Diglloyd tests the P645Z

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

There is also the question of value.

For many users value matters a lot. Questions like:

- Want MF image quality, does the Pentax deliver it at an affordable price?
- The Pentax 25/4 mm lens costs as much alone as a DSLR and an excellent Zeiss 21/2.8 lens? Does it deliver an image quality motivating the difference.
- The Pentax 645Z is pretty similar in specs to the Leica S, and is said to have good high ISO image quality, can it deliver on image detail?

Questions like this are in my view quite valid. Not for the customer looking for the best stuff money can buy, but for anyone wanting to spend their money wisely.

The other side of the coin is that almost any equipment may be good enough. Personally, I feel that many of my best pictures were made with a 12 MP camera in 2008. Since that I have grown to 24 and 39 MP, but I don't think gears have improved my pictures. Essentially, 12 MP APS-C is good enough for most of the images I make. More pixels may be helpful for large prints, but I seldom print larger than A2.

The impression I have from Lloyds testing right now is that:

- The Pentax 645Z can deliver great image quality with the right lenses
- Even the best lenses are not as good as the Leica S lenses
- The Pentax 645Z has good image quality at high ISOs

Of course, it can be said that it is best to make your own tests, but it is not that simple. It takes some time and experience to find out about stuff. Renting stuff like MFD is not trivial for an amateur, like me. You need to have a company, insurance cover and a lot of stuff.

Just to mention, I have been shooting MFD for something like a year. After a year of use I still cannot say what I feel about my equipment. I enjoy shooting it, but I don't know about the results. I see the resolution advantage, but I may find it not so significant as I can see the differences in analytical viewing but not in actual prints. I also have that nagging feeling that few of my MF images are that great. Thriving for perfection may miss some great shots.

Using zooms gives a great advantage for composition. With a limited set of fixed focals I get more into cropping and stitching, so taking pictures is more engineering with MF and more dependent on post processing.

Many aspects…

My take is that it is great news that Pentax makes an affordable MF camera with a modern sensor, but I don't know if it is a good buy compared to affordable DSLR camera. Lloyd's initial reporting indicated it may not be a good buy, but in his later reporting he is more positive.

Best regards
Erik

Peeps should use what they want.

I think the Pentax file looks good and is kind of  muted pastel (from what I've seen)  but that doesn't mean much until you get into post work.

I just think people get too weirded out on this stuff.

 I was looking for an extra evf bomb for one of my RED's last week, did a search and the internet was full of equipment forums where people were just pissing and moaning about each other's opinion.

I'll bet you 99% of the responses were hearsay but they were all having a go at each other.

What does it matter as long as you use the equipment you want to use and the photograph is worthwhile.

To me, I see a difference in all cameras, cmos or ccd and some correct to my style easier, some more difficult, but it's all good when you think about it.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

.................................snip............................

There is also the question of value.

.................................snip............................

Using zooms gives a great advantage for composition. With a limited set of fixed focals I get more into cropping and stitching, so taking pictures is more engineering with MF and more dependent on post processing.

Many aspects…

My take is that it is great news that Pentax makes an affordable MF camera with a modern sensor, but I don't know if it is a good buy compared to affordable DSLR camera. Lloyd's initial reporting indicated it may not be a good buy, but in his later reporting he is more positive.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, cool, but this is what I mean.  

What you want like microcontrast (I really don't know what that term means . . . seriously) and zooms isn't on my list, but I do respect that it's a feature you want and that's great.

What I find strange is so many people have a baseball bat out for the other opinion (Not You, just it seems on some forums in general, though this one is pretty good).

It's like when people talk about RED.  No camera other than Leica seems to draw out so much "passion" both + and - as those two companies which is kind of strange.

To me they're great, though we had some learning curve early on, RED broke the mold and their cameras really have more than improved our work, they've just been a tremendous asset to our studios.

But it seems like RED has huge fan boys or huge haters and either one I don't get.

I'm realistic about my REDs.  They were expensive (not so much today) but they opened the market up for 4k raw cameras and motivated other companies to follow suit.

I think that's great.

It's funny I was on a stage in west hollywood and went outside as we were prepping to go home.  I started talking to this DP that does commerce and he was just moaning about the REDs.   I asked him what he didn't like and he really couldn't say, other than he just didn't, but I looked at his comp reel on my mobile and asked him what was shot with what and 85% of all the non film work was with a R1 or Epic, so he might not like them but he's using them.

I'm with you though I think the Pentax is great because of price and it opens up a different world for medium format.  Will it replace Phase/Leaf/Leica/Blad?

I dunno, I hope not because I assume all of those companies fill a slot and keep things moving forward.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

IMO

BC

[Ken R]

My take is that it is great news that Pentax makes an affordable MF camera with a modern sensor, but I don't know if it is a good buy compared to affordable DSLR camera. Lloyd's initial reporting indicated it may not be a good buy, but in his later reporting he is more positive.

Best regards
Erik

This has been beaten to death in this and other forums. The answer is always the same. No, MF Digital, specially New Leica, PhaseOne and Hasselblad gear is NOT a good value if you want the best image quality for your dollar. The 645Z is a better value but still not a great value compared to say a D810.

Can you get better image quality with some of the MF Digital systems? Absolutely. Can you get different results and a very different shooting and working experience with a MF Digital System? Of course.

But if you are interested in the best image quality (in general, engineering/measurable terms) for your $ then the best 35mm DSLR systems are unbeatable.

If you want something different, then MF Digital offers many many options from integrated SLR systems like the Leica S and 645Z, semi-integrated systems like the PhaseOne DF+ / back combination to tech cameras like the ARCA RM3Di to cameras like the ALPA FPS that can combine SLR lenses with a modular tech style system. Some of us have one digital back and several setups for it.

[ErikKaffehr]

BC,

Thanks for responding. The main reason I started this thread was really to inform about Lloyds tests and also give some indications about his findings.

An interesting point is that Lloyd liked the Leica S2 when he tested it. My impression was that he considered buying it himself. I would not buy the Leica S, as it is beyond my means, but it seems to be an attractive camera to me.

I was interested in Pentax 645D, I was not far from buying one a couple of times. I have less interest in Pentax now, as I feel there are a lot of interesting developments on smaller formats. I am shooting a lot with my Hasselblad 555/P45+ combo now, it is fun to use it. Clearly I wouldn't buy it again, but I enjoy it as it is. I also have five lenses for the "Blad" and the availability of affordable lenses was the main reason I went with the "Blad".

Best regards
Erik

Erik, cool, but this is what I mean.  

What you want like microcontrast (I really don't know what that term means . . . seriously) and zooms isn't on my list, but I do respect that it's a feature you want and that's great.

What I find strange is so many people have a baseball bat out for the other opinion (Not You, just it seems on some forums in general, though this one is pretty good).

It's like when people talk about RED.  No camera other than Leica seems to draw out so much "passion" both + and - as those two companies which is kind of strange.

To me they're great, though we had some learning curve early on, RED broke the mold and their cameras really have more than improved our work, they've just been a tremendous asset to our studios.

But it seems like RED has huge fan boys or huge haters and either one I don't get.

I'm realistic about my REDs.  They were expensive (not so much today) but they opened the market up for 4k raw cameras and motivated other companies to follow suit.

I think that's great.

It's funny I was on a stage in west hollywood and went outside as we were prepping to go home.  I started talking to this DP that does commerce and he was just moaning about the REDs.   I asked him what he didn't like and he really couldn't say, other than he just didn't, but I looked at his comp reel on my mobile and asked him what was shot with what and 85% of all the non film work was with a R1 or Epic, so he might not like them but he's using them.

I'm with you though I think the Pentax is great because of price and it opens up a different world for medium format.  Will it replace Phase/Leaf/Leica/Blad?

I dunno, I hope not because I assume all of those companies fill a slot and keep things moving forward.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

IMO

BC

[Telecaster]

I am shooting a lot with my Hasselblad 555/P45+ combo now, it is fun to use it. Clearly I wouldn't buy it again, but I enjoy it as it is.

This is pretty much how I feel about the 645D. And how I felt about the 645Nii film body a decade or so ago. So we'll need a whole new imaging technology before I make any further MF purchases.   

Since reading Ming Thein's review of the 645Z I've been using my D handheld a lot more. Seems to work pretty well for a hardly anything in focus approach to closeup work. The 120/4 macro is my new favorite among the 645 lenses. I'm surprised Pentax replaced it with a 90mm...working distance with the 120mm is just right.

-Dave-

[ondebanks]

Since reading Ming Thein's review of the 645Z I've been using my D handheld a lot more. Seems to work pretty well for a hardly anything in focus approach to closeup work. The 120/4 macro is my new favorite among the 645 lenses. I'm surprised Pentax replaced it with a 90mm...working distance with the 120mm is just right.

-Dave-

Dave,

For a brief moment, I thought you had attached the cover shot of Wildi's famous book (one of my medium format bibles, back in the day):



Over 25 years since that version of the book, and medium format is still being used effectively for that narrow-dof macro shot!

Ray

[eronald]

Erik, that's Memorial Church at Leland Stanford Junior University. There is no Leland Stanford Senior University.

Jim

ageism, yet again


Edmund

[gdanmitchell]

"...gears have..."

Gear has. ;-)

This has been beaten to death in this and other forums. The answer is always the same...

Your faith in the consistency of the answer seems a bit overdone. If you mean that "financial cost for measurement X is higher in some case A," then I suppose that it might be possible to approach some agreement on that very limited statement, especially if you constrain the measured parameter to one. (But, good luck with that!)

However, when it comes to value measured in ways that are non-monetary (differences in the way photographs will be used, differing ideas about the importance of one parameter versus another, issues of functional operation, how and what the photographer will photograph, etc.) the answer is far from "always the same."

Dan

[Telecaster]

For a brief moment, I thought you had attached the cover shot of Wildi's famous book (one of my medium format bibles, back in the day):



Over 25 years since that version of the book, and medium format is still being used effectively for that narrow-dof macro shot!

My dad had that book! (Which means I probably have it hidden away on a bookshelf...) Dagnamit, I'm a plagiarist.   

-Dave-

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks for correction…

Regarding value, the Pentax 645 may be a game changer.

The main attraction is the price, of course. But it is also interesting that for the first time we have an MF camera that beats the DSLR competition on home ground, like high ISO, low readout noise fast multipoint AF. Live view and live view AF. The camera is weatherproofed. So it is something new in MF.

On the other hand, it is a very small MF, with a crop factor of 1.3, which means that the IQ-260 and the IQ-280 have almost twice the sensor area. On the other hand, Pentax can optimise it's lenses for the smaller sensor size. So, the small size may be an advantage.

Obviously, the Pentax is no competition for technical camera shooters using T&S facilities. Also, it cannot deliver 80 MP like the IQ-280.

Personally, I think it is interesting stuff.

Best regards
Erik

Gear has. ;-)

Your faith in the consistency of the answer seems a bit overdone. If you mean that "financial cost for measurement X is higher in some case A," then I suppose that it might be possible to approach some agreement on that very limited statement, especially if you constrain the measured parameter to one. (But, good luck with that!)

However, when it comes to value measured in ways that are non-monetary (differences in the way photographs will be used, differing ideas about the importance of one parameter versus another, issues of functional operation, how and what the photographer will photograph, etc.) the answer is far from "always the same."

Dan

[eronald]

Why is this thread still alive?

Edmund

[Ken R]

If the Pentax had a wide range of affordable (for MF, that means about half the price of PhaseOne/Schneider and Hasselblad H mount lenses) and sensor size optimised lenses then it would be no question a much more appealing choice. As it is now it is a body looking for lenses. Not that there are none available, of course there are some nice lenses out there for it but the D810 has a huge amount of lens options (same with the A7R) and the same can be said when talking about a Digital Back. As it stands now there are no wide angle tilt/shift options for the Pentax and the wide angle options are limited. The Pentax 25mm is overpriced and so is the 90.

[FMueller]

Lloyd Chambers tests for sharpness and resolution. I had an Uncle long ago that used medium format film cameras to take family pictures (our family, not his own, he was divorced and childless) He would enlarge to 11x14 in his home darkroom and show them to us, his favorite feature of the photograph was its sharpness. He would also take occasional photo trips in which he photographed his favorite subject----sharp things.

If you are looking to take sharp pictures of bristlecone pines or of bicycles in your garage, Lloyd's your guy and you need look no further. My uncle would've loved him.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers figured that P 645Z may have some shutter related vibration. He has found that although the shutter is well dampened there is some measurable loss of sharpness due to vibration at certain shutter speeds, at least using the 90 mm macro lens.

This would not be obvious just visible like a loss of sharpness.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

[eronald]

has somebody looked at the Mamiya mirror/shutter recoil?

all FP shutter cams are going to vibrate.

e.

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers figured that P 645Z may have some shutter related vibration. He has found that although the shutter is well dampened there is some measurable loss of sharpness due to vibration at certain shutter speeds, at least using the 90 mm macro lens.

This would not be obvious just visible like a loss of sharpness.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes, Michael Reichmann reported on the Phase One camera having problems with long lenses. There are also some reports on Alpha FPS, but let's say they are not confirmed.

So, the problem is not unique to the A7r and the Pentax 645. Personally, I have seen that problem on Pentax 67 in the film times.

Jim Kasson has investigated the problem to some depth, and my impression that he found it is an issue on the A7r with a couple of lenses he tested. Jim also investigated shutter related vibrations A7 with electronic first curtain and it was a non issue.

What both Jim and Lloyd Chambers found on the A7r that shutter vibration by and large eliminates the 36 MP to 24 MP advantage of the A7r when both cameras are mounted on a steady tripod using a stead head. Joseph Holmes found that adding an adequate weight under the camera can eliminate the vibrations. Lloyd made it simple, he found that mounting a flash on top of the cameras makes a decent job.

One interesting note is that Jim also checked shutter vibrations on the D800E, that camera had very little vibrations. The newer D810 has electronic first curtain, which neither the A7r or the P645Z have.

The loss of resolution caused by shutter related vibrations is normally small, measurable but really visible. I don't think it would be visible in an A2 size print (which is about maximum size for desktop printers). It could be argued that if you don't see a difference in A2 size print, the issue may be esoteric, but my feeling is that much of the discussion about MFD and CMOS/CCD etc is into esoterics anyway.

Best regards
Erik

has somebody looked at the Mamiya mirror/shutter recoil?

all FP shutter cams are going to vibrate.

e.

[Lacunapratum]

I guess it all depends who is buying. 

For me, the P645Z allows me to use all my existing lenses with significantly higher shutter speed, which makes a difference for both telephoto and macro.  It also allows me to continue to use some of my wonderful old soft focus lenses, which simply don't work well in the 35mm range.  I also have some unique macro lenses, which make more sense on the P645Z than on the Nikon.  I don't buy the concerns about the 25mm at all, as this lens should not be taken on its own, but rather as the completion of an extraordinary system into the wide angle range.  And for that purpose it's certainly an excellent lens.   

The Nikon D800/800e has some strange autofocus issues which certainly would be a turnoff for me.  On the upside, it might make sense to get a D810 if you are a new buyer as Nikon is upgrading their lens stable and as 35mm FF has many advantages when it comes to telephoto and extreme wide angle designs.

The Sony a7r is another option, but I would be thrown off by the shutter vibration issues.  I also don't like the viewfinder and as of right now, there are only system specific lenses available, some good, others with varying quality.  The telephoto range is disappointing.  I'd like to get a a7r with electronic first curtain shutter and improved viewfinder to adapt to my old manual focus lenses though, but that's another chapter. 

Personally, I am waiting to hear what Canon will come up with for this year's photokina and the months thereafter.  They have turned their 5diii into an excellent body and they have been suspiciously quiet in the sensor department.  I am convinced they have something up their sleeves that will suddenly turn their remarkable lens program with shift lenses and great telephoto options into a clear winner. 

The Pentax has many advantages over the other medium format systems:  price when it comes to Leica and Phase and a remarkable level of integration and automation when it comes to Phase and Rollei/DHW.  I for once would hope that DHW finds someone to stick that new sensor in some sort of a box that can be fitted on the Hy6.  Perhaps photokina will tell us more.  In the meantime and for me, the P645Z is the cat's pajamas of the medium format world. 

[JV]

Lloyd Chambers figured that P 645Z may have some shutter related vibration.

Erik,

No offense but I trust people who actually use the camera a lot more than Lloyd Chambers.

If Michael eg. says that he has used the A7r for 8 months without noticing shutter vibration then that is sufficient for me…

Whatever the opinion of Mr Chambers may be…

Joris.

[eronald]

Erik,

No offense but I trust people who actually use the camera a lot more than Lloyd Chambers.

If Michael eg. says that he has used the A7r for 8 months without noticing shutter vibration then that is sufficient for me…

Whatever the opinion of Mr Chambers may be…

Joris.

i wonder how much shutteration there is if you crank the P up to 1600 Iso in daylight

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Edmund,

Can you explain a bit?

Anyway, what I see is that the shutter vibration related issues are not very visible, so I guess that most observers simply miss them. On the other hand, if we spend significant money on a high res camera and on the very best lenses I guess we should look into all issues reducing sharpness.

The shutter related vibration is noticeable mostly at around 1/20 - 1/40 seconds and up to 1/125. I normally shoot base ISO so I often get into that range when not shooting in full sunlight.

I normally shoot base ISO on all my cameras. The Sony's have little readout noise, but using low ISO minimises shot noise.

Best regards
Erik

i wonder how much shutteration there is if you crank the P up to 1600 Iso in daylight