I just wrote up my experiences with the Pentax 645z

[voidshatter]

I suppose we could go on for a month of Sundays debating this ...

The term is "decisive moment" not decisive moments ... which is a matter of timing rather than hosing off shots hoping to get the right emotion. That was proven long ago when film cameras could be motor-driven up to 10FPS. Didn't work then, and still doesn't.

It is about observing human nature and anticipating, and paying attention to one's surroundings ... not machining gunning off shots like a movie camera hoping to get a keeper. Decisive moment photography was born and reached its height when none of these wonder cameras was even a dream of photographers.

Assault rifles exist as the main combat weapon for a reason - otherwise one would only need sniper rifles / shotguns / pistols or other slow weapons. The American way of war is to shoot as many bullets as possible to hit the enemy.

When I had my own wedding (a very short one), my friends brought their gear and were equipped with two Phase One IQ260s, one Nikon D4S, one Nikon D800, one Sony A7S, one Sony A7, one Leica M240, one Panasonic GH4. I received 6000 pictures (RAW files). The main photographer did not need to decide which decisive moment to capture. He just captured all moments, because the Nikon D4S with the 400MB/s XQD card is insane in terms of stamina when you do continuous shooting. These were all invaluable memories for us and our parents enjoy picking the best pictures out of these many.

Of course, when you shoot professionally for your clients, very few photographers dump such effort like this unless they use an automated software to pick the pictures. If you haven't seen how Tang shoots wedding sessions with his Nikon D4 then you would only laugh about this "madness".

I do a lot of shots without lighting ... rarely need more than ISO 1600/3200 which almost any modern camera can do just fine ... If you expose correctly.

I will refrain from commenting on your "photoshop save", and not reply to the cell phone comment since the answer is remedial.

My whole point is that digital photography gear reach a very usable level some time ago, and all the rest is subtile improvements that aren't all that critical to shooting something like a wedding. The exception perhaps is the advent of very small cameras with super high resolution FF sensors ... which has nothing to do with MFD.

Personally, even IF a MFD camera could do it all at a wedding, who the hell wants to lug around a big-assed camera/lenses for 8 hours? I use mine for formals and portraits and then put it away.

Plus, I use a little rangefinder for "decisive moment" work ... not some giant camera with huge lenses.

- Marc

Since you only need a single exposure per decisive moment, why not show us some examples with your rangefinder? I would be interested to see the sharpness of the eye at pixel peeping level (for snapshots, not formals or portraits). As far as I am aware of, continuous shooting is the only reliable way to maximize the chance of getting a focused image with razor-sharp details on the eye, because I am fairly clear about the hit rate of the current AF/MF when the lens is wide open. Why not teach me how your skills rule over our gear performance?

 

[tjv]

(remember that the most natural and real emotions cannot be captured unless your subject is unaware of the photographer's presence).

I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. It has more to do with editing, both in the field and after the fact than the subject being unaware of the photographers presence.

As for so called professional photographers not bothering to edit their photographs before giving to a client – by selecting pictures – I'd say that's being the opposite of professional. Anyone with a camera, any camera, can run and gun. :dh2:

 

[SeattleDucks]

Chris, enjoyable review, and your wedding photography is gorgeous!

 

[aldo]

Nice review Chris. I downloaded the RAW files of your review and when I played with the settings of this image I was blown away with the DR of the Pentax, so much detail in the shadows after pulling the image 5 EV stops in LR and it has so little noise. Even your watermark appeared

I had a H4D-40 for a couple of years and the Pentax 645z has at least 2-3 stops more DR. That's extremely useful and a also a time saver. You could only get this result filling the shadows with a flash/reflector and compressing the scene but sometimes you change the mood of the scene when doing that and you could also loose an unique moment meanwhile you are setting up the strobe/reflector. The H5D-50c and the IQ 250 should have the same DR but $8,500 it's definitely a bargain... and I don't know what to say about the $4,500 Pentax 645D!

 

[Chris Giles]

Thanks Aldo, it's great to have your feedback and observations on the raw files.

I couldn't believe it myself. With the above image there were a few people right in front of them so I was pretty much forced into that position for a shot. The 645z was still new to me so thought this would be a good time to test the exposure push.

I knew of Nikon's dynamic range on their Sony sensors but always found a pushed file a bit degraded and noisy. But not with the Z.

 

[Jay Emm]

Interesting review thanks Chris.

I'm so in love with Hasselblad's True Focus that I can't imagine a move, but clearly the Pentax brings the added flexibility of being better suited to work outside the studio (even the CMOS Hasselblad would not compete well with respect to weather seals etc).

I was talking to a Leica rep who told me their S-series has done very solid business for these kinds of reasons (outselling Phase One in Australia last year I'm told). The Pentax certainly is a "bargain" by comparison to Hasselblad, Phase One and Leica - and while I suspect the Schnieder lenses and Leica lenses are cream of the crop, there's a lot to like in this Pentax package. Good luck with it, and thanks for sharing your review.

 

[Shashin]

Imagine a situation where you would have to do a burst of continuous shots and capture the best emotions so you have a picture of the decisive moment (remember that the most natural and real emotions cannot be captured unless your subject is unaware of the photographer's presence). The strobe will draw their attention immediately, and the recharging rate may not hold up long against your frame rate.

Are you a photographer? There are so many assumptions that are simply not true here. I have never met a working photographer have any of the "problems" you think exist. Certainly, the idea that the person needs to be unaware of the photographer to show "real" or "natural" emotions is just not true. It has never been my experience nor for plenty of fine documentary and portrait photographers working today and most of the history of photography. You don't need to fire off shots in quick succession to get the best emotion. It is better to watch and interact with your subject than leave it to a random blast of frames. Working within your recharge rate is not hard either.

If that is your working style, that is fine. It must give you what you want. But what you do is not what others do. To present it as some sort of absolute truth is not right

BTW, I assume the images you took from the Nikon creative exposure post are not yours. I would be more interested in seeing examples with your work. That might be more illustrative of your points.

This person was certain aware of me, is not a model, and the first time we met:

Obviously not a digital camera with a fast burst rate and lots of DR.

 

[Chris Giles]

Some of you might be taking Voidshatter's message away from it's intended context.

You can set up an area to shoot in, the couple will obviously know you are there but you do need fast operating kit to shoot the moments between two people if you have little time to do so.

I don't think he's talking about shooting in burst mode.

An example is that in any one place with a couple I only have 5 minutes. So it's position, interact and capture the moment. I'd like the resulting image to be as organic and natural as possible. But I'd also like to give the couple as many of those moments as I can.

A convoluted setup or a slower system is a drag. Sure, you can get the shots but you can get so much more with a faster system. Nobody is saying using a slow method is wrong but for the majority of wedding photographers out there I get the feeling they need a quick and accurate system.

The biggest proof of this was when I shot a couple last July. I took 5 or 6 good frames of them together and once I had enough shots I pulled out the 5D3 and captured Raw DNG at 30fps. In a 20 second video of them interacting I pulled another perfectly good 9 frames out and I could get the exact moment I wanted.

It is totally down to how each individual works though. I'm more reportage so this works for me. I don't consider myself a run and gun photographer either. An average wedding will gross 1400 frames and I'll deliver 400-600 of those.

1 fps is fine for weddings.

 

[fotografz]

Some of you might be taking Voidshatter's message away from it's intended context.

You can set up an area to shoot in, the couple will obviously know you are there but you do need fast operating kit to shoot the moments between two people if you have little time to do so.

I don't think he's talking about shooting in burst mode.

An example is that in any one place with a couple I only have 5 minutes. So it's position, interact and capture the moment. I'd like the resulting image to be as organic and natural as possible. But I'd also like to give the couple as many of those moments as I can.

A convoluted setup or a slower system is a drag. Sure, you can get the shots but you can get so much more with a faster system. Nobody is saying using a slow method is wrong but for the majority of wedding photographers out there I get the feeling they need a quick and accurate system.

The biggest proof of this was when I shot a couple last July. I took 5 or 6 good frames of them together and once I had enough shots I pulled out the 5D3 and captured Raw DNG at 30fps. In a 20 second video of them interacting I pulled another perfectly good 9 frames out and I could get the exact moment I wanted.

It is totally down to how each individual works though. I'm more reportage so this works for me. I don't consider myself a run and gun photographer either. An average wedding will gross 1400 frames and I'll deliver 400-600 of those.

1 fps is fine for weddings.

Chris, how you work is ... well ... obviously up to you and no one else. However, to say "you" (as in the collective "you") can get so much "more" is a quantitative statement, not necessarily a qualitative one.

Shooting 20 sec of video at 30fps = 600 images to yield 9. To me, that is an "after the fact" astute editing talent as opposed to a highly observant, huministically sensitive photographic talent. Both may lead to the same end, but many vastly prefer the latter including me ... and my wedding work was born of reportage and is still the core of it, just like you. Like most wedding shooters, we have less time with a captive client than we'd like ... but I've found that not having them captive has always worked better for those truly "interactive moments" anyway.

My end aim has never, ever been lots of images ... as Jeff Ascough said, 200-300 is his goal ... when asked the inevitable "how many photos will we get?", he used to tell them less than they expected, then throw 200 4X6 prints on the floor to show potential clients just how many that really was. Seems to have worked for him. I rarely breach 800 pre-edit for a full wedding, and that is usually also using a second shooter. I feel I have failed when I go over 1,000, and strive to re-sharpen my observational powers.

Personally, my real goal has always been to tell a cohesive and revealing story at each wedding ... few story telling slide-shows needed more than 100 shots and usually 70 to 80 were more than enough for a large wedding album. The remainder are the formals/portraits the client requested. One can cull that story from 6000 shots like Voitahatter mentioned, or from 600 well timed images ... depending one's approach. I prefer spending time behind the camera, not in front of a computer.

IMO, clients these days are overwhelmed by the total photo output from their hired photographer(s), plus all the cell-phone friends and Uncle Bob/Cousin Fred/Aunt Milly "Canon Rebel" shots that are thrown at them right after their wedding. IMO, even though they say they "like" that, this Tsunami of images is a mind-numbing, desensitizing experience where truly insightful images can be and are lost in the rush to see all the social and content driven stuff ... where ANY photo of the couple is a good photo even when it is a horrible image.

To each his or her own I suppose. Yet, I resist claims that "more is better" ... to me it is simply less.

- Marc

 

[jmosier01]

Assault rifles exist as the main combat weapon for a reason - otherwise one would only need sniper rifles / shotguns / pistols or other slow weapons. The American way of war is to shoot as many bullets as possible to hit the enemy.

Sigh....

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Assault rifles exist as the main combat weapon for a reason - otherwise one would only need sniper rifles / shotguns / pistols or other slow weapons. The American way of war is to shoot as many bullets as possible to hit the enemy.

Ok, that's pretty hilarious, but also wrong in that assault rifles are somehow faster than any other type of weapon, rather they have a good balance of features I would say - consider the following points:

1. Most sniper rifle designs are based on, or converted from assault rifles, and can be made to shoot just as fast if you wanted to. Even the Barrett M107 is a semi-auto.

2. The AA-12, USAS and after-market Saiga shotguns can hold up to 20-32 rounds and pummel an area on full auto, emptying their mags in 4-5 seconds flat. Load grenade rounds and there'll be nothing left.

3. Pistols and submachine guns can both feature full/burst fire, are far easier to conceal, and their small size allows them to be effectively used indoors, which is how most wars are now fought - on a close-quarters basis, rather than an open field.

4. Even heavy machine guns can only be fired in short 3-second bursts before they start to overheat. While Rambo may have taught you otherwise, an overheated barrel, besides being a dangerous thing in it's own right, may start firing off shots on it's own and furthering it's demise; this is called a "runaway gun". As a result, machine guns must absolutely be used in pairs at the very least, so that they can take turns laying down the lead.

5. Even if a weapon can fire tons of shots really fast, they are almost never used that way. It's a waste of ammo, does nothing for your ability to hit the target, and simply pisses everyone off.

 

[Chris Giles]

Ok, that's pretty hilarious, but also wrong in that assault rifles are somehow faster than any other type of weapon, rather they have a good balance of features I would say - consider the following points:

1. Most sniper rifle designs are based on, or converted from assault rifles, and can be made to shoot just as fast if you wanted to. Even the Barrett M107 is a semi-auto.

2. The AA-12, USAS and after-market Saiga shotguns can hold up to 20-32 rounds and pummel an area on full auto, emptying their mags in 4-5 seconds flat. Load grenade rounds and there'll be nothing left.

3. Pistols and submachine guns can both feature full/burst fire, are far easier to conceal, and their small size allows them to be effectively used indoors, which is how most wars are now fought - on a close-quarters basis, rather than an open field.

4. Even heavy machine guns can only be fired in short 3-second bursts before they start to overheat. While Rambo may have taught you otherwise, an overheated barrel, besides being a dangerous thing in it's own right, may start firing off shots on it's own and furthering it's demise; this is called a "runaway gun". As a result, machine guns must absolutely be used in pairs at the very least, so that they can take turns laying down the lead.

5. Even if a weapon can fire tons of shots really fast, they are almost never used that way. It's a waste of ammo, does nothing for your ability to hit the target, and simply pisses everyone off.

Pentax 645z review to Heavy Machine Guns in 51 posts. :thumbs:

 

[gazwas]

Pentax 645z review to Heavy Machine Guns in 51 posts. :thumbs:

No disrespect to wedding shooters but you sure are a touchy bunch - seems here, dpreview etc, etc! Lets just say you all have your own methods and if its been a successful one, who cares what the next man (usually) does with their camera?

Back OT, I enjoyed very much the review from your perspective Chris and some beautiful pictures to boot. In light of the New Canon stuff coming, (50Mpix?) making it even more interesting especially as you already shoot with Canon.

 

[Chris Giles]

No disrespect to wedding shooters but you sure are a touchy bunch - seems here, dpreview etc, etc! Lets just say you all have your own methods and if its been a successful one, who cares what the next man (usually) does with their camera?

Back OT, I enjoyed very much the review from your perspective Chris and some beautiful pictures to boot. In light of the New Canon stuff coming, (50Mpix?) making it even more interesting especially as you already shoot with Canon.

Thanks Gaz, the new 5Dr excites me but not without a tinge of worry. If the specs are correct on one hand it'll be a great camera for those already invested in Canon but on the other...that's a lot of pixels for a 35mm sensor.

Only time and real world testing will tell. I'll be upgrading my 5D3 to the 5Dr as part of a natural kit progression but my real interest is if the rumor of a 50mp medium format rangefinder from Sony comes to fruition.

If Sony does pull one out I might reconsider my investment in Canon as a system.

 

[gazwas]

If Sony does pull one out I might reconsider my investment in Canon as a system.

Which makes your decision to go all out on the Pentax, regardless of how brilliant it is even more strange for all us others currently sitting on the fence watching the Sony/MFD CMOS collective/Canon shake up unfolding as predicted.......

 

[Chris Giles]

Which makes your decision to go all out on the Pentax, regardless of how brilliant it is even more strange for all us others currently sitting on the fence watching the Sony/MFD CMOS collective/Canon shake up unfolding as predicted.......

Not really. The high mp canon has been coming for two years and the sony is just a rumor. Much like the new phase one body.

I'd prefer to have a camera I can use now than waste a season waiting on vapourware.

I need something medium format and with an optical viewfinder. If a Sony MF exists then it'll probably be evf. The only way I'd go to a body with an evf is if it had a global shutter. FWIW Scott Robert Lim swears Sony have a global shutter on the way. I never said I was dumping canon. There are certain strengths in their system, like their rectilinear 14mm for one that would keep me around.

The Pentax is one of two systems I intend to use. Canon (or Sony) being the other. Currently it's canon. Pentax was my replacement for all that I used my Hasselblad for but now I can use it for my wedding work too. Just not exclusively.

 

[gazwas]

Not really. The high mp canon has been coming for two years and the sony is just a rumor. Much like the new phase one body.

I'd prefer to have a camera I can use now than waste a season waiting on vapourware.

While I know 50Mpix is a lot for a 35mm chip and the Pentax really, REALLY tempts me I decided to sit this out and compare what the 35mm cameras can do at the same resolution (and at what cost). We knew they were coming early 2015 back in November/December. As for the Phase One, I finally gave up on them last year after being a loyal customer since 1999 so not bothered about their fictitious camera any longer.

Should be a really interesting year for gear sluts this year...

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Thanks Gaz, the new 5Dr excites me but not without a tinge of worry. If the specs are correct on one hand it'll be a great camera for those already invested in Canon but on the other...that's a lot of pixels for a 35mm sensor.

At first I thought "dang and I just bought the Z" but then the ISO6400 gave me pause, even though it's claimed to go to 12,800 as well. The Z is extremely clean at 12k and it only takes ~20 points in luminance NR to take the noise down to an acceptable level... cleaner than my 5D2 was at 3200.

I'm pretty sure a lot of 24 & 17 TS-E users will be ecstatic though.

 

[Chris Giles]

We're in a golden age for camera design and development that's for sure.

I love knowing long term when my body starts to age that I'll be able to pick really excellent lightweight systems and continue to enjoy my work. You can do it already with an A7 but in 10 years it'll be a whole different landscape and it's really exciting.

 

[torger]

We're in a golden age for camera design and development that's for sure.

I love knowing long term when my body starts to age that I'll be able to pick really excellent lightweight systems and continue to enjoy my work. You can do it already with an A7 but in 10 years it'll be a whole different landscape and it's really exciting.

Meanwhile I think it's kind of cool having the largest backpack in the group when going on a hike. 13.5kg MFD gear...

On the other hand, if lenses are going in the Otus direction, ie more and more complex to deliver pixel peep joy to high density sensors, gear won't be lightweight...