645Z review

[tsjanik]

Michael, Nick:

Thank you for the usual insightful (from a user's POV) review.   White House and Starter are wonderful images and show great DR; the shot of Michael is superb.   Unfortunately for me, you concluded with the very same question I have:
"What remains is the question of whether the price in mass and money is worth it.  That one can only answer for oneself." 

I likely will get the Z, just not as quickly as the D.

Best,

Tom

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Interesting review. Some observations:

- It is interesting that the camera produces excellent JPEGs. I feel that many of us (me included) have a somewhat ignorant attitude to JPEGs. A lot of engineering work goes into in camera JPEG conversion. We can learn from it.

- Interesting to note that Nick Devlin also has issues with focusing in the sub infinity range, as I share that problem.

- The usability aspect is important. Just a small think like the Pentax 645Z having an articulated screen is a great asset. Pentax knows how to design cameras, that is great.

I have not seen the camera, but what Michael states in the article, that there is pressure on MFD from the smaller sensor competition is quite obvious, especially with the introduction of high quality lenses from Sigma and Zeiss. I would expect a new generation of sensors, too, considering that the 24 MP APS-C sensors correspond to 54 MP on full frame.

A side note, I like presets, on my Sonys I have three. The way I set it up:

1) General shooting, wide AF, Auto ISO, IS-on
2) Accurate shooting, center AF, base ISO, IS-on
3) Tripod shooting, manual focus, base ISO, IS-off

Having switches complicates things, do presets override switch positions? Buttons don't have that issue.

Another observation, Doug Peterson posted a few raw images from the IQ-250, "the library shots", some posters like Paul Caldwell (OK?) and me noted that the IQ-250 produced much less aliasing (especially colour aliasing) than the IQ-260 and the IQ-280. What I figure is that the gapless microlenses reduce aliasing, which can be perceived as loss of microcontrast. Point sampling produces more detail while area sampling gives less but more natural detail. I might of course be wrong…

Best regards
Erik

Michael, Nick:

Thank you for the usual insightful (from a user's POV) review.   White House and Starter are wonderful images and show great DR; the shot of Michael is superb.   Unfortunately for me, you concluded with the very same question I have:
"What remains is the question of whether the price in mass and money is worth it.  That one can only answer for oneself."  

I likely will get the Z, just not as quickly as the D.

Best,

Tom

[KirbyKrieger]

the shot of Michael is superb.

+1.  One of the best pictures I've seen on the front page LuLa.  (Judged, of course, within the limits of Web publishing.)

[hsteeves]

picked up my Z yesterday, shot some this morning.  Where my D was usually tripoded, I was using this thing handheld but then again, ISO 12,000 was kinda nice …  Definitely need to read the instruction manual on this one ...

[E.J. Peiker]

It boggles my mind that a camera like the 645Z didn't manage a 100% viewfinder....

[laughingbear]

Michael's side-by-side comparisons with between the 645Z and the A7r show the Pentax to have about one school grade advantage over the Sony, but then only on-screen at 100% or in large exhibition sized prints. The difference is there, but so is the price differential at over $5000, and the weight and bulk differential are certainly not inconsiderable either.

My thoughts are that albeit being a fantasticly equipped camera, from a market perspective, it does come a few years too late to be picked up in considerable amounts.

With already existing and beyond doubts further increasing pressure on the already small MF market by cameras such as A7R, more and more photographers will ask the tough questions themselves.

Solutions like a recently announced Cambo Actus for example will add movements capabilities as well. Best of breed lenses such as Canon's 24mm T/S can be adapted without any IQ compromise to the Sony, equally MF lenses with a larger image circle can be adapted.

Perosnally, I think the "Z" is certainly an outstanding tool, but it comes too late to market for me to even consider it seriously.

The "next" Sony, A7RII? is probably not too far away either, and I imagine the gap to become even smaller then.

Hence on my personal gearlust scale from 0-10, it reaches a meager 2, if at all.  

[Vivec]

Excellent preview -- really enjoyed reading it.

However, I felt there was a bit too much focus on how the image quality of 35mm digital is so close to medium format -- my feeling is that a larger sensor will give more than just the image quality of the pixels; I know this is contentious (and a reason for the many internet flame wars) whether full-frame gives a different 'look' than APS-C, and I have never seen this quantified in lab-setting. However, I do know that when I read the 645Z preview, I was quite taken by the look of the photos -- it may be 'web' quality but all have a great quality to them -- especially your portrait Michael and the white-house shot.  ... is this the large sensor look?? perhaps :-)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am shooting both MFD, in the form of a Hasselblad 555 ELD and a P45+ back, full frame 135 and APS-C. Personally, the great difference I see between MFD, and 135 FF is the name of the files and the EXIF data. Clearly, the P45+ has more pixels, 39MP vs. 24 MP of the lesser cameras. I generally cannot say which is which, sometimes I am surprised that what I believed was an MFD shot is actually 135.

But, it may be the case that different cameras are used differently. For instance, for street shooting I generally prefer APS-C. A smaller camera with a smaller lens. The Hasselblad I always shoot on tripod.

I have found a couple of things beneficial in MFD.

The aspect ratio often works better. Whatever format I use I crop wildly, but I have noticed that the crop on the P45+ is often more natural than the 3:2 crop of 135. The viewfinder I have is square, with crop lines for the P45+. Something I have noticed that the viewfinder often leads me to different compositions than the 3:2 viewfinder on the Sonys.

I also feel there is an advantage in resolution to the 39MP P45+ compared to the 24 MP on the Sonys. I don't feel I can see that in A2 size prints, which is my normal print size (16"x23"). This is specially true as I shoot zooms on the Sonys and primes on MFD. On the other hand the Zeiss lenses I use on the Hassy are for the film era and they show some weakness in digital.

Best regards
Erik

So from my experience, there is no MF look, but shooting MF can change the way we see.

Excellent preview -- really enjoyed reading it.

However, I felt there was a bit too much focus on how the image quality of 35mm digital is so close to medium format -- my feeling is that a larger sensor will give more than just the image quality of the pixels; I know this is contentious (and a reason for the many internet flame wars) whether full-frame gives a different 'look' than APS-C, and I have never seen this quantified in lab-setting. However, I do know that when I read the 645Z preview, I was quite taken by the look of the photos -- it may be 'web' quality but all have a great quality to them -- especially your portrait Michael and the white-house shot.  ... is this the large sensor look?? perhaps :-)

[Chris_Brown]

No tethering is a deal breaker (we'll see if/when it actually happens).

One way to avoid a tether cable is to set the camera to send, via wifi, just a low-Rez JPEG to a computer and store the high-Rez raw on-camera. That'd help in some ways.

What tilt & shift lenses are available for this camera?

[image66]

I simply fail to follow the logic of the inferior system being superior just because it is inferior and the superior system being so superior that it is inferior to the inferior system.

[tsjanik]

Michael, Nick:

As I posted earlier, I found your review quite insightful and entertaining as usual; nonetheless, a few niggling comments:  I can't understand why you need equipment limitations to determine your workflow.  You don't have to drive a Porsche fast, but it's nice when you need/want it.
The weight/size  difference between the Pentax and a pro DSLR system is not significant enough for me to be an important factor.  When I was considering the 645D, I compared the system to a Nikon D3x and lenses.  The bodies are not very different in weight and in many cases, the Pentax lenses, which are typically a stop or two slower, are smaller and lighter (an extreme example is the Pentax  400mm f5.6 vs. the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 ).  Since I use f8-11, the high speed of the Nikons is of no advantage to me.  The D800 series is lighter, but 500 g is not a determining factor for me.  The A7r is a different category, where the weight/size/portability/usability difference is significant.  Cost is a significant difference in this case too; a Zeiss WA and an A7r cost less than the Pentax 25mm.
One more comment, based on previous postings: like Nick, I'm not happy about the pricing structure of the new Pentax lenses, but I don't see how using Hassellblad solves that issue

Best,

Tom 

[TeeKay]

I find the reasoning used in the 645Z review to be rather embarrassing.

"An Oly OM-D-E-1M-D-M-E-whatever produces a gorgeous 16MP file."

You just compared the quality of a micro four thirds sensor to a (crop) MF sensor.

Let's do this leap of faith a couple more times and we'll arrive at the conclusion that you don't really need more than a Pentax Q with its minute sensor to get a gorgeous 12.4MP file. The best camera is the one that you have with your in your jacket pocket so who needs MF?

"Moreover, any erosion in the discipline required for maximum IQ (tripod, stopped down, etc) will have some impact on the quality derived from the machine."

You are seriously criticising Pentax for making a tool easier to use?

Can you not muster up the discipline to take things slowly yourself? Do you actually need a tool to be inadequate so that it slows you down?

If the answer to all those questions is "yes", I think you are telling me that you are a bad photographer and you are blaming a tool for it.

"The real problem with this camera, ironically, is that it is so usable that it invites the sort of run-'n-gun work that will inevitably degrade IQ, despite its enjoyability and convenience.  So you can very quickly find yourself with a file that has little advantage over one from an A7r....

Sure, and a Nikon D800E is so intuitive and easy to use you inevitably find yourself using it like a compact P&S with little advantage over phone shots. So why not use the phone straight away?

Let's all join to prove that black is white and get ourselves killed on the next zebra crossing (paraphrased from a Douglas Adams quote).

Did you perhaps miss to point out that because a Hasselblad or a Phase One is so much more expensive than a 645Z, they make you put more effort into each and every shot?
Would it then help if Pentax sold the 645Z for the same price?

This may sound silly, but it is the same "I need my camera to slow my down" argument applied to pricing.

With your article you essentially question the existence of every Hasselblad / Phase One MF camera. If the 645Z does not make much sense compared to current FF cameras anymore, how do these vastly more expensive cameras make any sense at all anymore? Why not make this the focus of another article instead of criticising Pentax for making the most easy to use and cheapest MF camera?

Please, I get that you are not a testing site and do subjective reviews. That's fine, but please don't throw away logic in the process.

[ndevlin]

First off, thanks for the nice words about the imagery in the article.  I find that one of the intangible qualities of 'better' files is that they stand a lot more abuse in post, especially increases in 'clarity' (as LR calls it) and contrast, usually through pushing parts of the tone curve about fairly aggressively . MF files break up more slowly in this process, allowing what, I think, is the 'look' some have commented on.

As for some of the less erudite observations:

I find the reasoning used in the 645Z review to be rather embarrassing.
You just compared the quality of a micro four thirds sensor to a (crop) MF sensor.

Let's do this leap of faith a couple more times and we'll arrive at the conclusion that you don't really need more than a Pentax Q with its minute sensor to get a gorgeous 12.4MP file. The best camera is the one that you have with your in your jacket pocket so who needs MF?

I like a good slippery slope as much as the next man, provided I have well waxed wood underfoot. If you have shot an Oly with the 45 f1.2 or 150 f1.8 lately, at base ISO, you would know what we meant. 

You are seriously criticising Pentax for making a tool easier to use?

Can you not muster up the discipline to take things slowly yourself? Do you actually need a tool to be inadequate so that it slows you down?

If the answer to all those questions is "yes", I think you are telling me that you are a bad photographer and you are blaming a tool for it.

The observations in question are not a criticism, but an answer to why this camera - which we clearly say handles far better than its immediate competitors - has not made us want to own it immediately.  It was an observation on human nature, not the quality of the device.  And yes, there is a logical tension, but that was the point of interest being advanced. 

Beyond that, the 'advantages' of the camera are that it makes it easier to work in ways which will undermine IQ, which in turn undermine the rationale of using it at all.  While there are circumstances in which its 'betterness' will show in 35mm-style photography, these do not translate to making "MF-style" photography easier. 

Since the investment in such a system is usually justified to obtain the IQ benefits of that style of work, the real benefits of the camera may be slighter than they appear. 

As usual, Michael and I were writing a narrative of our thought and feeling process relating to the camera, rather than a Consumer Reports style quantitative evaluation of the sort many others provide.

And don't mistake this: I have long been, and remain, a Pentax fan. They've done a very good job with this camera.  May they sell them by the millions, though the times may be against them.

- N.     

- N.

[Fine_Art]

My takeaway is this may be the best MF camera for people shooting fashion or weddings. The images look really good. Phase and Hassy may have just had the rug pulled out from under them - unless you use a technical cam.

For almost everything the D810 will have you covered. For black tux, white dress dynamic range, the 16 bits of MF may still have a clear edge.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I may agree on some points.

On the other hand, it seems quiet obvious that 16 MP files are good enough for most purposes and 4/3 cameras deliver good 16 MP files. Now, there are two ways to see a file, you either print it or look at it on screen. On screen you either see a much reduced image or you just see actual pixels, like 2 million of them, ignoring the rest. A well designed system will look quite good at actual pixels at least until the image gets oversampled.

So on screen you can judge the quality of the pixels, but you see only a small percentage of them.

If we print the image will be resampled to printer resolution, sharpened, dithered and finally printed. Personally, I feel that there is little difference in prints between 12 MP and 24 MP at A2 size. The reason I mention A2 is that A2 happens to be my normal print size, and it is also the largest print size made by desktop printers. Going from 24 MP to say 39 MP would show little visible difference (for normal vision). That said, test charts have detail that renders better with higher res, but I am doubtful regarding most detail.

Our friend BCooter, AKA James Russel, shoots 4/3 and loves his Panasonics and the files he gets are absolutely OK for his customers needs. He is also shooting Leica S2 and Contax 645 with older Phase One backs.

Michael Reichmann had an entertaining discussion with Ctein here on LuLa. Ctein made it very clear that his 4/3 equipment was good enough. He said that it could deliver all that 67 film could, and was absolutely good enough.

My take from the above inputs is that a well designed 4/3 system can fulfil most professional needs and should be taken seriously.

With 4/3, we need to keep in mind that it is an optimized system. All lenses are made for 4/3, and usually better corrected than larger format lenses. Regarding APS-C, very few lenses are actually designed for that sensor size. So it may happen that 4/3 delivers and APS-C does not.

Best regards
Erik

I find the reasoning used in the 645Z review to be rather embarrassing.
You just compared the quality of a micro four thirds sensor to a (crop) MF sensor.

Let's do this leap of faith a couple more times and we'll arrive at the conclusion that you don't really need more than a Pentax Q with its minute sensor to get a gorgeous 12.4MP file. The best camera is the one that you have with your in your jacket pocket so who needs MF?
You are seriously criticising Pentax for making a tool easier to use?

Can you not muster up the discipline to take things slowly yourself? Do you actually need a tool to be inadequate so that it slows you down?

If the answer to all those questions is "yes", I think you are telling me that you are a bad photographer and you are blaming a tool for it.
Sure, and a Nikon D800E is so intuitive and easy to use you inevitably find yourself using it like a compact P&S with little advantage over phone shots. So why not use the phone straight away?

Let's all join to prove that black is white and get ourselves killed on the next zebra crossing (paraphrased from a Douglas Adams quote).

Did you perhaps miss to point out that because a Hasselblad or a Phase One is so much more expensive than a 645Z, they make you put more effort into each and every shot?
Would it then help if Pentax sold the 645Z for the same price?

This may sound silly, but it is the same "I need my camera to slow my down" argument applied to pricing.

With your article you essentially question the existence of every Hasselblad / Phase One MF camera. If the 645Z does not make much sense compared to current FF cameras anymore, how do these vastly more expensive cameras make any sense at all anymore? Why not make this the focus of another article instead of criticising Pentax for making the most easy to use and cheapest MF camera?

Please, I get that you are not a testing site and do subjective reviews. That's fine, but please don't throw away logic in the process.

[TeeKay]

If you have shot an Oly with the 45 f1.2 or 150 f1.8 lately, at base ISO, you would know what we meant.  

I know what you mean.

The files from recent Olys have no right to look as good as they do.

That, however, does not mean that larger sensor sizes have become of questionable value.
Surely, you realise the dynamic range, DOF control, and sharpness advantages of larger sensors.
So why start building a slippery slope?

Of course there are people for whom the Oly files are more than good enough.
But that does not imply that there aren't people who need MF quality.

The observations in question are not a criticism, but an answer to why this camera - which we clearly say handles far better than its immediate competitors - has not made us want to own it immediately.  It was an observation on human nature, not the quality of the device.

That's what I meant when I said you were talking about your limitations as a photographer.

I find it problematic to talk about your own limitations in a gear review without being very explicit about it. Otherwise, your personal limitations quickly assume a kind of universal quality that turns into a tacit, implied criticism of the gear.

While there are circumstances in which its 'betterness' will show in 35mm-style photography, these do not translate to making "MF-style" photography easier.  

That's a much better way of expressing your sentiments compared to what you did in the article.

As usual, Michael and I were writing a narrative of our thought and feeling process relating to the camera, rather than a Consumer Reports style quantitative evaluation of the sort many others provide.

I like a good false dichotomy as much as anyone else, as long as the false polarization uses the extreme ends of a spectrum.

I do not read "Consumer Reports" and value hands-on reviews. That does not mean that I don't take issue with logic being thrown out of the window. Calling it "logical tension" sounds really good, but does not make it better.
 

And don't mistake this: I have long been, and remain, a Pentax fan. They've done a very good job with this camera.  May they sell them by the millions, though the times may be against them.

Just to clarify: I don't care much about how many 645Z Ricoh sell. Part of me actually would like to see them fail with their MF line so that they finally put some resources behind the FF model. My post had very little to do with "pro Pentax". It was a comment on the style of the article which I consider to be unhelpful no matter what product is being discussed.

[BernardLanguillier]

Thanks for the review, very interesting.

In those days of downsizing, although I want to feel tempted by the 645Z because I am hugely impressed by what Pentax is bringing to the MF market segment, I just don't feel like adding another system to my line up.

I guess that it really depends on what you do. These days I am split between stitched landscape and little girl portraits.

- I don't see anything able to beat the D810+Otus for wide panos or the D810+Leica 180mm f2.8 APO for distant landscape,

- For the latter, in terms of look for natural light improvised portrait, 35mm simply offers many more options. The Otus is un-matched technically and very good lookwise. The samples I see shot with the Nikon 58mm f1.4 have a quality that I have not seen anywhere else (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1278249/10) and more is to be expected such as the rumored Nikon 135mm f2.0.

So overall, I see a lot more creativity and advances on the lens front in 35mm than we will ever get in MF (besides Leica S probably, but the prices are just ridiculous). People used to go with MF for the look of the lenses, nowadays I see things reversed.

For me the D810 it will be.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Our friend BCooter, AKA James Russel really likes Panasonic GH3 (?), and has no issues with 18 MP.

Ctein said in a recent interview with Michael Reichmann that his 18 MP 4/3 (Olympus I believe) delivers better images than his Pentax 67 ever did from film. He also says that those 18 MP are perfectly good enough for A2. But, that man knows how to print. One of the secrets behind 4/3 is that Olympus and Panasonic optimise their designs for 4/3. Many lenses are expensive, but very, very good.

Personally, I upgraded from APS-C (12 MP) to full frame (24 MP) in 2008. At that time I checked out the gain in image quality, and it was not a lot at A2-size. I did shoot same subject with APS-C (16 MP) and FF (24 MP), sometimes. Still, little difference in A2-size prints. On screen, with the small image blown up to 24 MP, big difference – in print none.

Now days I shoot a lot of MFD (39 MP). Under controlled conditions I still cannot see difference in A2-size prints, without a loupe that is.

So, I really feel that what Nick Devlin writes makes a lot of sense.

Another factor is that we see a lot of very high quality lenses coming from Sigma (Art-series) and Zeiss (Otus). Obviously, Pentax could also design better lenses, but they would have a very high price.

Another observation may be that the Pentax 645Z is medium format but a small medium format. So they don't have that great advantage in size.

A good use for MFD is to use technical cameras. Now, you cannot put a Pentax 645Z on a technical camera. You can do that with the Sony A-series. Cambo is developing a technical camera for the Sony and so does Hartblei. Sony will not stand still, my guess is that an A9 will be around (Sony uses designation 9 for the top of the line, like Dynax 9, Alpha 900, Alpha 99 and quite probably A9). Nikon and Canon don't stand still either, even I am asking what Canon is doing. But Canon has T&S lenses that even excel on medium format.

Full frame MF makes some sense, but the prices are stiff. For many of us money is a finite asset, so we need to use it wisely.

Best regards
Erik

I know what you mean.

The files from recent Olys have no right to look as good as they do.

That, however, does not mean that larger sensor sizes have become of questionable value.
Surely, you realise the dynamic range, DOF control, and sharpness advantages of larger sensors.
So why start building a slippery slope?

Of course there are people for whom the Oly files are more than good enough.
But that does not imply that there aren't people who need MF quality.
That's what I meant when I said you were talking about your limitations as a photographer.

I find it problematic to talk about your own limitations in a gear review without being very explicit about it. Otherwise, your personal limitations quickly assume a kind of universal quality that turns into a tacit, implied criticism of the gear.
That's a much better way of expressing your sentiments compared to what you did in the article.
I like a good false dichotomy as much as anyone else, as long as the false polarization uses the extreme ends of a spectrum.

I do not read "Consumer Reports" and value hands-on reviews. That does not mean that I don't take issue with logic being thrown out of the window. Calling it "logical tension" sounds really good, but does not make it better.
 Just to clarify: I don't care much about how many 645Z Ricoh sell. Part of me actually would like to see them fail with their MF line so that they finally put some resources behind the FF model. My post had very little to do with "pro Pentax". It was a comment on the style of the article which I consider to be unhelpful no matter what product is being discussed.

[ednazarko]

Is there anyplace where there's some evaluation of the legacy lenses on the 645D?

[ErikKaffehr]

Update: Lloyd got more enthusiastic about the 90 ED macro, now he considers it superior to all DSLRs, at least when shooting portraits.

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers has tested a lot of Pentax MF lenses on his DAP site. It is a subscription site.

http://diglloyd.com/index-dap.html#Pentax645Lenses

Lloyd is not that much impressed by most of the lenses, as I recall, but they are not to bad.

I have seen a lot of samples from P645D, and they used to be sharp.

Recently he tested the 25/4 and the 90/2.8 macro and found that both were very capable but not really excellent. The 25 he compared to a Zeiss 21/2.8 on Sony A7r and he found the Sony performed better. My take was that they were pretty close.

Best regards
Erik

Is there anyplace where there's some evaluation of the legacy lenses on the 645D?