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!

I just wrote up my experiences with the Pentax 645z

torger

Active member
Great review and great images!

A comment about the Hassy now when I'm about to become a fanboy; although Hassy is a somewhat "closed system", you can still use the back on a tech cam, so if you're into that thing the detachable back is useful for more than just simplify cleaning. I have a H4D-50 for that purpose. I've never shot the body (use the back on a Linhof Techno), and the previous owner had never detached the back...

I'm also of the opinion that removing the AA filter actually doesn't improve the image quality but the other way around. When one has 50 megapixels I'd rather free them from aliasing artifacts than get a tiny bit of more micro contrast. But I realize that's a rare opinion, there's no coincidence D810 is only available without AA filter while the D800 existed in both versions...
 
Great review! Just one more example of how fantastic the dynamic range of the Sony CMOS sensor could be, so that one could continue trolling the CCD users and the Canon users :D

Dynamic range is not just important for landscape shots, but also more important for wedding shots - you have more fault tolerance with your exposure for the decisive moments (which you would never have a second chance to capture again)! This is another reason not to use Canon or CCD for wedding, besides the fact that the low-light auto-focusing performance of Canon is also behind Pentax / Nikon.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Chris:

Thanks for the review.

It's funny after reading it, I went back to some other reviews and was very close to the "submit" button at Lenrentals.com.

I shot the 55mm FA, and 35mm FA for years on my Canon with a Zork and if I still had those lenses, I more than likely would move. I think I still could purchase my 35mm back, as I know the owner well and it's not in much use.

Then I think about 2 other issues, and each time I stop.

1. Total investment/and loss I would take to move from my current tech camera and various lenses. Even though I hate the workflow, I still love the output.

2. Pentax's total lack of a service center in the U.S. or Canada. I know to many this is not an issue, but to me it is and probably the single biggest. The last DSLR I purchased at 8K was my 1ds MKIII, before I had a 1ds and 1ds MKII, loved them all, but each one made several trips to Canon's Jamestown repair facility. Some issues were my fault, others Canon's QA.

Pentax as I understand it is all in Japan, 8 to 10 weeks to have it repaired and I am not even sure if there is a English speaking person on the other end of the phone. Plus many times 50% of Canon and actually around 35% of Phase One repairs I have had send back a 2nd time. So, I have stayed away, but it's tempting for sure.

Paul
 

Uaiomex

Member
Trolling or not, Canon's overaged sensor technology got me tired now. I do (mainly) interior photography among other things.
In my digital beginnings (10 years ago), I was thrilled when I learned how to do exposure blending by layers.
I'm a diehard ACR user and also being thrilled with the constant improvements over the years. But I had it now. Sony is to blame. Seeing now for a couple of years the amazing DR from Sony sensors have me praying for Canon to dump their fabs to the pacific ocean and use Sony's.
The 645Z seems better and better with every review made.
Thanks for this excellent review and great examples.
Eduardo

Great review! Just one more example of how fantastic the dynamic range of the Sony CMOS sensor could be, so that one could continue trolling the CCD users and the Canon users :D

Dynamic range is not just important for landscape shots, but also more important for wedding shots - you have more fault tolerance with your exposure for the decisive moments (which you would never have a second chance to capture again)! This is another reason not to use Canon or CCD for wedding, besides the fact that the low-light auto-focusing performance of Canon is also behind Pentax / Nikon.
 

turtle

New member
The 645Z looks like a great camera and you convey its merits very well - thanks for posting.

Weddings and street/documentary are similar. There is a moment and no time to correct mistakes after the event. The more wiggle room the sensor can give you, the better.

I've been looking at the 645Z with interest, but wonder if the size is beyond what I would feel comfortable with. Guess I will have to get my hands on one and see.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The only shift solution I know of is the very old and long disco'd 75mm P67 lens, that adapts to the 645 mount.

I had this lens and was not impressed, and I was using it on a 35mm Canon/Zork.

Not that sharp on center and really bad on shifts, and a big lens.

Of course I may have had a bad version.

True TS lenses are a missing option at least for me, and another reason I have not made the switch, now that your post reminded me.

But nodal shifting as long as level should be pretty easy.

But this goes back to the whole reason I purchased the tech camera, i.e. being able to shift/tilt and not be level.

The circle continues. :facesmack:

Paul
 

Udo

Member
You can buy a Pentax 645 Mirex TS adapter and put a lens on it.
Michiel, as far as I know those adapters allow using Pentax 645, Mamiya M645 and/or Hasselblad V-System lenses on smaller sensor/film format cameras only.

@ Chris: very well written review.

Kind regards,
Udo
 

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Michiel, as far as I know those adapters allow using Pentax 645, Mamiya M645 and/or Hasselblad V-System lenses on smaller sensor/film format cameras only.

@ Chris: very well written review.

Kind regards,
Udo
Ah, yes Udo, you're right. That is a pitty.

And yes Chris, I really enjoyed your review and it even makes me think more about this camera, although I can't justify it right now.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Great review! Just one more example of how fantastic the dynamic range of the Sony CMOS sensor could be, so that one could continue trolling the CCD users and the Canon users :D

Dynamic range is not just important for landscape shots, but also more important for wedding shots - you have more fault tolerance with your exposure for the decisive moments (which you would never have a second chance to capture again)! This is another reason not to use Canon or CCD for wedding, besides the fact that the low-light auto-focusing performance of Canon is also behind Pentax / Nikon.
One wonders how the hell all those wonderfully beautiful wedding shots using Canon and CCD cameras were done prior to all this new Sony tech:rolleyes:

Anyway, nice review of the camera. It most certainly is a consideration for stuff like weddings because it is reasonably priced for what it delivers compared to the competition ... weddings are a tough business these days.

Good luck with the new set-up Chris!

- Marc
 
One wonders how the hell all those wonderfully beautiful wedding shots using Canon and CCD cameras were done prior to all this new Sony tech:rolleyes:
People used to shoot incredible sports pictures with film. Do most people still shoot sports with film now?

I can shoot the milky way landscape (with foreground) with a Canon fullframe and a fast wide angle lens in a single exposure. Can you do that with a large format?

When technology advances, people can achieve what used to be difficult. CCD and current Canon CMOS are falling behind, and will be obsolete.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
People used to shoot incredible sports pictures with film. Do most people still shoot sports with film now?

I can shoot the milky way landscape (with foreground) with a Canon fullframe and a fast wide angle lens in a single exposure. Can you do that with a large format?

When technology advances, people can achieve what used to be difficult. CCD and current Canon CMOS are falling behind, and will be obsolete.
Well, if photography is simply a technical problem, then new technology will make your photographs "better." But photography is also an aesthetic problem. And, unfortunately for the camera companies, that cannot be solved by just improving performance of the machines. No, I cannot shot (easily) a landscape with a sharp image of the Milky Way with a large-format camera. But why do I have to?

Most people do not shoot sports with film, but some do. And what that means is some photographers understand that photography is also a creative problem and when you think in different terms, you come out with photographs different from others:

David Burnett's Speed Graphic Photos of the London 2012 Olympics

I think the advances in technology are great. They give photographers new tools. That does not invalidate the old ones.

Yes, my Pentax CCD is old. CCDs will become obsolete. But the images from my camera will not be obsolete. No amount of technical innovation will diminish the value of my work.
 

torger

Active member
People upgrade because they feel chased by the competition, in a technical aspect. I think the most cited reason to upgrade MFD stuff is to keep the distance from the DSLR crowd. I once thought tech cameras was about movements, but I've learnt that for most it's about sharpness and resolving power... but indeed I'm glad to see that the 645z's weakness concerning movements is pointed out :)

That said I can see many creative and practical reasons to move from a H4D-50 to a 645z, and a very strong financial reason to go to the 645z instead of the similarly-performing H5D-50c. It's a huge difference in the possibility to work in available light, and for wedding photography it's not insignificant. For planned shots with flash the H4D-50 does great of course.

In "my" genre, landscape photography, you do cut away some opportunities by not having high ISO, and some high dynamic range scenes become more difficult to shoot, but for my style a 645z would make me feel more limited than my Linhof Techno + H4D-50 back. I also kind of like that my camera is impossible to shoot hand-held, as it makes me more selective about images, but that is also a personal thing. Some feel limited by having a camera that "can't do it all", others (people like me) feel stressed and fragmented rather than focused.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
People used to shoot incredible sports pictures with film. Do most people still shoot sports with film now?

I can shoot the milky way landscape (with foreground) with a Canon fullframe and a fast wide angle lens in a single exposure. Can you do that with a large format?

When technology advances, people can achieve what used to be difficult. CCD and current Canon CMOS are falling behind, and will be obsolete.
Shashin says it well.

Anything associated with technology will become "obsolete" eventually. How much an artist or craftsman should be concerned about that depends on their very personal and specific creative needs, and how much time they may wish to devote to staying abreast of every technological advancement ... or whether they even need more than they already have.

After all, most digital cameras made in the past 5 years are very competent ... in competent hands.

After shooting upwards of 250,000 wedding images over my career, I learned that technology is not a replacement for skill. I rarely missed an "of the moment" image, or blew out a wedding dress due to the camera I was using ... even an obsolete Canon or CCD camera:).

I'm not a Luddite, nor am I an early adopter of every new advancement touted to be the end-all solution anymore, because in my expensive experience ... it never is.

Gaining experience, improving shooting skill and mastering what you have is both fun and free, the latest technology is not.;)

- Marc
 

Chris Giles

New member
One of the hardest things to get over was that is wasn't a 'full' medium format sensor like the 50mp CCD is. When I had ISO issues I 'could' of bought the H4D40 but didin't because the sensor size wasn't large enough for me.

It's the main reason I held off for so long before moving on the Z and why I rented it first. But I've no regrets at all now. I guess if Phase or Hasselblad wanted to there might be a larger CMOS in the future. If so that would be a selling point beyond what they already stand out for.

Could you fit a larger sensor in the Z?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
People upgrade because they feel chased by the competition, in a technical aspect. I think the most cited reason to upgrade MFD stuff is to keep the distance from the DSLR crowd. I once thought tech cameras was about movements, but I've learnt that for most it's about sharpness and resolving power... but indeed I'm glad to see that the 645z's weakness concerning movements is pointed out :)

That said I can see many creative and practical reasons to move from a H4D-50 to a 645z, and a very strong financial reason to go to the 645z instead of the similarly-performing H5D-50c. It's a huge difference in the possibility to work in available light, and for wedding photography it's not insignificant. For planned shots with flash the H4D-50 does great of course.

In "my" genre, landscape photography, you do cut away some opportunities by not having high ISO, and some high dynamic range scenes become more difficult to shoot, but for my style a 645z would make me feel more limited than my Linhof Techno + H4D-50 back. I also kind of like that my camera is impossible to shoot hand-held, as it makes me more selective about images, but that is also a personal thing. Some feel limited by having a camera that "can't do it all", others (people like me) feel stressed and fragmented rather than focused.
IMO and direct experience, selling off a H system to buy a something else is "not strong financial reasoning". It is simply a huge loss:(. The difference between a H4D/50 and H5D/50C would most certainly be less than swapping systems, and you'd have True Focus for candids as well as a excellent range of leaf shutter lenses you already have.

The notion that one will magically be able to shoot in low available light with MFD skips the fact that in most cases the available light at a wedding is poor in quality and direction because we usually don't have control over when and where ... unless one plans the shots ... in which case a leaf shutter camera with lighting is better anyway because you are in control of the light's quality, quantity, and direction.

Again, need has to be evaluated. How many candid, available light wedding shots will be printed larger than 8X10 (if they are printed at all)? A poll study on a major wedding site says almost none.

There is no such thing as a camera that can do it all. "Horses for courses" is still valid.

- Marc
 
Top