The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Pentax 645D Questions

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I'll share a few thoughts as I bought a pre-owned Pentax 645D about 3 months ago replacing my D800.
I am a hobbyist not a pro, so keep that in mind if you draw any conclusions from my input.

CAMERA: I am happy with Pentax 645D. I find its color output very pleasing. Like yourself, I am a Leica M9 user and I feel the color fidelity is similarly pleasant. Resolution is great but it needs a very sturdy tripod. The results, when used correctly & deliberately are very rewarding (to me).

PENTAX LENSES:
As far as lenses are concerned I purchased the following lenses:

55mm AW: I bought it with the camera, sold it but then re-purchased it. I like it. I think its under-rated.
90mm AW: Excellent performer. Shake reduction is handy. I think its over priced. I found a used one.
25mm AW: I have returned 2 copies, one bought from B&H and another from Japan. One FA the other D FA.
Sharp but shows a LOT of purple fringing and chromatic abberation in strongly backlit subjects.

120mm FA: My copy was nothing special. Had to stop it down considerably. Sold it.
150mm FA: Nice but nothing special. Still have it. Probably will sell it.
300mm FA: My copy was pretty good. I found it difficult to use even on a stable tripod. Sold it.


ZEISS LENSES:
I've converted & used a lot of Leica-R and Zeiss lenses with Nikon D800/D700 and I loved them (and miss them). In that spirit, I decided to explore some alternative lenses for the Pentax 645D. After a lot of reading and research I got these...

Hasselblad/Zeiss 40mm CFE IF: Wow. I feel its a lens that does justice to the sensor. Excellent resolution.
Hasselblad/Zeiss 100mm CFi: Very very nice. Optically very similar (I think better than) Pentax 90mm AW.
Hasselblad/Zeiss 250 Superachromat: Wow. What fine resolution and color fidelity. Awesome.


CONCLUSION:
I am very glad to have purchased 645D and even more glad that it lead to the purchase of 40mm CFE IF and 250 Superachromat. I think they are gems and I was lucky enough to buy them for very close to the price of a new 25mm AW.
Its been a fun few weeks of buying/trying/selling. In general I found the older Pentax lenses not really that great (my opinion).

I think one of the prime reasons for getting a medium format digital camera is to achieve the resolution, sharpness and the-look that is generally attributed to medium format. I feel matching high performing lenses to high quality sensors is a step toward achieving that goal.

I hope you (or someone else) will find this helpful.
Good luck with your decision.
Cheers !
Thanks for sharing your experiences. They are very helpful and like you Im a hobbyist. I love the MF look but the more I read and research MF I think I would be much better served by a M Monochrom to replace my M9-P. I think MF instill a generation or two away from what I'm looking for. A digital Mamiya 7 would be "perfect" for me to get the IQ but not have ungainly size or restricted portability. Thanks everyone for the input but I think I'm gonna hold for a bit and see how the CMOS MF cameras fair and watch Photokina 2014 closely.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave >>>> I assume you found little difference between the D FA and DA samples your tried?

I did not get a chance to test the two 25mm versions side by side or in similar lighting conditions so I can't really say definitively.
If I rely on my memory and impressions, I would say that D FA (older-model from Japan) showed less CA but more flare.
DA (newer-model from USA) showed more CA but seemed flare proof.

Please note, I did not keep these lenses for an extended period of time, just did some quick tests to make up mind.
Thanks ever so much Jamgolf. On paper, it would make perfect sense that the D FA would exhibit far less flair due to its extended hood. What I can't reconcile is how it would be possible for that version to exhibit greater amounts of CA?

Only thing I can think of is since CA is sometimes a random event like flair which depends on lighting and subject...could the difference in CA simply be due to prevailing conditions each was exposed to? Like you mentioned, going head to head with these two lenses is really the only way to know and which version if any would be preferable to use on the 645D. Just curious, which USA store did you order the lens from?

Dave (D&A)
 

Jamgolf

Member
Dave

Yes the difference could be due to prevailing light and subject. I just remember I noticed fringing readily and more pronounced with the lens I got from B&H the DA version. The DF A version lens demonstrated it to a noticeably lesser extent as far as I can remember.
 

D&A

Well-known member
:cry:
Dave

Yes the difference could be due to prevailing light and subject. I just remember I noticed fringing readily and more pronounced with the lens I got from B&H the DA. The DF A lens demonstrated it to a noticeably a lesser extent as far as I can remember.
Good info to keep in mind. Thanks again!

Dave (D&A)
 

idillic

New member
A few months ago I bought a rarely used 645D kit plus 5 lens (including the 55mm). I had been looking for a new 800E plus a few lenses, but this as new kit was cheaper.

Love the camera. Image quality is excellent, and it is very easy to use. My comments on the lenses I have:
35FA - it does have that odd curved focus zone, but i seem to have figured out how to use it & now get outstanding sharpness from here to infinity.
55 FA 2.8 - Very sharp, I use it all the time.
75 FA - one of the best lenses I have come across in 30+ years
120 FA macro - very sharp & I use it alot.
200 FA - I find this one quite good, but not as good as the others. I have yet to figure out the best way to use it.

I have heard the 150mm lens is good, but it is quite hard to get where I am.

In summary - the camera is so easy to use & the image quality is so easy to work with.

Good luck with your decision.
 

Charles Wood

New member
Idillic, your experience mirrors mine with the same lenses. I've noticed a tendency for some high-end MF users to dismiss the 645D as somehow not worthy of the positive reviews it has achieved. If Ricoh/Pentax deliver with some additional lenses and the 645D II delivers on features and performance, the MF game for landscape/field shooters who want a MF system with DSLR convenience, may change significantly.
 

Ken_R

New member
Idillic, your experience mirrors mine with the same lenses. I've noticed a tendency for some high-end MF users to dismiss the 645D as somehow not worthy of the positive reviews it has achieved. If Ricoh/Pentax deliver with some additional lenses and the 645D II delivers on features and performance, the MF game for landscape/field shooters who want a MF system with DSLR convenience, may change significantly.
Indeed. Specially if the 645D II has live view in camera.

A lot of people do not like to give up the functionality of Live View from their DSLRs when switching to medium format unless the MFDigital product has a significant advantage in resolution and image quality. The original 645D does not have an edge in IQ over the D800E. With the 645D you also have less dynamic range when compared to the D800E. Also the lenses that can be used on the 645D do not have an advantage over what you can use on the Nikon.

These are all things that matter a LOT to landscape photographers which are the main target of the 645D. Yeah I know, demanding bunch.

All this results in a LOT of potential 645D customers choosing the D800E over the 645D. They just can't justify the extra expense and functionality compromises, even if they have money to burn.

The 645D II changes a LOT of the things I mention. It has (in theory) at least equal dynamic range to the D800E, at least equally good high iso and long exposure performance, it has significantly more resolution potential and hopefully it also has live view. The lenses are still a question mark but there are a lot of very good lenses (specially for landscape and macro) available now at very reasonable prices.

So if the 645D II is as good as we hope it is it will change the game for sure and it won't be left in the photography equipment limbo like the 645D thanks to the D800E.

Of course if you have the dinero $$$ the IQ250 is the best choice because you can configure a system that suits you best whether it is a tech camera or SLR based system or both (like I have done with the IQ160)
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The 250 for a tech camera, may not be the best choice. From all the testing, that DT did, it's clear that if you use a wide angle setup, then you will most likely get some compromised color shifts. DT even went back and revised the usable image circles for the 250 with the 32mm an 40mm, and the revisions are interesting @ 70mm for the 32Rod (90mm total IC) and 80mm for the 40mm R0d (90mm total IC).

To me at the cost point of any of these lenses, that a lot to be not able to use that much of the image circle.

If you also go back and look at the test files, in detail you can see for sure that the even though the shadow recovery next to amazing compared to the 260, the amount of saturation/color fall is just as amazing. I totally missed this when I reviewed the files, until Torger posted his results.

The big question to me, is can a CMOS chip be designed that give all the benefits shown in the Sony 50MP CMOS that won't have the issues shown when shifting which appear to be around the microlenses and design of the chip.

As a tech camera shooter who uses wides 85% of the time, the color issue on top of the 1x3 crop of the sensor really make the 250 a non player. If Phase One can design a new algorithm to resolve some of the extreme color/sat loss which may in fact be possible, then the 250 may be a possible solution, however not at the current prices being given for upgrades but that's another story completely.

If the color issues show up in a outdoor scene, well that really yet to get tested, but I feel that on a blue sky (solid) or with few clouds, they very well create a blue that will not come together due to the loss of sat and hue shifts. I wonder too how these same issues would effect a typical green hillside, as the green color seems to be by far the most effected.

Paul C,.
 

Ken_R

New member
The 250 for a tech camera, may not be the best choice. From all the testing, that DT did, it's clear that if you use a wide angle setup, then you will most likely get some compromised color shifts. DT even went back and revised the usable image circles for the 250 with the 32mm an 40mm, and the revisions are interesting @ 70mm for the 32Rod (90mm total IC) and 80mm for the 40mm R0d (90mm total IC).

To me at the cost point of any of these lenses, that a lot to be not able to use that much of the image circle.

If you also go back and look at the test files, in detail you can see for sure that the even though the shadow recovery next to amazing compared to the 260, the amount of saturation/color fall is just as amazing. I totally missed this when I reviewed the files, until Torger posted his results.

The big question to me, is can a CMOS chip be designed that give all the benefits shown in the Sony 50MP CMOS that won't have the issues shown when shifting which appear to be around the microlenses and design of the chip.

As a tech camera shooter who uses wides 85% of the time, the color issue on top of the 1x3 crop of the sensor really make the 250 a non player. If Phase One can design a new algorithm to resolve some of the extreme color/sat loss which may in fact be possible, then the 250 may be a possible solution, however not at the current prices being given for upgrades but that's another story completely.

If the color issues show up in a outdoor scene, well that really yet to get tested, but I feel that on a blue sky (solid) or with few clouds, they very well create a blue that will not come together due to the loss of sat and hue shifts. I wonder too how these same issues would effect a typical green hillside, as the green color seems to be by far the most effected.

Paul C,.
With the IQ250 you can use it on an ALPA FPS (or Hartblei cam) and use the excellent Canon TSE-II 17 and 24mm lenses. You would get just superb Ultra Wide Angle performance like it has never been available with CMOS. That is only possible with a back.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Ken, you bring up a good point, I totally overlooked, and I agree 100%. My post was really from a Cambo/Arca standpoint. The FPS does make this a great solution, especially with the Canon 17 and 24mm TS-E lenses.

One note, the Alpa test that came out about 1 month ago, where they compared the 24 or 17mm Canon (I think it was the 17mm) to the Rod 32mm on the IQ250. The Rod 32mm was hands down a better performer all round. It makes you appreciate just how good that particular lens is. On shfits the 17mm really suffered quite a bit, but even on center the difference was clear.

Based on that test, I was pleasantly surprised by their results. However that has been the only outdoor landscape oriented testing I have seen so far.

As an Arca owner, I forget to consider the FPS in my though process. Plus I have too much invested in the Acra and various wides to go there now.

I keep hoping that Arca will come out with something before 2017, that will work similar to the FPS, at least offer a shutter solution.

Paul C.
 

Ken_R

New member
Ken, you bring up a good point, I totally overlooked, and I agree 100%. My post was really from a Cambo/Arca standpoint. The FPS does make this a great solution, especially with the Canon 17 and 24mm TS-E lenses.

One note, the Alpa test that came out about 1 month ago, where they compared the 24 or 17mm Canon (I think it was the 17mm) to the Rod 32mm on the IQ250. The Rod 32mm was hands down a better performer all round. It makes you appreciate just how good that particular lens is. On shfits the 17mm really suffered quite a bit, but even on center the difference was clear.

Based on that test, I was pleasantly surprised by their results. However that has been the only outdoor landscape oriented testing I have seen so far.

As an Arca owner, I forget to consider the FPS in my though process. Plus I have too much invested in the Acra and various wides to go there now.

I keep hoping that Arca will come out with something before 2017, that will work similar to the FPS, at least offer a shutter solution.

Paul C.
I hope so too. I have a RM3Di as well and love it. I am sure Arca can design a shutter unit that fits like the rotamount does or just behind the lens mount. Would be awesome.
 

Charles Wood

New member
The original 645D does not have an edge in IQ over the D800E. With the 645D you also have less dynamic range when compared to the D800E. Also the lenses that can be used on the 645D do not have an advantage over what you can use on the Nikon.

These are all things that matter a LOT to landscape photographers which are the main target of the 645D. Yeah I know, demanding bunch.

All this results in a LOT of potential 645D customers choosing the D800E over the 645D. They just can't justify the extra expense and functionality compromises, even if they have money to burn.
I would offer a slightly different viewpoint. Having used a D800e for over a month, and extensively comparing images and post processing time against files from my 645D, I did not miss the D800e when it was time for it to go back to it's owner. The FPS capability, focusing and dynamic range differences between the two cameras were non-issues for my style of shooting. I much prefer how the 645D feels in my hands and it's ergonomics over the D800e, and especially prefer the 645D viewfinder.

By the time the D800/800e were released, the majority of 645D sales had already been made and most likely to owners such as myself, who had shot Pentax 645 film systems and had an existing bag of compatible lenses. This made the financial entry into DMF fairly easy. The market has pretty much devoured the legacy P645 lenses for use with the 645D. Pentax will have to release some new lenses in order for the II version to be successful with a new group of buyers.

The reality, in my view, is the the SONY a7r is really the the camera that has brought 645D sales to a halt. One photographer friend who also shoots with the 645D, gave the D800 a try and returned it for the same reasons I noted in my use of it, and subsequently purchased a a7r for travel. For traveling light, the D800e doesn't really offer much advantage over a 645D. The a7r, with the Zeiss lenses especially designed for it, does have some advantage in size. I've looked at files from the a7r and find them far more visually appealing than those from the D800e. Mileage may vary, of course.
 
Top