How are the Pentax Z645 owners feeling?

[Justinr]

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

It is a ZD back on the Mamiya which has several 'issues' but when it all comes together still works brilliantly. Here's a spread recently published and even though the printers have done their best to murder it there is still a quality that comes through. Online publishing doesn't do it any favours either -

http://issuu.com/mortons-digital/docs/tfhnovpre/7?e=7600234/9578264

Pages 6-7 (Michael Fahey's Fordsons)

[M.Piq]

Here are some more shot outside using available light only.

It is very nice pictures. Thanks! Which lens did you use for those two people on the road?

[ACH DIGITAL]

Not head-to-head, but I've shot a lot with both, and the "z" is better in all respects in my view. Colour accuracy looked excellent when Michael and I shot the colour/ISO ramp for the original review.  Really solid reproduction.  The original LR profile kind of sucked - they've updated it at our suggestion.  

The "z" is also way faster and more responsive.  It's just the evolution as a camera that you'd expect it to be.  It isis more button-heavy than the "D", which I dislike, but you get used to it quickly.

@tsjanik:  re: what ISO on the "z" is equal to 400 on the "D"? Tough one.  My guess is somewhere between 1600 and 4000.  Seriously.  And the resolution mostly keeps up too.

- N.

Thanks Devlin. Great information.
ACH

[Ray Cox]

Well, just to weigh in on this topic I can say that I am very happy with the "Z". I have owned and used the old D since it was introduced. I was quite happy with that camera, still have it. Very rugged, good image quality, great ergonomics. Now that I have had the "Z" for a couple of months I am just blown away, haven't picked up the dslr since. Is there a difference in the files? Yep. Is that bad? No, only different. It's the tool that makes me want to use it, and after all that's what this is all about, right? So grab your tool of choice and get out there and expose some pixels!

[david distefano]

Well, just to weigh in on this topic I can say that I am very happy with the "Z". I have owned and used the old D since it was introduced. I was quite happy with that camera, still have it. Very rugged, good image quality, great ergonomics. Now that I have had the "Z" for a couple of months I am just blown away, haven't picked up the dslr since. Is there a difference in the files? Yep. Is that bad? No, only different. It's the tool that makes me want to use it, and after all that's what this is all about, right? So grab your tool of choice and get out there and expose some pixels!

here, here. your last line says it all. sometimes reading this and other forums the discussion gets down to engineering and physics of the camera and lens. take what you have and create art. i would only one item to your last line and that would be besides exposing pixels i would add and/or film since i do both.

[rcdurston]

It is very nice pictures. Thanks! Which lens did you use for those two people on the road?

Its was shot with the FA 150 f2.8
thanks
Rob

[eronald]

I'm seeing the 645Z advertised new at $8K on ebay.

Edmund

[JV]

I'm seeing the 645Z advertised new at $8K on ebay.

Edmund

What are you waiting for?

[Jim Kasson]

What are you waiting for?

Edmund, you've already admitted that you're looking. Either that, or you've got waaay too much time on your hands.

Jim

[eronald]

What are you waiting for?

I am waiting for a bigger budget - I bid on an H3D22 today, but got outbid, it went for about $2K.

Edmund

[Joe Towner]

Still going through the soccer stuff, but here's a side by side of the same wedding group  shot with CMOS and CCD.  The IMGP files are from the Pentax 645Z, while the A659 files are from the Hasselblad H4D-50.

http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/Hasselblad-H4D-50-v-Pentax-645Z/
RAWs are at https://copy.com/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw

Given that I shoot in all types of places, the ability to push the ISO is huge.  Oh how I wish I had the Z for one of my favorite shots - the noise level on the Hass is just too much for me.  http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ptg6PTm/0/O/i-Ptg6PTm.jpg

I'm spoiled in that I live 5 minutes from Glazers here in Seattle, so anything Hasselblad related I can rent.  I'd have to purchase the Z and the lenses I wanted to work with regularly, but can rent from LensRentals anything special.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...here's a side by side of the same wedding group  shot with CMOS and CCD...

I do not know about CMOS vs. CCD, but aren't all those photos rather underexposed (with the exception of IMGP1706 perhaps)?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Slobodan,

I don't care! The guy has been kind enough to post raw images. So I just convert them using Capture One! Argh, doesn't support Pentax or Hasselblad. OK Hocus-Phocus than! Argh, doesn't support Pentax. OK, I will use Lightroom, RawTherapee, AccuRaw, RawDeveloper or some other nice program that don't excludes comparison with the competition!

Best regards
Erik

I do not know about CMOS vs. CCD, but aren't all those photos rather underexposed (with the exception of IMGP1706 perhaps)?

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks for raw files!

Just after a cursory look, I am not sure that you made the Hasselblad full justice. The Pentax images are very sharp in the plane of focus.

Regarding colour, I am no expert on that. But it depends very much on the white balance. You dont't happen to have a greycard shot?

Thanks a lot, anyway that Pentax looks good.

Erik

Still going through the soccer stuff, but here's a side by side of the same wedding group  shot with CMOS and CCD.  The IMGP files are from the Pentax 645Z, while the A659 files are from the Hasselblad H4D-50.

http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/Hasselblad-H4D-50-v-Pentax-645Z/
RAWs are at https://copy.com/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw

Given that I shoot in all types of places, the ability to push the ISO is huge.  Oh how I wish I had the Z for one of my favorite shots - the noise level on the Hass is just too much for me.  http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ptg6PTm/0/O/i-Ptg6PTm.jpg

I'm spoiled in that I live 5 minutes from Glazers here in Seattle, so anything Hasselblad related I can rent.  I'd have to purchase the Z and the lenses I wanted to work with regularly, but can rent from LensRentals anything special.

[Joe Towner]

The shots aren't what I would call pro work, but when walking up on a paid wedding photographer asking to take a few shots, I'll take what I can.

Over or under exposed, it's actually a better test situation as with situations where you don't have full control you take what you can get.  1706 may be a good example of showing the full range, since looking at the histogram I've got peaks on both ends.  I didn't have my gear ready as I literally jumped out of a car since they were already shooting.  I've got a group shot that's 3 stops over, but since this is DMF, I expect to be able to pull it back.

As usual it seems, the photog didn't have a card on him, nor did the second shooter.  Is it just me or a major business failure to not have something to just hand to folks when you're out working.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for sharing raw files!

I looked at one of the Pentax 645Z files. I did check out exposure in RawDigger, I would say it was almost dead on prefect ETTR exposure.

After that I opened the image in Lightroom and started with Jeff Schewes portrait sharpening preset, taking away masking which looked a bit unnatural. I found that very little luminance noise reduction did help the image but using to much made a bit plasticy look.

White balance plays a tremendous role colour, I tried both "cloudy" and "daylight" and I felt that daylight gave more natural but possibly not most pleasant colour.

Noise structure looks good for a 400 ISO image. The enclosed image shows "cloudy" on left and "daylight" on the right.

The Hasselblad images tend to be underexposed two stops at 100 ISO, but two stops under at 100 ISO is essentially the same as normal exposure at 400 ISO. Shifting exposure may affect colour rendition, due to "hue-tweaks varying with brightness" as discussed on the other thread. The Hasselblad shoots are not as good as the best Pentax 645 shots, so direct comparison is not possible. On the other hand, I would say that the Hasselblad is playing in another (lower) division, in this case.

But, the CCD backs work well at base ISO.

Best regards
Erik

The shots aren't what I would call pro work, but when walking up on a paid wedding photographer asking to take a few shots, I'll take what I can.

Over or under exposed, it's actually a better test situation as with situations where you don't have full control you take what you can get.  1706 may be a good example of showing the full range, since looking at the histogram I've got peaks on both ends.  I didn't have my gear ready as I literally jumped out of a car since they were already shooting.  I've got a group shot that's 3 stops over, but since this is DMF, I expect to be able to pull it back.

As usual it seems, the photog didn't have a card on him, nor did the second shooter.  Is it just me or a major business failure to not have something to just hand to folks when you're out working.

[hexx]

Still going through the soccer stuff, but here's a side by side of the same wedding group  shot with CMOS and CCD.  The IMGP files are from the Pentax 645Z, while the A659 files are from the Hasselblad H4D-50.

http://www.soundersfcfan.com/Delivery/Hasselblad-H4D-50-v-Pentax-645Z/
RAWs are at https://copy.com/ZXn6jNBoS0MyQQrw

Given that I shoot in all types of places, the ability to push the ISO is huge.  Oh how I wish I had the Z for one of my favorite shots - the noise level on the Hass is just too much for me.  http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-Ptg6PTm/0/O/i-Ptg6PTm.jpg

I'm spoiled in that I live 5 minutes from Glazers here in Seattle, so anything Hasselblad related I can rent.  I'd have to purchase the Z and the lenses I wanted to work with regularly, but can rent from LensRentals anything special.

Thank you very much for sharing these with us, I'm slowly building collection of various files from all over the place. admins from pentaxforums also released their full review with a lot of samples to download and there are links to raw files available on fstopper too (also ISO25600 file).

One thing puzzles me though, some DNG files can be opened and processed in CaptureOne (I use version 7), others can't. My theory is that the ones that can be opened in C1 were probably shot as .PEF files (original Pentax raw files) and then converted to DNG using Adobe's converter and the ones which C1 can't open/process are the ones that were shot as DNG - can anybody confirm that this is the case?

(also covering them again to dng from DNG doesn't do the trick and C1 won't open them)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am pretty sure that C1 is just showing anti competitive behaviour. POS in my view.

Hocus-Phocus is a bit it different, it is intended for Hasselblad only, but C1 is supposed to be general purpose. Im a tired of all that proprietary stuff. 

Best regards
Erik

Thank you very much for sharing these with us, I'm slowly building collection of various files from all over the place. admins from pentaxforums also released their full review with a lot of samples to download and there are links to raw files available on fstopper too (also ISO25600 file).

One thing puzzles me though, some DNG files can be opened and processed in CaptureOne (I use version 7), others can't. My theory is that the ones that can be opened in C1 were probably shot as .PEF files (original Pentax raw files) and then converted to DNG using Adobe's converter and the ones which C1 can't open/process are the ones that were shot as DNG - can anybody confirm that this is the case?

(also covering them again to dng from DNG doesn't do the trick and C1 won't open them)

[eronald]

Hi,

I am pretty sure that C1 is just showing anti competitive behaviour. POS in my view.

Hocus-Phocus is a bit it different, it is intended for Hasselblad only, but C1 is supposed to be general purpose. Im a tired of all that proprietary stuff. 

Best regards
Erik

Paradoxically on Mac, Phocus works well with some dSLR images, even though it is never touted as a general purpose converter.

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Edmund,

Nice to hear! My take is that Hocus-Phocus is quite OK, Hasselblad has some nice stuff like the HTS, it is good it is fully supported in Phocus. It would be still better if it was supported in a converter based on open specifications.

I very strongly feel that we photographers should be able to use our own images with the tools of our choice. I don't feel that MFD is going in that direction, in general, but I am happy that Pentax and Leica are taking a non proprietary path.

Best regards
Erik

Paradoxically on Mac, Phocus works well with some dSLR images, even though it is never touted as a general purpose converter.

Edmund