Pentax 645Z - oh boy!

[wryphotography]

Additional variables beyond lens quality:
- dark frame technology
- raw processing

Both are very important especially at the fringes (especially high ISO or especially long exposures). The guys who developed the IQ250 hardware are down the hall from, work with, drink with, and otherwise tightly coordinate with the guys making the software. The software guys at C1 also have a very strong incentive to spend lots of extra time tweaking C1's processing of IQ250 files to get the very most out of the files, and they had access to prototype samples for months before the launch (see the Phase One IQ250 story I wrote).

For a more valid comparison you'd want to wait until you can run raws through LR to compare. Only time will tell how much time Adobe spends on catering their processing to get the most out of those raw files.

Doug, no offense, but you really are coming across as total team phase one.

What you say is good about the software developers and hardware developers being able to have direct access to each other.
But at the end of the day, I have run my IQ180 files through Lightroom and Capture One and I prefer Lightroom's interface where everything is in the develop tab vs capture one, white balance is in a different area than other color editing options.

I am pretty reliably able to get good results from the files out of both editors.

yes. but with lightroom you can easily export photos as advanced object in photoshop and with a click had images stacked. i don't know if the results can keep up with helicon results, never tried. but in my opioni lightroom is very flexible. personally i tried capture one and is probably the worst software i have ever tried. but maybe i never studied it deeply.

helicon focus has a plugin for lightroom i believe.

I have compared it to stacking with photoshop and its really no contest, helicon is way better.


@Guy - I am curious why you think canikon is dying. I purchased a d800e after selling my IQ180 and its a great little(i use this term loosely) camera. Is it medium format? Nope but it is flexible enough for me to do more with it than I could the IQ180.

Don't get me wrong I would really love to have another IQ160 or 180 but the price is just too much for me right now.

 

[shlomi]

It does if it stops working and freezes up. A historical search will bring up numerous cases of Phamiya wows.

Very rarey happens to me but I'm sure it is much less stable than Canon.

Have you never used the 17mm and especially the 24mm TS-E's? In my book two astounding Canon lenses that Phase One has nothing to touch them.

Never used these specific lenses but all the wides I did use on Canon were very bad.

Granted they are good lenses but all very old designs carried over from 80's and 90's Mamiya's, 120Macro especially.

120AF was redesigned - in any case if the result is good then I am happy - I don't need a new design.
120MF was not redesigned, but three generations of the lens showed distinct improvements every time - I've meticulously tested this one.

Again incorrect as it has been show by testes that often the LS versions are exactly the same lens as te D versions only with a shutter added.

My testing on 80mm showed what you said and I was happy to sell the new one and keep the old one which was perfect. It was my impression from what others said, that LS is an improvement for instance in 55mm, 150mm and 75-150mm.

Like wise I don't think is it fair to disregard Torger's opinion because he's an amateur and doesn't make money from photography. Or for that matter, for you to criticise a camera (Pentax) you know very little about based upon your inaccurate assumptions of the system you currently use?

I disregarded torger opinion only on making money from photographs, which I think he is not doing and I am.

 

[Pics2]

But at the end of the day, I have run my IQ180 files through Lightroom and Capture One and I prefer Lightroom's interface where everything is in the develop tab vs capture one, white balance is in a different area than other color editing options.

I am pretty reliably able to get good results from the files out of both editors.

I never tried anything but C1 with IQ160.
It's good to know, I'm going to try Lightromm. And ARC, too. It will be good to exercise new software for upcoming Pentax. I'm so stuck with C1, I've never even thought about replacing IQ with other brand. Now I will.

 

[MGrayson]

But at the end of the day, I have run my IQ180 files through Lightroom and Capture One and I prefer Lightroom's interface where everything is in the develop tab vs capture one, white balance is in a different area than other color editing options.

I'm sure Doug will respond, but C1 is insanely configurable. If you want a bunch of tools on one tab, you can set that up in 3 minutes. And different tools setups are quickly swappable.

Getting :OT:. Sorry. Carry on!

--Matt

 

[dougpeterson]

Doug, no offense, but you really are coming across as total team phase one.

What you say is good about the software developers and hardware developers being able to have direct access to each other.
But at the end of the day, I have run my IQ180 files through Lightroom and Capture One and I prefer Lightroom's interface where everything is in the develop tab vs capture one, white balance is in a different area than other color editing options.

No offense taken: I am a total Team Phase One guy. It's what I know best and what I do day to day and where I make my living. I try very hard to make sure I'm not hiding that my opinions are naturally biased (e.g. mentioning it anytime someone is posting who has not been here long, and putting my job title in my signature for every post), even if I try to keep perspective and avoid entirely intoxicating myself on the koolaid.

In C1 you can add any tool to any tab, and reduce the number of tabs as aggressively as you wish. The default interface rarely is the ideal interface for any user, but the ability to (in a minute or two) radically rearrange the interface is one of it's strongest suits. If you'd like any help on that (e.g. if you'd otherwise prefer C1 for other strengths but this is a major obstacle to using it) I'd gladly step you through it via screen sharing.

Here for instance you can see an interface I've customized to have White Balance and the Color Editor in a dedicated tab by themselves, which is accessible by keyboard shortcut. In the second screen grab I've customized to have (my personal) frequently accessed tools all in the same tab accessible by keyboard shortcut. If you have enough screen real estate you can have every tool open, some of them floating, some of them docked, some of them on a second screen etc.

 

[Pics2]

You can add tools to any Tab. Just righ click on it and you'll see Add Tool option. Add whichever you want. I use Quck Tab (Q sign) to add all the tools I need under one Tab.

 

[Pics2]

Ok, Doug was quick.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Doug, no offense, but you really are coming across as total team phase one.

What you say is good about the software developers and hardware developers being able to have direct access to each other.
But at the end of the day, I have run my IQ180 files through Lightroom and Capture One and I prefer Lightroom's interface where everything is in the develop tab vs capture one, white balance is in a different area than other color editing options.

I am pretty reliably able to get good results from the files out of both editors.


helicon focus has a plugin for lightroom i believe.

I have compared it to stacking with photoshop and its really no contest, helicon is way better.


@Guy - I am curious why you think canikon is dying. I purchased a d800e after selling my IQ180 and its a great little(i use this term loosely) camera. Is it medium format? Nope but it is flexible enough for me to do more with it than I could the IQ180.

Don't get me wrong I would really love to have another IQ160 or 180 but the price is just too much for me right now.

Billy it seems both of them and Canon is worse that no real updates in there systems. Sure we see all these lower level cams but Nikon is going on 3 years I believe on the D800e and nothing seems to be hitting the market. Sony on the other hand seems in financial woes but it's not the camera division so they are taking aggressive steps to keep adding product to support the company. There sensor division is now supplying the whole CMOS MF market now with Hassy, Phase and now Pentax with there CMOS chips. So I feel Sony is on a serious path to get market share . It seems pretty obvious almost monthly something new announced. But this train needs to keep rolling from all of them and some seem glued to the tracks. I hope that don't last long either. We as users need choices not one completely dominating the market.

 

[wryphotography]

No offense taken: I am a total Team Phase One guy. It's what I know best and what I do day to day and where I make my living. I try very hard to make sure I'm not hiding that my opinions are naturally biased (e.g. mentioning it anytime someone is posting who has not been here long, and putting my job title in my signature for every post), even if I try to keep perspective and avoid entirely intoxicating myself on the koolaid.

In C1 you can add any tool to any tab, and reduce the number of tabs as aggressively as you wish. The default interface rarely is the ideal interface for any user, but the ability to (in a minute or two) radically rearrange the interface is one of it's strongest suits. If you'd like any help on that (e.g. if you'd otherwise prefer C1 for other strengths but this is a major obstacle to using it) I'd gladly step you through it via screen sharing.

Here for instance you can see an interface I've customized to have White Balance and the Color Editor in a dedicated tab by themselves, which is accessible by keyboard shortcut. In the second screen grab I've customized to have (my personal) frequently accessed tools all in the same tab accessible by keyboard shortcut. If you have enough screen real estate you can have every tool open, some of them floating, some of them docked, some of them on a second screen etc.

I did not know that, thanks. It is definitely annoying to go back and forth since i play with White balance and tint a lot.

Billy it seems both of them and Canon is worse that no real updates in there systems. Sure we see all these lower level cams but Nikon is going on 3 years I believe on the D800e and nothing seems to be hitting the market. Sony on the other hand seems in financial woes but it's not the camera division so they are taking aggressive steps to keep adding product to support the company. There sensor division is now supplying the whole CMOS MF market now with Hassy, Phase and now Pentax with there CMOS chips. So I feel Sony is on a serious path to get market share . It seems pretty obvious almost monthly something new announced. But this train needs to keep rolling from all of them and some seem glued to the tracks. I hope that don't last long either. We as users need choices not one completely dominating the market.

The d800 didnt come out till feb of 2012. So its been 2+ years.

I would expect to see something from them around the 3 year mark, but they have already announced the D4s if i recall correctly?

Sensor wise I dont know what else they can do though, a modest MP update is negligible when you have 36.

 

[ondebanks]

I think Mamiya ZD was too early.

I agree to some extent, but what really hurt it was the choice of sensor: the Dalsa FTF4052C had excellent 22MP resolution and size for its day, but terribly low quantum efficiency and terribly high readout and dark noise; so it fell apart above ISO 100 (!!) and above 5 seconds (!!) of "long" exposure. The 35mm DSLR users that it was aimed at were completely turned off by this. Existing Mamiya users largely turned up their noses as well; for one thing, they had plenty of DB options.

If you look at the integrated MF DSLRs from Pentax and Leica, similar in concept to the ZD but more successful in the marketplace, both these cameras are respectable high ISO and long exposure performers...with microlensed Kodak CCDs.

So if the ZD had used the slightly smaller, but still Pentax 645D-sized, 18MP Kodak KAF-18000, with about 3x the quantum efficiency (in part thanks to microlenses) and lower noise levels, Mamiya might have had a winner. This is the same sensor used in the P21+ back. The ZD2 could have followed up with the KAF-31600 (P30+, H3D-30), and the ZD3 with the KAF-40000 (Pentax 645D, H4D-40). Ah, what could have been...

Ray

 

[ondebanks]

The Kodak ProBacks were actually very innovative for their time and priced much more attractively than most competing solutions back then.

Indeed: the first truly portable self-contained backs with compact Li-Ion battery, CF card storage, LCD review screen and a user interface. The design that we take for granted nowadays when we think "digital back".

Interestingly - since it is the same as the Pentax situation we are discussing in this thread - it was Kodak's major R&D in 35mm DSLRs that allowed them to make such leaps in MFD. The user interface on the ProBacks is 95% the same as that of the digital subsystem on the Nikon F5-based Kodak DCS 720x and 760, and I bet much the same is true of the Canon F1N-based Kodak DCS 520 and 560.

I recall all the hubbub required to fit a ProBack 645C to my Contax 645 … Kodak said it was the camera that was out of whack and Kyocera said it was Kodak's fault. Finally Kodak asked me to send in the back and camera and calibrated everything for me. To do that for all the different cameras that a ProBack could be used on would have been a daunting service task.

What was the actual problem, Marc? Images not in focus because of focal plane positional uncertainty/thickness tolerances? Or was the problem connected to the Contax's rather limited ability to "talk" to DBs (some distance behind its contemporaries, the Mamiya 645AFD and Hasselblad H1)?

Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe the tolerances are better, but my ProBack 645M has mated perfectly to both Mamiya 645AFD bodies I've used.

Ray

 

[D&A]

I'm still fighting those road blocks and there not going away anytime soon. A wife with 3 cancers is a very harsh blow to your financial situation and health insurance no matter how good you think it is than your sadly mistaken to the real reality of what gets covered and what does not. Anyway I had to divest everything that does not mean I'm any less a Pro if anything I'm a smarter better Pro that has to work magic to compete at the high level. This Pentax opens the door slightly financially and more important technology land features on it look great. So I'm keeping a close eye on it and as far as Phase and Hassy for me there out of the running, just can't afford it and no one is handing me a gift package from either one of them. So I had to move on and more importantly with no remorse. It is what is is and I accept that. It's just freaking gear and means very little in the scheme of life. I'm still a hard working Pro as I always been for 38 years, gear choices will never take that honor away from me , ever.

I and I'm sure others could write a dissertation on both what you expressed in your post (above) and also what constitutes a pro photographer. My simple thoughts are this....what equipment one owns and uses has little to do whether one is a pro or not and it's been a long time illusion that it does. Knowledge and ability and how to use that knowledge to achieve results is what in large part constitutes to making a professional. Creativity to utilize ones output to achieve a finished product that their client is both pleased and impressed with and how it's handled and presented also contribute to what constitutes a professional.

Owning all the 600 f4 and $6,000 lenses and/or $8,000 cameras put there aren't going to contribute by definition to a person being a pro...but vision and know how most certainly will.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

The word 'professional' is someone who does something as a profession. You can't change that definition. Regardless of skillset, know how, equipment or even experience. If you aren't making money from it you're not a professional. I think it's an important differentiation. If you aren't working in the field, under the pressure of having to make money from a certain skill set then your opinion on the profession has to be taken as anecdotal or based on theories and numbers rather than the sharing of real world experience. Not that it isn't valuable but it's far from the whole story.

 

[fotografz]

Nothing is meant to be personal, but it's not his first time - the tawdry biz of photography i guess, but there's a vendor forum here... isn't there?
I haven't purchased a Pentax...yet, but i am intrigued. After owning the H4D's, The DF, and Leica S, not one has my loyalty. Go film!

Given the luck you've had with all three brands of MFD kits, the Pentax folks should pray that you do NOT buy one of their cameras

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

No worries I knew you did not mean this kind of stuff but I will say as Marc mentioned a lot of Pros have downsized for many reasons. Economy is certain line of them and list clients. However with tech advances to 36 mpx it does give 35mm a huge bonus to the Pros. Depending in work we can cheat better now to get closer to MF quality. For me giving up my MF kit was devastating but at the time it was a easier drop in quality to move on to a Nikon d800e without a tremendous drop in quality. Other factors are real needs some shooters never need anything past a double truck ad or less. One big factor that no ones talk about much is the general lack in clients to just take anything handed to them under budget. Better said the quality standard has dropped to iPhones and these smartphones really did no one any favors in our business. Everyone is a shooter now in some clients minds. In the corporate world major changes have happened and external items like photography are non existent now. It's a real challenge to survive.

On health care The US sucks and I'm totally with you on it being free to its citizens. Case in point you go out of your insurance network and they charge LIST price on services. They can't even get those fees from insurance companies but they can sure rape you over coals if your out if network. I got killed here and it's simply not fair to any citizen.

Half the people probably don't even know what a double truck spread is Guy :ROTFL:
(It is derived from ads that featured large tractor- trailer truck(s) where a two page spread was needed to show the whole truck.

"Rape you over the coals." had me spitting my coffee all over the screen. Sounds like something the Marquis de Sade would enjoy.

I love mixed metaphors and malapropos remarks. A creative guy that worked for me was a master at inappropriately combining colloquial phrases. My favorite was delivered at a big creative presentation where "Spine Tingling" and "Mind Boggling" were tossed in a blender … "What we have here gentlemen, is a spine boggling idea".:shocked:

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

So your answer is that you got rid of your MFD because you felt it was not the right tool for your business. I don't argue with that, and for sure it is not necessary for every photography business. I've never read any marketing materials from any MFD firm. I've encountered some obstacles with 35mm and explored ways to improve the quality of my output. Not counting on anyone's opinions but only upon my own experimentation. I can say for sure that some of my clients come back and refer based on qualities I can deliver that others can't: colors, clarity, sharpness, pixels. I'm sure at least half of them can't tell the difference.

I can sell my MFD now, but I will get 50c on the dollar in a good scenario.
Then if I would buy a full top of the line Canon setup, it will cost me not that much less.
And the quality of my deliverables deteriorates, by much or not that is debateable, but by some for sure.
That doesn't make much sense to me.
If I'm working and MFD is right for me, then I will not sell it.
I will sell it if I am not working, or if it turns out to be not right for me.

I think this is a good balanced POV.

If one was wise in their selection of tools, then they should remain viable a lot longer than all the sales hype enticing photographers to upgrade would seem to indicate.

I also think one has to like and take pride in what they are producing on a personal level. Clients may demand less today, but we must continue to demand more of ourselves. Otherwise, the clients start setting the standards and there is absolutely no way that can be good. I doubt any pro would hire a client to even be an assistant, let alone a photographer.

- Marc

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I like 'spine boggling' What a great phrase just in time for the Leica T

 

[shlomi]

If you aren't making money from it you're not a professional.

I think the appropriate definition of a professional photographer, is someone who derives most of their income from photography.
If you are living off your trust fund and also sell the odd photograph, then your perspective is that of an amateur - you do what feels right and not what must be done whether you like it or not.

The obvious association of "pro" is "high level", but in reality it will not be difficult to find some amateurs who produce images better than some pros.
Many amateurs think as a pro you strive to create more and more magnificent images and then the clients magically find you. In reality the clients come to you to shoot whatever they need, and some of it might not be pretty at all. You need to be predictable, consistent, courteous, on time and on budget.

Sometimes I got people in for marketing portraits where I couldn't believe that person would consent to be photographed - but you have to do it.

I also think one has to like and take pride in what they are producing on a personal level. Clients may demand less today, but we must continue to demand more of ourselves. Otherwise, the clients start setting the standards and there is absolutely no way that can be good. I doubt any pro would hire a client to even be an assistant, let alone a photographer.

It can be difficult to maintain the line of doing what the client wants and doing what you think is right. If you always do what they want, inevitably some of it will turn out awful, and then they blame you for it. On the other hand if you are a prima donna and only do things your way, the client wouldn't love you either.

 

[D&A]

I like 'spine boggling' What a great phrase just in time for the Leica T

"Mind Tingling" could be the alternative, or used in their second "afternoon" presentation .

Ben, I agree with your statement that a professional is by definition one who makes money from their profession. At the same time I do think "skill set" and "know how" is also part of the equation even though these may be attributes that a good many amateurs also possess. It's not any one factor or attribute that can define one as a professional vs. one who's not, but I think most of us when we encounter a professional, especially in the arena we work in, certainly can identify those who represent their livelihood at a level that goes well beyond enthusiast or hobbyist. Objectives for these two groups are different and most of all one's responsibilities to others are different. In the case of professional, one's livelihood and equally important, one's reputation is always on the line.

Dave (D&A)

 

[fotografz]

I think the appropriate definition of a professional photographer, is someone who derives most of their income from photography.
If you are living off your trust fund and also sell the odd photograph, then your perspective is that of an amateur - you do what feels right and not what must be done whether you like it or not.

The obvious association of "pro" is "high level", but in reality it will not be difficult to find some amateurs who produce images better than some pros.
Many amateurs think as a pro you strive to create more and more magnificent images and then the clients magically find you. In reality the clients come to you to shoot whatever they need, and some of it might not be pretty at all. You need to be predictable, consistent, courteous, on time and on budget.

Sometimes I got people in for marketing portraits where I couldn't believe that person would consent to be photographed - but you have to do it.

It can be difficult to maintain the line of doing what the client wants and doing what you think is right. If you always do what they want, inevitably some of it will turn out awful, and then they blame you for it. On the other hand if you are a prima donna and only do things your way, the client wouldn't love you either.

In the ad business that is called "shooting the board" … which may well be wise as well as necessary because the layout has gone through multiple levels of client approval, plus qualitative and quantitative consumer testing. The best pro photographers know this, and understand how to "plus" the board without changing the essential content or messaging elements. They also have a common trait … they are very convincing when selling their ideas, which escapes some photographers.

Too many photographers haven't a clue about how the process actually works, what dynamics are in play, or sometimes even how they get selected.

These days most clients are not allergic to making something better as long as it doesn't cost them anything. If you are a decent photographer, you can usually outstrip their expectations, and keep on budget. This can lead to more work with a proven value that you can ask more for, IF you know how to sell it, rather than just raising the price.

Finding amateur photographers that produce better images is a prevalent notion because the internet forms a collective that no single photographer can compete with, pro or not.

- Marc