Pentax 645Z vs A7RII IQ and bang for the buck

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Nice to hear something positive about Canon's colours. Most posters are negative, it seems.

My take is a bit that I would think I have seen more great pictures taken with Canons than with any other camera. The other is that I am pretty sure that much is depending on colour profiles.

Which raw converter are you using?

I decided to go with Sony A7rII, for a few different reason. One of the major reasons was the ability to use Canon's T&S lenses. So I have a Canin 24/3.5 TSE II waiting at the post office, but no camera to put it on. Two weeks of waiting...

Best regards
Erik

Processed to my taste (but still +4 stops). We're in interesting times with cameras. I'm particularly happy with the colours of the Canon, more so than my Pentax and A7ii. It'll be interesting to see broader use of this with skin tones over the next few weddings.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Nice to hear something positive about Canon's colours. Most posters are negative, it seems.

I would say disappointed rather than negative, but not where the colors are concerned, just the pattern noise and limited ISO. I've always been a fan of their system otherwise.

My take is a bit that I would think I have seen more great pictures taken with Canons than with any other camera. The other is that I am pretty sure that much is depending on colour profiles.

On a purely statistical level, an image is more likely to be captured on a Canon camera than any other, so invariably you're going to see an image you like shot on this brand more than others.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

I am quite aware of that. But what I see is that great photographers take great images with Canon cameras fully ignoring the awful colour rendition and the mediocre DR

Josh Holko, an Australian landscape photographer comes to mind, but also Hans Kruse who shoots both Canon 5Ds and Nikon D800. I will meet up with Hans in the Dolomites end of August and hope I can compare my Sony A7rII to his 5Ds

Best regards
Erik

On a purely statistical level, an image is more likely to be captured on a Canon camera than any other, so invariably you're going to see an image you like shot on this brand more than others.

 

[Chris Giles]

Hi,

Nice to hear something positive about Canon's colours. Most posters are negative, it seems.

My take is a bit that I would think I have seen more great pictures taken with Canons than with any other camera. The other is that I am pretty sure that much is depending on colour profiles.

Which raw converter are you using?

I decided to go with Sony A7rII, for a few different reason. One of the major reasons was the ability to use Canon's T&S lenses. So I have a Canin 24/3.5 TSE II waiting at the post office, but no camera to put it on. Two weeks of waiting...

Best regards
Erik

Erik, Adobe standard profile always seems to do a great job with canon files so while I do have a few home made profiles for certain applications anything I post here will be adobe standard.

 

[Ken_R]

Yes,

I am quite aware of that. But what I see is that great photographers take great images with Canon cameras fully ignoring the awful colour rendition and the mediocre DR

Josh Holko, an Australian landscape photographer comes to mind, but also Hans Kruse who shoots both Canon 5Ds and Nikon D800. I will meet up with Hans in the Dolomites end of August and hope I can compare my Sony A7rII to his 5Ds

Best regards
Erik

Yeah, it is a miracle that great images were made before the Sony EXMOR was available...:grin: :chug:

 

[GrahamWelland]

A 100MP MF full frame CMOS on an ALPA STC with an HR32mm would be perfect.

Oh yes ... :thumbs:

 

[Pradeep]

Yes,

I am quite aware of that. But what I see is that great photographers take great images with Canon cameras fully ignoring the awful colour rendition and the mediocre DR

Josh Holko, an Australian landscape photographer comes to mind, but also Hans Kruse who shoots both Canon 5Ds and Nikon D800. I will meet up with Hans in the Dolomites end of August and hope I can compare my Sony A7rII to his 5Ds

Best regards
Erik

Very true Erik.

A great photographer would take a better picture (aesthetically) with an iPhone than most amateurs could with an MF rig. I mean Ritchie Blackmore could produce far better music on a tin can than I could on a Strat.

BUT, us amateurs are striving to achieve the best image quality possible and having a top of the line system does provide that extra little push .........

 

[algrove]

Pradeep

It will be interesting to read your analysis and comments on using the A7R2 versus the 645Z.

 

[Pradeep]

Pradeep

It will be interesting to read your analysis and comments on using the A7R2 versus the 645Z.

I am hardly qualified but it will be an interesting comparison. I hope I am able to get it before my trip to Iceland at the end of August. Was planning to take the Pentax but will likely now take both systems to try them out.

 

[larkis]

I have two A7r's and a Pentax 645D and 645Z. When I got the A7r's, they were a bigger bang for the buck than the 645D in terms of portability, predictable focusing, and lens options and in some cases resolution (due to the ability to get the focus spot on through live view). The downside was the raw file compression and the lack of a reliable build for the Sony bodies. For example mine gave out in Antarctica while the 645D kept on ticking, having been exposed to humid jungles and a typhoon in Japan over the years I had it. Some of the small buttons and switches on the back of the A7r are already loose and will probably stop functioning properly in the next few months.

There camera reliability/build quality and things such as dual card slots are often forgotten in bang for the buck type of discussions. It all depends on what you value when shooting and how much demand you put on your gear. If you are going to some extreme locations, the weight of the system matters, but a solid non toy built camera can matter more at the end of the day. So will the post processing potential of the files when you get back. In my case, most of the files I have shot with the A7r in dense mountain fog or rain exhibit mushy color areas and a big loss of the subtleties that make such scenes come across in a final print. In such cases the bang for the buck totally swings back to the Pentax system.

I assume the differences between the A7rII and the 645Z will be about the same as they were between the 645D and the original A7r. The 645Z will be the workhorse I take on pre planned shoots, and the A7rII will be the camera I always have in my backpack for the unexpected shots and for higher altitude trips where a heavy camera kit is basically out of the question without a dedicated porter.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Can Leica S lenses be used in some way with the Aptus, or is there a problem with the electronic control of the aperture? Would offer more limited movements than actuall tech lenses, but pretty amazing edge to edge performance I imagine.

Hey. I have found that if you stop down an S lens on an S camera to a given aperture, and then remove the lens, it will stay at that aperture. It is not particularly convenient for heavy use, but if you just want to mount an S lens with an adapter (good luck on finding one!), it should be usable at any aperture.

In terms of bang for the buck in MFD, the new S body promotions are pretty incredible. I upgraded to an S a few months ago, and still have my S2. I was planning on selling it...doesn't seem to make much sense anymore! The Leica store Miami is selling a new S-E and 70mm CS lens for 10,295 dollars, or 5995 for body only. That is an incredible value. It may be lower in MP than the A7rII or Pentax, but it is an incredible image making system. The lenses are better than either system's lenses, and the image quality is superb -- 16bit color vs 11+7 in the Sony, full weather sealing, a much more ergonomic body etc etc. I use an A7S alongside the Leica, and while the A7S can do some amazing things, it is a frustrating experience to use in comparison to the S. Granted, even though the body cost is much lower now, the lenses are still very expensive...but I believe they are a good investment. Depending on your particular photographic needs, it could be a good option. If you plan on working with strobes, the CS function will be very compelling, and the overall image quality of the system packs a punch that is a lot greater than the comparatively modest (for 2015!) 37.5mp would indicate.

I think all three are exceptionally good cameras, and picking the right one is going to be more about which particular specs are more important to you, rather than there being a clear winner. Ergonomics and lens options should also be very carefully evaluated, preferably in person. Personally I did not really pay attention to the S system until I got a chance to handle it...then it all started to make sense! I would say a bit of the opposite about the Sony. They are fabulous on paper and are capable of great results, but they are certainly a lot more frustrating to handle than the medium format or film cameras I am used to.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Good write up and you have some great images on your home page! Pentax has good and proven reputation for weather sealing.

It would be nice if you could post some raw image showing the raw compression artefacts you are mentioning. I don't have a Sony A7 series camera, just A99 and it may have a different compression scheme, my guess is it doesn't have the 7-bit delta coding over 16 pixels stuff.

The only banding issue I had observed on any of my images was actually on the Phase One P45+ back and it was caused by the colour profile. Interestingly the same type of banding was present in three different profiles using two different raw converters. But the problem disappeared with Adobe Standard Profile. I also generated a DCP profile with Anders Torger's DCamProf and that profile was OK, too. The other raw converter that I tested was Capture One.

I have only seen two published examples of artefacts caused by Sony's raw compression, and in both case it is caused by the Delta coding, I would say.



The other one is this one:


So, if the artefacts you see are different from the samples above, it would be worth exploration.

Best regards
Erik

I have two A7r's and a Pentax 645D and 645Z. When I got the A7r's, they were a bigger bang for the buck than the 645D in terms of portability, predictable focusing, and lens options and in some cases resolution (due to the ability to get the focus spot on through live view). The downside was the raw file compression and the lack of a reliable build for the Sony bodies. For example mine gave out in Antarctica while the 645D kept on ticking, having been exposed to humid jungles and a typhoon in Japan over the years I had it. Some of the small buttons and switches on the back of the A7r are already loose and will probably stop functioning properly in the next few months.

There camera reliability/build quality and things such as dual card slots are often forgotten in bang for the buck type of discussions. It all depends on what you value when shooting and how much demand you put on your gear. If you are going to some extreme locations, the weight of the system matters, but a solid non toy built camera can matter more at the end of the day. So will the post processing potential of the files when you get back. In my case, most of the files I have shot with the A7r in dense mountain fog or rain exhibit mushy color areas and a big loss of the subtleties that make such scenes come across in a final print. In such cases the bang for the buck totally swings back to the Pentax system.

I assume the differences between the A7rII and the 645Z will be about the same as they were between the 645D and the original A7r. The 645Z will be the workhorse I take on pre planned shoots, and the A7rII will be the camera I always have in my backpack for the unexpected shots and for higher altitude trips where a heavy camera kit is basically out of the question without a dedicated porter.

 

[larkis]

Hi,

Good write up and you have some great images on your home page! Pentax has good and proven reputation for weather sealing.

It would be nice if you could post some raw image showing the raw compression artefacts you are mentioning. I don't have a Sony A7 series camera, just A99 and it may have a different compression scheme, my guess is it doesn't have the 7-bit delta coding over 16 pixels stuff.

The only banding issue I had observed on any of my images was actually on the Phase One P45+ back and it was caused by the colour profile. Interestingly the same type of banding was present in three different profiles using two different raw converters. But the problem disappeared with Adobe Standard Profile. I also generated a DCP profile with Anders Torger's DCamProf and that profile was OK, too. The other raw converter that I tested was Capture One.

I have only seen two published examples of artefacts caused by Sony's raw compression, and in both case it is caused by the Delta coding, I would say.



The other one is this one:


So, if the artefacts you see are different from the samples above, it would be worth exploration.

Best regards
Erik

The sample you are showing with the artifacts around the star trail is stuff I have seen in similar images on my end as well. They are in line with some of the things I have experienced around other areas of contrast such as fine branches around tree tops in winter. As far as the banding goes, it could be related to profiles, but I have not found a profile that gets rid of it (i have even tried the huelight profiles for the A7R). If you PM me I can send you a few images this weekend that exhibit severe banding issues that travel along the image when the hue slider in Lightroom is moved. They are images that I have no authorization to put on a public forum but can send in an e-mail.

 

[Pradeep]

I am hardly qualified but it will be an interesting comparison. I hope I am able to get it before my trip to Iceland at the end of August. Was planning to take the Pentax but will likely now take both systems to try them out.

Replying to my own post

I've finally managed to start looking at the Pentax and the A7RII closely. Been using the Sony these days for most of the events.

I did a preliminary comparison of the two cameras today with the following lenses:

Sony: Batis 25 f2, Sony ZA 55 1.8, Batis 85, Canon 100 f2.8 Macro, Canon 70-200 f4 IS (the last two with the Metabones IV adapter).

Pentax: FA 45-85 f4.5 at 45 and then at 70mm (to simulate 55mm on the Sony), D-FA 55 2.8, FA 120 f4 macro and the FA 150 f2.8

This is by no means a scientific test, but enough to satisfy my own needs.

The target was an Edmund Optics resolution chart on a brick wall with surrounding shrubs/windows in my backyard. It is difficult to keep the same fov with all the lenses and that makes it even more subjective in some ways. The test chart served to compare the center of the image and the brick wall/window/door formed the basis of comparing the edges/corners.

The images were all taken with the camera on a tripod with self-timer and in the case of the Pentax with the mirror up. I shot wide open and then at 1-stop intervals up to f11. Did not think going beyond that was useful.

Will post some images later. It should be no surprise that the lens on the camera makes all the difference. The three native E-mount lenses on the sony obviously outperformed the Canon lenses with the adapter. That is expected I suppose since the two Batis lenses and the 55 1.8 are perhaps the sharpest in the Sony stable at present (I don't own the 90 2.8 macro).

The Pentax suffers from a lack of new, high resolution lenses but the old ones still do a fabulous job.

I am still evaluating all the images, for now, suffice it to say the differences are small and there is no absolute winner, unlike when I compared the Canon 5DSR to the Pentax.

More to follow........

 

[kimyeesan]

Looking for a few preliminary opinions on a new system for myself. I do panoramic work and usually end up stitching. I sold my IQ180 and need a go to system that produces the best bang for the buck. Here is what I am currently thinking:


Sony A7RII with Cambo Actus/Rodenstock HR 40mm (great glass but tough portable system in the weather) or
Sony A7RII with Canon 24mm TSE (easy to use and good pano results) or
Pentax 645Z with DA 28-45mm (still a great camera and glass and it is MF so you must know what you are doing and just using it makes beautiful pictures no matter what you point it at, haha, right?)

Any opinions?

Mark

Mark

I have used Cambo Actus with A7R2 and Rodenstock Enlarging lens, APO Rodagon etc. They are small, cheap and extremely high in resolution. However, the Actus is not as tightly tolerance as other technical camera such as Alpa, Arca, etc. So, sometimes, there's flex or tilt unintentionally introduced into the image and thus bluring the images...

 

[turtle]

Have you had a chance to use the 28-45mm lens? Its fantastic and gives hope that Pentax will do a similarly good job with the replacement 45-85 and 80-160 lenses, which may be coming fairly soon. The 28-45 is the best wide angle landscape lens I have ever used, because it offers top end prime quality with zoom convenience and SR. I used mine hand held a lot in Iceland, especially for quick roadside shots where a tripod would have been and issue (not to mention the wind and cold). FWIW its clearly better at 28mm than any of the 25mm D FA samples I've worked on in LR, towards the edges.

I haven't been that impressed by the edges of the 55mm D FA lens samples I have seen, whereas the 75mm FA seriously impressed me at landscape apertures. Its sharp as a tack everywhere, although it takes a few stops to get warmed up. Mine peaks at f9 across the field. Super happy with this inexpensive 200g wonder.

I'm itching for Pentax to get moving with new lenses and will most likely jump on the new 80-160mm.

It sound like Zeiss is working on an 18mm Batis, which will be interesting...

Replying to my own post

I've finally managed to start looking at the Pentax and the A7RII closely. Been using the Sony these days for most of the events.

I did a preliminary comparison of the two cameras today with the following lenses:

Sony: Batis 25 f2, Sony ZA 55 1.8, Batis 85, Canon 100 f2.8 Macro, Canon 70-200 f4 IS (the last two with the Metabones IV adapter).

Pentax: FA 45-85 f4.5 at 45 and then at 70mm (to simulate 55mm on the Sony), D-FA 55 2.8, FA 120 f4 macro and the FA 150 f2.8

This is by no means a scientific test, but enough to satisfy my own needs.

The target was an Edmund Optics resolution chart on a brick wall with surrounding shrubs/windows in my backyard. It is difficult to keep the same fov with all the lenses and that makes it even more subjective in some ways. The test chart served to compare the center of the image and the brick wall/window/door formed the basis of comparing the edges/corners.

The images were all taken with the camera on a tripod with self-timer and in the case of the Pentax with the mirror up. I shot wide open and then at 1-stop intervals up to f11. Did not think going beyond that was useful.

Will post some images later. It should be no surprise that the lens on the camera makes all the difference. The three native E-mount lenses on the sony obviously outperformed the Canon lenses with the adapter. That is expected I suppose since the two Batis lenses and the 55 1.8 are perhaps the sharpest in the Sony stable at present (I don't own the 90 2.8 macro).

The Pentax suffers from a lack of new, high resolution lenses but the old ones still do a fabulous job.

I am still evaluating all the images, for now, suffice it to say the differences are small and there is no absolute winner, unlike when I compared the Canon 5DSR to the Pentax.

More to follow........

 

[JohnBrew]

I stitch with my 645Z and have no complaints. There is no taking away that whatever other 35mm sensor you are considering, the photo sites on the 645Z are what makes MF what it is. As for other cameras using the same Sony sensor as the 645Z, somehow the Pentax engineers have extracted more from that same sensor than the others-Hasselblad and Phase One. Must be in the translation-i.e., Sony=Japan and Pentax=Japan.

I used a borrowed ALPA/CFV-50c/40HR quite recently and was able to do very nice stitches using a nodal point slide. I've since acquired an ALPA TC but now am wavering on what to put on it.

As to the Sony sensor in all these camera bodies/backs: I've found my D810 to be better than the CFV-50c at opening up the shadow areas. I prefer the color out of the CFV-50c over the Nikon but as of this moment I trying to wrap my head around some other system with a different color response, i.e. not Sony based.

But, if I were in the OP's shoes I would go the Pentax route.

 

[DougDolde]

A few thoughts:

Something I am considering going back to with the XF and 35mm LS, as the tech workflow is getting me down. Modern stitching software allows for a huge amount of leeway now.

Paul

I am waiting for my XF but do have the Schneider 40-80mm lens on my DF. I think it's a better choice over the new 35mm and it's extremely sharp. I got it for the same price as the new 35mm. Sure it would be great to have both but the cost is prohibitive for me anyway.

Check out this full rez stitch from Telluride. Shot with IQ180 at 40mm on the 40-80mm.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9f2mi5krrgbkbgl/pano-37.tif?dl=0

 

[rhern213]

Very curious to see your results Pradeep, I just took delivery of a 645z and I'm going to be trying similar tests to see what I'm gonna with the A7R2. I'm waiting now for the 75, 120 macro, and 150. I'm trying to decide what to do at the wide end.

turtle: I was very close to buying the 55 considering the great reviews people have online. However I don't understand why, I have not seen a single full-size image sample of this lens that has even decent corner performance, from what I've seen it's straight up bad for landscape. Maybe the reviews are from portrait shooters that are looking at the rendering and center performance.

How do you feel about the difference between the 35 A, and 28-45? Do you feel it's that much better regarding the cost difference? I don't mind shelling out for the 28-45 if it's a must have, but it's a huge chunk of change. My whole reason of switching to the 645z was to save money from the Phase system, the 28-45 would take a big bite out of that.

 

[Sarnia]

The 28-45 is the best wide angle landscape lens I have ever used, because it offers top end prime quality with zoom convenience and SR.

Does it trump the Hasselblad 35-90mm? I'm torn between the two: the Hasselblad 35-90mm on my lowly H3D-22 or the Pentax 28-45mm on my Pentax 645D (and eventual 645Z)?

The Hasselblad has more range (equivalent to 25-65mm) whilst the Pentax goes wider (equivalent to 22-35mm) and both are equally hefty on the wallet and the biceps!