with 6x7 film (Pentax 67), Hasselblad V-series and P45+ (being trough eight different Zeiss lenses) and Sony 24MP cameras. I am not really happy about film, but I have seen some decent samples of drum scanned film.

If you check Hasselblad MTF curves, it is quite obvious that the new H-series lenses are better than the old Zeiss lenses, almost without exception, that may explain some of the differences between your experience and mine. I feel the Pentax my 67 lenses are a bit weaker than my Zeiss lenses for the "blad", that doesn't say anything about Pentax 645 lenses I don't have. This thread happens to be about the P645Z, I know.

Tim Parkin made some tests with large format film and also including both P45+ (which I happen to have) and a Phase One IQ 180, the difference between the P45+ and the IQ-180 was a bit larger than I would have expected.

Some examples here: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/cameratest-2/800px.html

Best regards
Erik


Hello Erik

Good points as always.
My goal has always been to capture images that will hold up to large scale printing.  The largest single image I have made was a single image broken into (4) 36 x 72 panels.  I have had prints made even larger, however I did not do the final uprez. 

I also feel that the best printing solution is one done with the least amount of uprezing.  As has been pointed out in Jeff"s Digital Print, and other publications, for an Epson inkjet the best output dpi is either 360 to 720.  For say a 23 x 33 at 360 dpi, even a single shot from a 60MJP back will not print this without uprez.  What tools are used is another topic. 

Since 2003, I have worked to come up with ways to gain raw resolution, starting with a Zork adapter on a 1ds MKI and moving up to the current solution of MP back and Acra  tech camera.  Most often I still stitch a solution with the Acra working again to gain as much overall resolution as possible, thus keeping uprez work later on to a minimum.  As anyone who uses this equipment knows this is a much more involved workflow involving multiple captures and LCC work.  The results still impress me.  So far none of the current 50MP Sony solutions really mean much to me since the current chip is not friendly with wides at all.  My shooting environment the wides are most common, 28mm or 40mm max 60mm. 

Do I feel that the difference between a single D810 and single P645Z frame is important, yes, sure there is more useable resolution in that single frame, however I could easily stitch my D810 for 3 frames have have more useable resolution.  And sure someone could stitch 3 frames with a 645Z so question comes back to the knowledge base of the photographer.  If you just had to use a single frame from a 645Z or D810 then I believe the 645Z would make a larger print with less effort.  Good technique needs to be used on both of these platforms with wide lenses to allow you to use the full frame taken, and not crop due to corner softness.

Everyone has their own levels of what constitutes a good print, and I don't feel any two photographers will ever agree.  I know what I like to see from a 30 x 40 print in details and I feel I have a solution that gets me there.  Was it a cheap not in the least but I still prefer the output from the Schneider and Rodenstock glass, no matter what the workflow is.  It does tend to make you a bit more focused on the shot at hand. 

For me it's a balancing act of can I carry the weight all day to get a shot I know will hold up in larger print sizes.  Many times I know that a 5 to 8 mile hike in 100% Arkansas humidity is not where I want to carry a Phase One solution all day, and thus I compromise with either Nikon or Fuji.  Many tend to also forget it seems that all the current 50MP chips are 1:3 cropped and that's 30% less overall image.  For a wide shooter that's a big deal.  I still remember the issues I had with the 1:1 (10%) crop of the P45+. 

I hope Pentax is successful for sure as I have always liked their medium format gear.  However knowing what I have learned in the past 8 years of stitching, if I did not own the Phase One/Arca gear I know I could still get great results with the D810 and stitching. 

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Pentax 645Z
« Reply #439 on: August 27, 2014, 10:52:01 am »

Andreas Gursky used sheet film for his earlier works and scanned it and now uses a Phase 1 back.

Hiroshi Sugimoto uses sheet film and enlarges it optically.

I think that I will close that discussion here, because nobody here has actually seen wall size fine art prints.

I saw Edward Burtynsky's aerial landscapes in a NY gallery not long ago.  They were done with a Hasselblad and 50MP back.  The prints were about 4'x6' (adjust for correct aspect ratio).  Amazing.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23   Go Up