Pretty nice 2 part video comparison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGhKDwfD1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30TWJ8bWGmA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yGhKDwfD1Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30TWJ8bWGmA
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!
Pentax 645Z vs Phase One IQ 250 vs Hasselblad H5D 50c
- Thread starter synn
- Start date
Crikey, the internet is full of people reviewing cameras! Other than a very few subscription sites like Sean Reid or Lloyd Chambers, I'm not aware of anyone doing it to make money.
I thought the review, though rather superficial (hard not to be, given the time constraints of a YouTube video), was fairly well done.
kdphotography
Well-known member
Is that his real name? Really?
C'mon, and I thought my real name was bad....
C'mon, and I thought my real name was bad....
Ken, you really should visit Hong Kong. Plenty of... Interesting names there.Is that his real name? Really?
C'mon, and I thought my real name was bad....
Anyway, thinking about Jerome's point, guy seems to be running a pretty established studio with a steady income. Not that hard to rent a couple of bodies in addition to the one he already has (Might even get a demo piece for free if he is in good terms with the dealers) or might have friends in the industry who own rival brands. It's hard, but not impossible to do such a shootout. I do not see how he can "Fake" the shoot when there is footage of him using all three cameras.
I guess he has a healthy business which at least at the time being generated enough money to do these sort of thing during a period of less work. He probably just think it's fun testing out gear.
I'd also love to compare those cameras, they're really interesting due to that they share the same sensor and still have much different pricing.
I'd also love to compare those cameras, they're really interesting due to that they share the same sensor and still have much different pricing.
erm... I am not quite sure what the problem here is. Somoene made some videos and you have a problem with them for doing so?
Or are you saying that Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax formed a consortium and paid this guy to do a video of their products, pointing out the weaknesses and strengths of each and asked the viewers to make their choice based on their requirements? You know, like in a real review?
Sorry, I am really lost here trying to figure out what you're angry about.
Or are you saying that Hasselblad, Phase One and Pentax formed a consortium and paid this guy to do a video of their products, pointing out the weaknesses and strengths of each and asked the viewers to make their choice based on their requirements? You know, like in a real review?
Sorry, I am really lost here trying to figure out what you're angry about.
bindermuehle
New member
Err... yeah, he's actually a quite well known pro photographer.
Interesting assumption on your part though that he must just be some rich kid. My first guess is usually on someone being a pro when I see videos that are this well made. And if he's not a pro but just has money, then perhaps he's a very talented amateur... with a lot of money. Double envy!
Interesting assumption on your part though that he must just be some rich kid. My first guess is usually on someone being a pro when I see videos that are this well made. And if he's not a pro but just has money, then perhaps he's a very talented amateur... with a lot of money. Double envy!
ErikKaffehr
Well-known member
Hi Synn,
Thanks for sharing. I have just skimmed it but it seems to be a lot of relevant info.
I would say, if you you use outdoor flash the leaf shutter cameras are helpful. If focal plane shutter is no limitation the Pentax 645Z is a nice option.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for sharing. I have just skimmed it but it seems to be a lot of relevant info.
I would say, if you you use outdoor flash the leaf shutter cameras are helpful. If focal plane shutter is no limitation the Pentax 645Z is a nice option.
Best regards
Erik
I agree. I saw this video about six months ago, before I sold the Phase and bought the Pentax.
He gets one thing wrong, the price differential between Phase and Pentax is not $24K vs $9K, but $40K vs 8K, that's about five fold. Of course if you are into controlled-light fashion photography then it's probably well worth it with the leaf shutter advantage of Phase and Big H.
aztwang
Member
I'm new to MFD as well as is my Phase One IQ250 to me which I must say the ability to synch up to 1/1600 is REALLY nice! The more I use it the more I love this system!
That is a compelling argument for the Pentax. Part of the reason I bought it.
I have read it and the Pentax is indeed the best choice for a lot of people.
Personally, I am happy with my CCD back and theflexibility that the modular system and leaf shutter lenses offer, but that is besides the point of the thread.
On topic though, I hope Pentax improves their RAW software. Probably not to C1P levels, but at least as good as Phocus. This is one complaint that the reviewer int he video raises and a valid one. ACR/ LR works, but not the best choice for anyone looking to get the best quality out of their images.
Personally, I am happy with my CCD back and theflexibility that the modular system and leaf shutter lenses offer, but that is besides the point of the thread.
On topic though, I hope Pentax improves their RAW software. Probably not to C1P levels, but at least as good as Phocus. This is one complaint that the reviewer int he video raises and a valid one. ACR/ LR works, but not the best choice for anyone looking to get the best quality out of their images.
Kolor-Pikker
Member
Silky Pix is so terrible that I honestly don't think it's worth it for them to sink R&D money into it. I have absolutely no complaints about using LR for 645Z files, although being able to go back to C1 would have been ideal. Most other RAW converters that have quality on par to these packages are fairly complex to use, Irident Developer lacks a GUI except for a single window with a billion settings on it, at least it did last time I used it.
I think the key problem with LR is that the profiles rarely if ever are good. Adobe has decided for a "look" which at least doesn't match my taste. If you apply a custom profile with good color I think LR is perfectly fine regarding quality, although C1 does have better color adjustment functions. Phocus software feels really ancient (because it is), but Hasselblad does great regarding color, I prefer them over Phase One actually, although P1 does a very good job too.
Anyway, I've generated these two DNG profiles for the Pentax 645z using my own profile maker DCamProf, you can use them in Lightroom (or other software that supports DNG profiles):
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0914-pentax-645z-neutral.dcp
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0914-pentax-645z-neutral-plus.dcp
They are made from a simple ColorChecker 24 shot I found on Imaging Resource web site, with simulated D50 light. So it won't work great for Tungsten, but for flash and daylight it should be fine. While simplistic, the CC24 does work remarkable well to match colors especially on newer cameras. I'd suspect some precision errors on high saturation colors though.
That's just the basic "colorimetric" part of color, it's the easy part, what you can do in any software supporting reproduction photography. The hard part is applying a film curve and still make colors look good, and then do subtle subjective adjustments. Here is where LR fail I think. I've put quite some effort into DCamProf to make a good job there, and I hope you like it.
The "neutral plus" profile adds some subtle subjective adjustments on top of the "neutral" profile. I think most will prefer that (previously I called it "look" but then few dared to download it ). At first glance they actually look identical, as the adjustments are very subtle as they should be. On images with saturated colors you see a larger difference. These are the adjustments:
* longer rolloff to white in skin-tone range to improve look of high-key portraits
* shorter rolloff to white in cyan-blue-magenta to improve color of skies
* slight warmup of midtones and highs in greens and yellows for making sunlit areas stand out more in landscapes
* slight saturation increase, skin-tones excluded as well as already highly saturated colors
* slight reduction of green component in oranges to get better separation between greens and reds (for landscapes)
* compress the gamut towards AdobeRGB
Almost all bundled profiles have some warmup, and C1 has even stronger warmup, so while I think it's a "landscape" adjustment, I think you will prefer it also for other subjects as we're used to that look. All bundled profiles also have gamut compression, so I added it to the neutral+ profile. I don't particularly like the concept of static gamut compression in the profile, I think it would be better if the raw converters would handled that dynamically based on image content, but neither LR or C1 does that (I don't think any current raw converter does it).
I don't own the camera so I've made this profile more or less "in the blind" and I haven't been able to relate to their native Silky Pix rendering (which I guess has different color/contrast than LR bundled profile). DCamProf is still under development so a bug/quirk or two may exist. In any case I think it looks significantly better than the Adobe bundled profile.
The most obvious differences is that it's a bit more saturated (I think Adobe's is unnaturally desaturated) and the blues are darker, but there are also more subtle differences in things like skin tones (which are way too yellow in Adobe's profile if you ask me).
DCamProf is free software, a tutorial of how to make own profiles exists here: Making a camera profile with DCamProf
You can make both DNG and ICC profiles, including Capture One style ICC profiles. As C1 refuses to open competitor's files you can't process 645z files there though.
My profiles probably have problems with deep artificial blue lights or other extremely saturated blues, I have a software issue there which I'm working on fixing, but the current profiles should work in most circumstances.
Anyway, I've generated these two DNG profiles for the Pentax 645z using my own profile maker DCamProf, you can use them in Lightroom (or other software that supports DNG profiles):
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0914-pentax-645z-neutral.dcp
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0914-pentax-645z-neutral-plus.dcp
They are made from a simple ColorChecker 24 shot I found on Imaging Resource web site, with simulated D50 light. So it won't work great for Tungsten, but for flash and daylight it should be fine. While simplistic, the CC24 does work remarkable well to match colors especially on newer cameras. I'd suspect some precision errors on high saturation colors though.
That's just the basic "colorimetric" part of color, it's the easy part, what you can do in any software supporting reproduction photography. The hard part is applying a film curve and still make colors look good, and then do subtle subjective adjustments. Here is where LR fail I think. I've put quite some effort into DCamProf to make a good job there, and I hope you like it.
The "neutral plus" profile adds some subtle subjective adjustments on top of the "neutral" profile. I think most will prefer that (previously I called it "look" but then few dared to download it
). At first glance they actually look identical, as the adjustments are very subtle as they should be. On images with saturated colors you see a larger difference. These are the adjustments:* longer rolloff to white in skin-tone range to improve look of high-key portraits
* shorter rolloff to white in cyan-blue-magenta to improve color of skies
* slight warmup of midtones and highs in greens and yellows for making sunlit areas stand out more in landscapes
* slight saturation increase, skin-tones excluded as well as already highly saturated colors
* slight reduction of green component in oranges to get better separation between greens and reds (for landscapes)
* compress the gamut towards AdobeRGB
Almost all bundled profiles have some warmup, and C1 has even stronger warmup, so while I think it's a "landscape" adjustment, I think you will prefer it also for other subjects as we're used to that look. All bundled profiles also have gamut compression, so I added it to the neutral+ profile. I don't particularly like the concept of static gamut compression in the profile, I think it would be better if the raw converters would handled that dynamically based on image content, but neither LR or C1 does that (I don't think any current raw converter does it).
I don't own the camera so I've made this profile more or less "in the blind" and I haven't been able to relate to their native Silky Pix rendering (which I guess has different color/contrast than LR bundled profile). DCamProf is still under development so a bug/quirk or two may exist. In any case I think it looks significantly better than the Adobe bundled profile.
The most obvious differences is that it's a bit more saturated (I think Adobe's is unnaturally desaturated) and the blues are darker, but there are also more subtle differences in things like skin tones (which are way too yellow in Adobe's profile if you ask me).
DCamProf is free software, a tutorial of how to make own profiles exists here: Making a camera profile with DCamProf
You can make both DNG and ICC profiles, including Capture One style ICC profiles. As C1 refuses to open competitor's files you can't process 645z files there though.
My profiles probably have problems with deep artificial blue lights or other extremely saturated blues, I have a software issue there which I'm working on fixing, but the current profiles should work in most circumstances.
Last edited:
Kolor-Pikker
Member
Wow, I have no idea how accurate these profiles are, but I just tried the neutral+ one on a few of my images and it looks awesome compared to the Adobe and Embedded profiles, which I now realize had a tinge of vomit in their color palette. Will have to play around a bit more with these.