How are the Pentax Z645 owners feeling?

[hexx]

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

they won't support anything else than PhaseOne team backs, as stated here (last comment from admin) - http://forum.phaseone.com/en/viewtopic.php?p=81979&sid=485a82092293f9033ccd3ee4270cb95b#p81979

I'm not happy with that at all, migrated to C1 from LR4 when they released version 7 but not much I can do

[eronald]

Hi Erik,

 My understanding is that open-source library based tools such as RPP are actually quite good in terms of results; however the interface is usually horrid. But then you can program, so you can use the command-line version which in the case of libraw is obviously free.

 In the special case of RPP, I think their browsing tool Fast Raw Viewer supports just about every camera including the Pentax, Phase and Hassy and may be useful to people in the field as it gives Raw histograms .

Edmund

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

[esox]

I don't understand how you can like the appearance of the skin even on the "in focus" Z pictures. It's just look unreal textures. I would expect that such systems  (high price systems) offer texture quality as good at 400-800 iso than CCD system like P1 or Hassy at 50-100 iso. It is not the case at all. Low noise, all right, but terrible textures. I prefer a little bit of noise.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Edmund,

I am looking at RawTherape a bit and also at a program called AccuRaw.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

 My understanding is that open-source library based tools such as RPP are actually quite good in terms of results; however the interface is usually horrid. But then you can program, so you can use the command-line version which in the case of libraw is obviously free.

 In the special case of RPP, I think their browsing tool Fast Raw Viewer supports just about every camera including the Pentax, Phase and Hassy and may be useful to people in the field as it gives Raw histograms .

Edmund

[Lacunapratum]

I finally did the plunge and I am totally happy with the Z.  I have a 645D, which I decided to keep as a backup.  Also have a stable of lenses, too crazy to list. 

Already after a the few times of use, I must have dinged the aluminum Pentax plate.  Don't know yet whether I should get it replaced.  Slightly less solid than the 645D.  But more a sign of how much I like the camera and that I am not afraid of using it for anything.  Perhaps having the backup helps.  Perhaps I'll keep the ding as a beauty mark. 

I like the files and don't see much of a difference to the D, even though I prefer the D files just ever so slightly, when shot from a tripod at 100ASA.  But the ability to crank up sensitivity is out of this world.  800 and 1600 ASA settings are readily usable.  Going up to 400 already reduced file quality when shooting with the D.  The enormous sensitivity of the Z allows me to easily use of all of those nice telephoto ED lenses, 300, 400, 600, and 800, in 645 and 67 versions (300, 400). The detail in the files is amazing as well.  You can easily crop and you'll be amazed how much is left.  Also great to use all of my many adapted lenses.  Speed doesn't seem to be a limit anymore.   

I accidentally hit the movie recording button, and that was a revelation in itself.  Medium format video.  Unbelievable.  The battery life is another plus. 

Only when I downloaded the files and saw my memory quickly fill up I realized that there was a price to the Z...

[tsjanik]

...............I like the files and don't see much of a difference to the D, even though I prefer the D files just ever so slightly, when shot from a tripod at 100ASA.............. 

Hi Tom:

I've held off on the Z so far, despite the temptation of high ISO particularly for use with the longer lenses. Can you expand on your statement?  What is it you prefer in the D files?

Best,

Tom

[Lacunapratum]

Hi Tom,

I'd say the D is just slightly more saturated and slightly more natural at the same time when compared to the Z.  Almost unnoticeable.  The typical CCD/CMOS thing.  Haven't played with the Z enough to see whether there's a setting that get's closer to the D parameters.  You won't notice unless you compare very closely. 

I certainly wouldn't let that hold me up if I was you, especially since you are one of the few who use those long telephotos very successfully. 

Another benefit I forgot to mention in my post is the stronger autofocus motor.  There are no more issues with the 90mm autofocus, even though it gets stuck at infinity or close distance at times.  But it no longer stops while focusing as a result of a weak focus drive. 

[tonyhowell]

Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but with Sony making the Nikon D800E sensor then bringing out the A7R, isn't it likely that they'll bring out a mirrorless Sony 645 camera - as they make the sensor for the Pentax 645Z?

[eronald]

Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but with Sony making the Nikon D800E sensor then bringing out the A7R, isn't it likely that they'll bring out a mirrorless Sony 645 camera - as they make the sensor for the Pentax 645Z?

I think someone will make a compact-wide mirrorless with this sensor, eg. use a 50mm to capture a wide strip on the MF sensor, while keeping a small size for the lens. Sort of like the Xpan



Image linked from http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_LX100/ (fair use, technical discussion).

Edmund

[tsjanik]

Tom:

Thanks for the compliment.  I will get a Z at some point, the high ISO is a compelling feature.  I rarely use the 645D at 400 and almost never above.  Do you have an idea of the upper ISO limit of the Z which retains a high quality file; my impression is 1600-3200?

Tom

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I will get a Z at some point, the high ISO is a compelling feature.  I rarely use the 645D at 400 and almost never above.  Do you have an idea of the upper ISO limit of the Z which retains a high quality file; my impression is 1600-3200?

Hi Tom,

I think that noise performance also depends a lot on the software one uses for the Raw conversion/initial editing.

Technically, I'd expect little benefit above ISO 800-1600 with (if needed) a further push in Raw conversion of a couple of stops, because it looks like the sensor is mostly ISO-less. Pushing in postprocessing also allows to reduce the risk of clipping specular highlights from slight on sensor overexposure. I usually try to also keep the color of specular highlights intact, with an additional shorter exposure if necessary, but with the 645Z's reported noise performance that's less likely to be needed with additional pushing in post.

I once did a technical analysis (using RawDigger and a series of Raw Exposures and Blackframes) for a fellow photographer on his 645D, and that indicated ISO 400 maximum, for more speed push in post. It will be interesting to see how the 645Z behaves, maybe DxOmark.com is already working on it.

For static subjects one always has the option to combine/average multiple exposures to reduce noise even further, or add multiple exposures for higher sensitivity, although adding will also increase noise. Given the reported long exposure capabilities of the 645Z that adding of exposures is less likely to be needed, but averaging is always an interesting option, also for removing traffic (with median averaging of 3 or more shots) from a historical/architectural site.

Cheers,
Bart

[eronald]

Bart,

 I took Hunt's colorimetry course, one of the things he demoed was that color is a low-frequency percept. For us as photographers, this can be a guide in post -filter ab channels- , and is of course of relevance for compression and codecs. Hunt's course was the best $500 I ever spent on anything image-related.

Edmund

Hi Tom,

I think that noise performance also depends a lot on the software one uses for the Raw conversion/initial editing.

Technically, I'd expect little benefit above ISO 800-1600 with (if needed) a further push in Raw conversion of a couple of stops, because it looks like the sensor is mostly ISO-less. Pushing in postprocessing also allows to reduce the risk of clipping specular highlights from slight on sensor overexposure. I usually try to also keep the color of specular highlights intact, with an additional shorter exposure if necessary, but with the 645Z's reported noise performance that's less likely to be needed with additional pushing in post.

I once did a technical analysis (using RawDigger and a series of Raw Exposures and Blackframes) for a fellow photographer on his 645D, and that indicated ISO 400 maximum, for more speed push in post. It will be interesting to see how the 645Z behaves, maybe DxOmark.com is already working on it.

For static subjects one always has the option to combine/average multiple exposures to reduce noise even further, or add multiple exposures for higher sensitivity, although adding will also increase noise. Given the reported long exposure capabilities of the 645Z that adding of exposures is less likely to be needed, but averaging is always an interesting option, also for removing traffic (with median averaging of 3 or more shots) from a historical/architectural site.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I took Hunt's colorimetry course, one of the things he demoed was that color is a low-frequency percept.

Edmund, indeed it is, perceptually. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no high frequency content to capture, but it does explain why Bayer CFAs work so well, we're not good at discriminating the losses.

For us as photographers, this can be a guide in post -filter ab channels- , and is of course of relevance for compression and codecs.

Absolutely, although the sparser sampling also increases risks of producing lower frequency colored noise. That will still present a challenge to restrain without hurting image quality.

Hunt's course was the best $500 I ever spent on anything image-related.

One could easily find a lesser tutor...

Cheers,
Bart

[eronald]

One could easily find a lesser tutor...

Cheers,
Bart

Or a younger one

I always wanted to take some photography classes, but photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.

Edmund

[tsjanik]

.......... Pushing in postprocessing also allows to reduce the risk of clipping specular highlights from slight on sensor overexposure. I usually try to also keep the color of specular highlights intact, with an additional shorter exposure if necessary,........

Thanks for your comments Bart.  As much as I understand the logic of ETTR, I consistently underexpose by 1/2-1  stop for certain images to avoid clipping. Clipped highlights are irreversible damage to a file. This has been my most difficult adjustment to digital - film is much more forgiving to overexposure.  Michael's "Sun Road" image taken with the Z impressed me with its dynamic range that maintained a clear outline of the sun, so perhaps clipping is less problematic with the Z (or Michael did a good job of determining exposure  ).

Tom

[Lacunapratum]

Hi Tom,

Files at 1600 are still of superb quality.  After that image quality somewhat declines, perhaps similar to the 400 setting on the D.  3200 is still very usable if you need to get the shot and don't have to crop. 

I was quite surprised, and you will be pleased. 

Tom

[tsjanik]

Thanks for your observations Tom; that's very encouraging.  On a operational level for me, that means 1/15s @ ISO 200 becomes 1/125s @ ISO 1600 - quite a difference with long lenses.  Have you noticed in improvement in shutter vibration in the Z?

Tom

[bcooter]

photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.

And your point is?


IMO

BC

[Ken R]

Or a younger one

I always wanted to take some photography classes, but photographers seem to value their time at 10x that of scientists of "equivalent" caliber.

Edmund

You hate Professional Photographers also? I though your hate (or despise) was mainly directed towards PhaseOne/Leaf (and to a lesser degree Hasselblad). Dang, you are gonna tear this forum apart. As it is you are making Phase/Leaf dealers work a lot harder online doing damage control.

Come down to Puerto Rico and il take you around and give you some photo tips for free. Or at least what I can contribute.

[synn]

And your point is?


IMO

BC

That people who do real work couldn't care less about his paper qualifications and Internet opinions, so now he has one more thing to hate on.