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!

645Z Going wild!

Pradeep

Member
.................

Also apologies to Pradeep for hijacking his thread.
No apologies needed, I am quite enjoying the wealth of information that is welling up in the fount of knowledge that this forum has become for me.

You always learn from your betters and also from your peers. It is a great experience and I for one am very grateful.

Pradeep
 

Pradeep

Member
I just must have received a very good 55/2.8 as I have nothing, but praise for it at my end.
I defense of wide angle lenses (the 55 is not really wide but it is not a portrait lens either), who shoots them wide open? What would be the point? Most WA lenses are used for landscape/street photography where you want as much DOF as possible, and if the light is low, you put it on a tripod and get your image.

It is the longer lenses, like the 200 or over that are much more important wide open. They are the 'portrait' lenses of wildlife and just like the 85-120mm range for humans, for birds and animals th e 200-600 length is where one needs quality at the highest aperture. You need not only the smooth bokeh, but unlike the unforgiving sharpness of the Pentax 90, you need it to be super sharp as well. That is hard to do and that is why good long teles are so expensive.

And so while I am happy to stop down a wide lens, I would prefer I did not have to do so with a 200mm or longer one.

Pradeep
 
I defense of wide angle lenses (the 55 is not really wide but it is not a portrait lens either), who shoots them wide open? What would be the point? Most WA lenses are used for landscape/street photography where you want as much DOF as possible, and if the light is low, you put it on a tripod and get your image.
In the fun with MF and tech cam threads I've seen lots of interesting shots made with lenses like the Rodie 32HR wide open at f/4 and the effect is very pleasant IMO, yet the optics are well-corrected enough to even produce a tack sharp image. I would leave things like this open to choice, rather than what you are and aren't supposed to do, ideally aperture should only control depth of field and not be stopped down for technical reasons, on any lens.

In fact, the unique look of very wide lenses at open aperture on medium and large format is something that a lot of photographers are trying to emulate as of late, by stitching shots from say an 85mm lens on 35mm to create a "virtual" FoV equivalent to a 85mm lens on 6x7 or larger.

Today I was around the city and took shots with the 55 at every aperture from f/4 to f/9, and while there were some shots I would have liked to take at f/2.8, I knew it wouldn't have been able to handle the backlighting from the sun.
 

Pradeep

Member
In the fun with MF and tech cam threads I've seen lots of interesting shots made with lenses like the Rodie 32HR wide open at f/4 and the effect is very pleasant IMO, yet the optics are well-corrected enough to even produce a tack sharp image. I would leave things like this open to choice, rather than what you are and aren't supposed to do, ideally aperture should only control depth of field and not be stopped down for technical reasons, on any lens.

In fact, the unique look of very wide lenses at open aperture on medium and large format is something that a lot of photographers are trying to emulate as of late, by stitching shots from say an 85mm lens on 35mm to create a "virtual" FoV equivalent to a 85mm lens on 6x7 or larger.

Today I was around the city and took shots with the 55 at every aperture from f/4 to f/9, and while there were some shots I would have liked to take at f/2.8, I knew it wouldn't have been able to handle the backlighting from the sun.
I see what you are saying. But that is what I would call 'being creative' which is how people use the Lensbaby type of gear, to get something different, a look that has not been tried and it can certainly be very effective in certain situations.

I agree about there being 'too much light' sometimes. As photographers we are always complaining about there not being enough (certainly where wildlife is concerned since the best action occurs around the blue hour). I too had that problem with my Leica summilux 50 on the M bodies, just could not shoot at 1.4 wide open since there was way too much light in the daytime. Even with the max shutter speed of 1/4000 I would blow out some of the highlights.

One thing about Leica though, their lenses are superb and the size is unbelievable. The 28 elmarit I have can fit in my jeans pocket and is super sharp. The price is super too, but that's one place I would say it is probably worth it, in this realm of unrealistic ambitions and pricing by manufacturers.

Just realized, I meant the Leica lenses for the 35mm bodies, some maybe overpriced but most are superb and the greatest appeal is the size and quality.

Pradeep
 

David Schneider

New member
Based my my daughter & son-in-law's trip on safari in SA, you've made a wise choice. As you said, animals are much closer to you in SA compared to, say, Kenya. That gives you more opportunities and as you are closer to the animals, makes using MF a lot easier.
 

Pemihan

Well-known member
No way I'm gonna take that much gear :angel:

I'm looking into solar chargers and will probably get one for the trip.

It must be time for your travel Pradeep, have a fantastic trip!
Looking forward to see some images when you come back.

Peter

Peter, in the end you may end up with just as much gear as me on my trip ;)

Seriously though, there are solar chargers now with USB ports that you can charge your iPhone off of. I have one that is slightly bigger than a letter-sized sheet of paper, can be folded when not being used, weighs very little. I am sure there are others that can generate more current too.

Pradeep
 

Lobalobo

Member
Pradeep: I'm not a wildlife photographer, but I sometimes shoot birds since they are prevalent where I live and I enjoy the images.
You may say you are not a wildlife photographer, Tom, but the photos say otherwise. These are amazing images, the last in particular. I shoot 4x5 film and keep toying with the idea of splurging for a MF back and technical camera, but as a hobbyist hard to justify the expense. Your images on a 645D (which B&H sells new for under $5,000) makes me think that I should give up on the technical camera idea (and movements) and get one of those. (The 645Z is affordable too, but I like the look of the CFA on the CCD chip better.) Then again no back or camera will magically give me your skill set.
 

turtle

New member
Way, way too much kit IMO. Its not weight or even physical clutter that will be the issue, but brain clutter. You will have too many options and choices, resulting in less immersion into 'the zone'.

I'd keep the 645z as the core kit (most lenses), with Canon in support and overing the long end. Leave the 1D X at home, bring the very able 7D II (if you need amazing high ISO the 645Z can cover) with 100-400 II and a wide zoom, like 24-70.

If you have or will buy a metabones, the A7R body only can come to augment the Canon kit and have another lens attached and ready to rock, but if its only for a 35mm walkaround, I would leave it at home, for sure. If its worth photographing, I suspect you will get out the big gun 645z!

As for the 645Z, I'd probably also drop the 55mm DA and go for the 45-85 zoom for more flexibility. Add a few teles and you are set. If either kit dies, you can get thru fine on the other kit. If not, you can keep your 645z on one side for the more purposeful and closer shots and the Eos rig with appropriate lens attached for fast action and long reach. Simple.
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
You may say you are not a wildlife photographer, Tom, but the photos say otherwise. These are amazing images, the last in particular. I shoot 4x5 film and keep toying with the idea of splurging for a MF back and technical camera, but as a hobbyist hard to justify the expense. Your images on a 645D (which B&H sells new for under $5,000) makes me think that I should give up on the technical camera idea (and movements) and get one of those. (The 645Z is affordable too, but I like the look of the CFA on the CCD chip better.) Then again no back or camera will magically give me your skill set.
Thanks very much for the compliments, it's appreciated. I was concerned about changing to CMOS in the 645Z as well, but honestly don't see any significant difference. Yes the Z and D render color slightly differently, but I don't have a strong preference and the live view and high ISO of the Z are considerable advantages especially with long lenses. Either camera produces great files.

Since you use 4x5, I've listed a link below to a 645D(Z) adapter to use on 4x5. I haven't tried it, but have been tempted. I assume it would only allow focus with longer focal length lenses:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/150755497910?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

Below are two shots comparing the Z and D (75mm lens, f/8) allowing the camera to determine exposure time. I should add these were RAW files opened with ACR with no adjustments and shot under mixed lighting using AWB, I did no post processing. Neither camera captured the orange hue of the daylily very well, but the Z is closer:

645Z
IMGP0788 copy by tsjanik47, on Flickr

645D
_IGP6026 copy by tsjanik47, on Flickr
 

Lobalobo

Member
Thanks for the comparison (and link), Tom, and you're right, if anything I prefer the Z image better also, though the point being, as you say, that the differences are small enough to disappear in settings and processing. On a different thread, an experienced contributor on this forum suggested that the Sony chip may be somewhat weaker on clarity (which I take to be micro-contrast) than the CCD backs, but that I run through Topaz clarity fixes this. If that's true then, price aside, I agree CMOS is the way to go.

My one hesitation (assuming that I ever gain the courage to spend $10,000 or more on a camer system) is that so far, without exception, the truly breathtaking medium format landscape photos I've seen--the ones that have colors and images that jump of the page--are from CCD sensors. Then again, the Sony chip is new and more CMOS sensors are sure to follow. Thanks again.
 

turtle

New member
The best MF photos would be from CCD, because CMOS sensors have been around for no time at all, so the images are not there yet. Nobody feels this way about 35mm images, because CCD is long gone for the main part.

I own a Monochrom Mk I and am under no illusions about the CCD. I love the images it produces, but would not expect them to look any better at the same low ISO than those from the Mk II Monochrom, when both are processed optimally.

The clarity issue is partly a feature of dynamic range, I think. There is just so much of it with the 645Z and then there are the lenses, where legacy A and FA lenses do not generate the contrast of much more modern lenses, generally speaking.

Thanks for the comparison (and link), Tom, and you're right, if anything I prefer the Z image better also, though the point being, as you say, that the differences are small enough to disappear in settings and processing. On a different thread, an experienced contributor on this forum suggested that the Sony chip may be somewhat weaker on clarity (which I take to be micro-contrast) than the CCD backs, but that I run through Topaz clarity fixes this. If that's true then, price aside, I agree CMOS is the way to go.

My one hesitation (assuming that I ever gain the courage to spend $10,000 or more on a camer system) is that so far, without exception, the truly breathtaking medium format landscape photos I've seen--the ones that have colors and images that jump of the page--are from CCD sensors. Then again, the Sony chip is new and more CMOS sensors are sure to follow. Thanks again.
 

Lobalobo

Member
The best MF photos would be from CCD, because CMOS sensors have been around for no time at all, so the images are not there yet. Nobody feels this way about 35mm images, because CCD is long gone for the main part.
Point taken.

The clarity issue is partly a feature of dynamic range, I think. There is just so much of it with the 645Z and then there are the lenses, where legacy A and FA lenses do not generate the contrast of much more modern lenses, generally speaking.
This makes a lot of sense, and I recall noticing the same thing even on tiny-sensor pocket-cameras when they switched from CCD to CMOS. And it this is all or largely what is going on, then it would seem that the CMOS dominates as one can always adjust contrast in post-process and no one would rationally spend $10,000 or more (sometimes much more) without adjusting images in post.

But, and here's the thing, I've yet to see a landscape image from the Sony chip on which the photographer chose to replicate the micro-contrast of the many dozens of breathtaking MF CCD images that can be found and these differences can be seen even on a computer screen. (Recently, for example, I looked at the sample images on Phase One's site, and even on a computer screen could distinguish the CCD and CMOS images without fail.) So while I've been convinced that there is no inherent limitation in the CMOS chips (CFAs aside), I do wonder why this pattern seems to persist. This said I am no expert, not close, just a consumer of information on this topic, which interests me. So I thank you and others who are willing to share their knowledge.
 

turtle

New member
Lobalobo, its a hot issue that causes flame wars, but we can only report what we see, right?

I know that I had to be quite a lot more aggressive with the 645Z files than even the A7R, simply because 14+ stops of DR (it feels like more with the 645Z vs the A7R) plus legacy lenses (rather than Zeiss FE) meant flat files. I think this difference causes people to be taken aback. I know I was, after working with Canon's 11.7 stop 5D III files and they're still CMOS! There may be other, more fundamental differences, but I can't say I see them myself. Manufacturers sometimes post awful 'example files' for their cameras, so I would not be surprised if Phase One was just allowing the 'base file' differences from the CCD vs CMOS to show through. I would not know.
 

Lobalobo

Member
Lobalobo, its a hot issue that causes flame wars, but we can only report what we see, right?

I know that I had to be quite a lot more aggressive with the 645Z files than even the A7R, simply because 14+ stops of DR (it feels like more with the 645Z vs the A7R) plus legacy lenses (rather than Zeiss FE) meant flat files. I think this difference causes people to be taken aback. I know I was, after working with Canon's 11.7 stop 5D III files and they're still CMOS! There may be other, more fundamental differences, but I can't say I see them myself. Manufacturers sometimes post awful 'example files' for their cameras, so I would not be surprised if Phase One was just allowing the 'base file' differences from the CCD vs CMOS to show through. I would not know.
All perfectly sensible and your point about Canon's files being less flat further supports the view of every engineer I've seen who's opined on this: that there is nothing inherently limiting about a CMOS as compared to CCD technology, quite the opposite. The only question, then, is why so many perceive an advantage to the CCD images and your explanation is persuasive. And, needless to say, anyone who buys a MF camera or back in order to present just the "base file" as you put it, is likely wasting his or her money. Thanks.
 
Top