Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad  (Read 34936 times)

Chairman Bill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3352
    • flickr page
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2014, 09:14:59 am »

Love it, Erik, whether it was intentional or not.

Jim

You needed to double post to get the full effect

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2014, 09:45:09 am »

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.
Logged
Kevin.

funkysmurf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #42 on: May 07, 2014, 10:13:17 am »

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  :)
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2014, 11:51:54 am »

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
Logged
Kevin.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2014, 05:52:44 pm »

So you don't miss echo of the "echosystem".

BR Erik

You needed to double post to get the full effect
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

funkysmurf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2014, 07:41:07 pm »

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  :)
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2014, 03:30:09 am »

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.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2639
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2014, 03:35:26 am »

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…
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

Pics2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 198
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2014, 04:58:17 am »

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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2014, 11:41:24 am by Pics2 »
Logged

Streetshooter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2014, 11:00:50 am »

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
Logged

Pics2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 198
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2014, 11:17:54 am »

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.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2014, 12:35:29 pm »

No need to... check this thread here on LuLa: 16 Bit Myth

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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 12:37:09 pm by torger »
Logged

Chris Livsey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 807
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2014, 01:09:36 pm »

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 ???

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2014, 01:10:22 pm »

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.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2014, 06:11:19 pm »

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
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 06:19:30 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2014, 09:53:32 pm »

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.

Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2014, 01:34:34 am »

Great post, Edmund! Pleasure to read.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #57 on: May 10, 2014, 02:26:30 am »

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.


« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 03:12:07 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #58 on: May 10, 2014, 03:09:11 am »

+1

Erik
Great post, Edmund! Pleasure to read.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Pentax 645Z vs Phase One & Hasselblad
« Reply #59 on: May 10, 2014, 06:50:39 am »

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.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 06:59:42 am by torger »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up