How are the Pentax Z645 owners feeling?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'll presume that weather-proofing may be an advantage, and it seems that Pentax is known be good at that.

Best regards
Erik

I'll be taking the whole Pentax kit, body, six lenses and all the extras in a Gura Gear Kiboko backpack as carry-on luggage, both on my December trip to Hawaii and my January / February back-to-back Antarctic expeditions.

Michael

[synn]

How does the camera and the file it produces compare to the H4D-60? Well, the cameras largely don't compare.  The Hasselblad is fairly painful to use. The Pentax is about the best of modern DSLR design.  It feels much more rugged and never runs out of power :-)

I found the H quite useable with practice, in fairness.    

The file? At ISO 50, with an over-abundance of light, the 60MP Dalsa CCD produces a nicer file.  Deeper and more malleable even than the Pentax at base ISO.  Just fabulous in every way. But how much better? Well, on my one real side-by-side test, I was initially convinced the H-file had more micro-contrast and better tonal detail.  However, I ultimately went back and worked on the Pentax file in Lightroom, giving it everything I had.  The result was that, with a lot more sharpening on the Pentax file (both overall and local) and with a large amount of area-specific work, I made the Pentax file look virtually indistinguishable from the H-file on-screen at 100%.

Outside of base ISO, there isn't much contest - the Pentax CMOS file is better once the speeds increase.


- N.    

Hi Nick,

Thanks for answering my query. Without getting into brand/ format wars, here's how I feel about this whole deal. The image quality aspect is just as I suspected. The "Old codgers", i.e. the CCD generation gives one better files out of the box while the new kids on the block (The 44x33 Sony sensor equipped cams) are much like the D800 etc. Decent files which needs quite a bit of work to get the best out of them. They are also much more versatile as cameras.

But my question is, (Price aside), do we really need to teach the old dogs new tricks? I mean, when I invested in Medium format, I knew exactly what I was getting into. It would do something well and that's about it. For everything else, a second 35mm/APSC/M43 kid would do just fine. I regularly pack the D800 and 1-2 lenses while taking the MF kit for a gig and of course, a mirrorless kit would be far smaller. The financial investment into a secondary kit would also be not that much compared to what one puts into an MF kit.

I might be the odd one out, but losing that base ISO advantage and files that look "Right" out of the box for some versatility just doesn't appeal to me. That said, at that price, the Pentax makes a strong case for itself but I do think that with the current pricing, the 645D is the silent killer in the MF landscape.

[eronald]

Yes, the Pentax seems to be a camera for retirees in Japan, and for photographers in the US, maybe amateurs in Europe.

Clearly, it is not expensive enough to compete with Phase and Leica and Hassy for the core MF market in the US: Bankers, dentists, lawyers.

Although I guess doctors could also afford Phase, they seem to be considered less hateful

Edmund

I've never heard the millionaire thing, usually it's doctors, dentists and of course lawyers.

[mjrichardson]

Morning

As there are so many types of photographers it's only possible to offer a personal opinion and I in no way consider this to be the general view but to me, the Pentax makes little sense. I agree somewhat with synn's comments, I don't see a one camera fits all situation as being possible, different systems excel in different areas and whilst there are some excellent generalists, there are none I believe that can do everything perfectly.

That said, I'm not really sure what was missing from traditional ccd based mf systems, they excel at what they were designed to do, i.e low iso's, resolution, colour etc. and if you're a commercial studio photographer like BC et al. then the newer tech would apparently offer little benefit. The Pentax obviously has great high ISO performance but looking at numerous files, the difference between high end 35mm and good glass is minimal to my eye so rather than the slight bump in resolution, I don't see the benefit of paying the extra for the Pentax, particularly if lenses are either questionable at the cheaper end or expensive at the higher end. As a landscape photographer, I see little benefit over 35mm and zeiss wides for example, certainly not enough to warrant the cost, I doubt there would be much cost difference between say a D810, zeiss 21 and otus 55 against a 645z and a 55mm. Now weather sealing is a benefit but maybe I'm lucky, I have used my cameras everywhere from +50c in deserts in Iraq to -45c in Antarctica and never once had an issue caused by environmental issues, that's not to say others haven't just my personal experience.

Live view is obviously a plus for some people but having looked through many mf viewfinders, I've never felt that I couldn't focus accurately, live view on a tech cam, fantastic but not possible with the Pentax so again, I'm struggling to see the benefit.

It feels a little as though the newer cmos mf systems are bridging the gap between 35mm and traditional ccd mf backs but do they really need to? It's almost like they are solving a problem that doesn't really exist. There will always be people who want this camera and good for them, I hope they enjoy it but for my personal uses, it just doesn't seem to offer enough to compete with ccd mf or high end 35mm, it just sort of floats in the middle.

Anyway, just my opinion, if it evolves in to a system where it will flash sync at higher speeds, has great quality and reasonably priced lenses that allow the sensor to sing, will tether reliably (I appreciate that is on the way) and will offer real image quality improvements to the current 35mm offerings then I will look again, for now though, I will just enjoy shots others take with it. As an aside, I absolutely love Nicks shot of the trees, stunning because he captured it, I don't really feel that it couldn't have been captured equally well with a 35mm system that is smaller and cheaper.

Have a nice day!

Mat

[torger]

I know one Swedish pro landscape photographer that is selling his Hasselblad gear (H4D-50) as he's bought a Pentax 645z instead. He's major comment was "at last a MF camera which is designed for field use" and posts an image with the Pentax 645z covered in rain. Obviously that was an important factor to him.

Higher ISO and long exposure is something that some landscape photographers desire, the P45+ has kept its high second hand value much thanks to long exposure capability. Higher ISO gives the possibility to freeze the action which does not happen super-often in landscape, but when it does I can assure that it's frustrating not being able to crank up the ISO. Some post-processing styles especially in landscape make heavy use of shadow pushing, and there the Sony CMOS have a marked advantage over CCDs. I use grads myself to solve the DR issue and I generally don't push shadows that much, but if you don't use grads having 1 extra stop in DR can make a real difference.

Does it provide a relevant image quality upgrade from a D810? Well, some like more megapixels and 50 is more than 36. The success of the high MP DSLRs I think indicates that there is a hunger for these types of systems, so an affordable MF system which handles much like a 135 DSLR is probably a good idea also from a business perspective.

I think the Pentax 645z will foremost attract DSLR users to upgrade to MF rather than attract typical Hasselblad and Phase One customers, which are not landscape photographers but those that work in studio with flashes and want leaf shutters etc. There's the price factor too, but I don't know how much that matters to pro users. Some like to not spend more than they need even if they can though, so maybe it will have some impact.

[Justinr]

Hi,

I'll presume that weather-proofing may be an advantage, and it seems that Pentax is known be good at that.

Best regards
Erik

Their dSLR's are certainly quite rugged little beasts. The ones I had did many miles in a motorbike topbox which is hardly the friendliest environment for delicate equipment and they were never bothered by the experience. I'm not at all sure that the same can be said for the Nikon.

[Justinr]

Not good at all... you can see a cobweb, but you can't see the spider... baaahh 

Perhaps she was out dining with, or even upon, a neighbour?

[mjrichardson]

Torger, I think you may have hit on the only advantage of the Pentax over a 35mm DSLR, i.e pixels, sure some will appreciate the extra but they are expensive megapixels and according to a lot of reports their aren't yet many lenses that allow full use of them, especially with a crop sensor affecting the wide end. Software is so good nowadays that I'd be hard pushed to see a difference at "average" print sizes. I'd of course have no issue with being wrong about my summary but I haven't yet seen any evidence.

Mat

[mjrichardson]

By the way I also spoke to Sven about his H4D50 and was very interested in hearing about his move to the Pentax, I hope he has a fantastic time with it. Now if we were talking about a Pentax with the same size sensor as the H4D and equal flash sync speed and lens range then I'd already be at the dealers!

[torger]

By the way I also spoke to Sven about his H4D50 and was very interested in hearing about his move to the Pentax, I hope he has a fantastic time with it. Now if we were talking about a Pentax with the same size sensor as the H4D and equal flash sync speed and lens range then I'd already be at the dealers!

I actually may end up buying his H4D-50. I hope someone else is faster to buy it (maybe it's already sold by now, haven't checked with him) so I don't need to spend . The larger sensor size and great compatibility with my preferred lens range is my reason, plus that I think 50 megapixel is a nice sweetspot and the H4D-50 has a little better screen than the CFV-50. The lesser weather-proofing I can live with, I just need it to work in -30C. The 33 megapixels I have today is a bit too pixelated/aliased at f/11 for my taste (damn it's hard when lenses are too sharp). I would need to use an external battery and the H body would just sit on a shelf though

If I wasn't so sold on using movements in my shooting style I would shoot a 135 DSLR now (due to the prohibitive cost of competitive MF) and I would probably be very interested in Pentax 645z, and the reason would be those extra megapixels and a cost which is within reach, plus that I don't need to sacrifice any significant DSLR feature I'm already used with (live view, high ISO - most for the freeze-time aspect rather than hand-holding, long exposure). Do I need those extra megapixels? Uhm... not really, it's more about want than need.

[Justinr]

Torger, I think you may have hit on the only advantage of the Pentax over a 35mm DSLR, i.e pixels, sure some will appreciate the extra but they are expensive megapixels and according to a lot of reports their aren't yet many lenses that allow full use of them, especially with a crop sensor affecting the wide end. Software is so good nowadays that I'd be hard pushed to see a difference at "average" print sizes. I'd of course have no issue with being wrong about my summary but I haven't yet seen any evidence.

Mat

I feel it goes deeper than just pixel count. I did a job recently over three days, it was for a farm equipment brochure.  During the the first two I used the Nikon D3 and was frustrated somehow in that I was not getting what I wanted. On the third day I switched to the Mamiya and found both the work and the results an awful lot more satisfying. We've been over the many reasons why this may be so in other threads but to me at least the effect is real and MF is still far the better option when you can use it.

Image below was taken on the Mamiya in natural light. My apologies for there being no scantily clad young ladies involved.  

[mjrichardson]

Justin, I agree completely, "the mf look" has been discussed millions of times and I agree personally that I see a difference, my comments are based on the sony sensor in the 645z rather than what I presume is a traditional back you are using on your Mamiya? The 645z really feels like it is more of the same when compared to a dslr, rather than that quality that is apparent in the older tech. It could all be bollocks of course and I am only seeing what I want to see!

I have a stack of cash in my pocket at this very moment and I am battling with a number of options, the H4D 50 Torger is talking about is in excellent condition, low shutter count and is approx the same price as a 645z, I think my money would still go on the H4D as for me the ccd difference is real and I'm not looking for a camera to do everything. I'd definitely keep a dslr kit for what it excels at and also a mirrorless for what it excels at, it's nice that we have so many choices!

I'd get it bought Torger, only live once and all that.

Mat

[mjrichardson]

Justin, looking forward to you putting your mistake right and adding more scantily clad women at once!

[douglevy]

Portrait photography is one of the ONLY issues - because the lens lineup lacks quality leaf shutter lenses at this point. Also, lensprotogo is renting the pentax as well, and ship everywhere in the US.

-Doug

[powerslave12r]

Some comparisons make the 645Z definitely worth that much more than the D.

EDIT: The following link compares the JPEGs only.
Example: http://alcarlayblog.com/acarlayphoto/2014/08/15/difference-between-pentax-645d-and-645z/

[synn]

Some comparisons make the 645Z definitely worth that much more than the D.

Example: http://alcarlayblog.com/acarlayphoto/2014/08/15/difference-between-pentax-645d-and-645z/

Nice article. although, I beg to differ about the (Subjective) conclusion. The Z has that "Oh-so-nikoney" look to portraits that I am so familiar with (And not a fan of). The D files look crisper in comparison, partly due to the color rendering, partly due to the highlight rolloff.
My (Again, subjective) recommendation is that if one is after controlled light portraiture, get the D. It's a steal at 5K (Or a bit lesser used). If one wants to replace a DSLR, Z is the way to go. Beware though, you may be able to teach a horse to juggle china, but it won't be pretty.

[Ken R]

Nice article. although, I beg to differ about the (Subjective) conclusion. The Z has that "Oh-so-nikoney" look to portraits that I am so familiar with (And not a fan of). The D files look crisper in comparison, partly due to the color rendering, partly due to the highlight rolloff.
My (Again, subjective) recommendation is that if one is after controlled light portraiture, get the D. It's a steal at 5K (Or a bit lesser used). If one wants to replace a DSLR, Z is the way to go. Beware though, you may be able to teach a horse to juggle china, but it won't be pretty.

I see more detail or at least more "acuity" in the 645D. I agree that the 645Z images look like typical CMOS DSLR images (not necessarily a bad thing). The 645D definitely look more neutral and should I say CCD like.

The article is spot on with the somewhat deficient handling of the Highlights in the 645D. I don't know why the 645D does this but it is characteristic of the camera. This was something that really bothered me when I had the D. I much prefer the smoother rolloff into white of my PhaseOne IQ160, It is a DRAMATIC difference and MUCH more tweakable to taste in the Phase. Whether it is because of hardware or software or both I don't really care but it is a reality when dealing with the files. In that aspect the 645Z looks worlds better than the D.

[powerslave12r]

Nice article. although, I beg to differ about the (Subjective) conclusion. The Z has that "Oh-so-nikoney" look to portraits that I am so familiar with (And not a fan of). The D files look crisper in comparison, partly due to the color rendering, partly due to the highlight rolloff.
My (Again, subjective) recommendation is that if one is after controlled light portraiture, get the D. It's a steal at 5K (Or a bit lesser used). If one wants to replace a DSLR, Z is the way to go. Beware though, you may be able to teach a horse to juggle china, but it won't be pretty.

As a landscape photographer, the better highlight recovery and increased flexibility offered by the 645z appeal much more than the occasional portrait session I may do.

I am willing to massage the 645z files to get that look in case I do go for a rare portrait session.

[synn]

As a landscape photographer, the better highlight recovery and increased flexibility offered by the 645z appeal much more than the occasional portrait session I may do.

I am willing to massage the 645z files to get that look in case I do go for a rare portrait session.

Fair enough.
Judging by the Nikon files I've worked on, you can leave the grads at home with the Z.

[torger]

I see that we end up in CCD vs CMOS, that the CCD offers a different look. Maybe it's texture-related? Just as with skin-tones I don't really have eyes for this either, but it would be interesting to know from those that do see this difference if Pentax 645z is more "DSLR-like" in look than the other CMOS alternatives such as IQ250, Credo 50 or Hasselblad H5D-50c?