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 would love to hear some feedback about the H6D 100 when shot with long exposures where no dark frame is required. I presume if it can shoot up to 1hr without the need for a dark frame that it produces good results. I got the IQ3 100 a few weeks ago and tbh the dark frame is something that annoys the hell out of me. I read your post recently about dark frames on Phase One IQ3 100 Backs and I do agree with much of what you said. I also do not want to be held back by having to use a dark frame for decent results. I took some night shots last week. 15 minute exposures plus dark frames is not something I want to be doing. Also the Electronic shutter is marketed partly as a way of remotely controlling the camera. This is not true because you are always tied to the camera when shooting dark frames. With an ES dark frame you either have to put a lens cap or similar in front of the lens or flicking the switch on the lens to close the shutter. So you are constantly touching the camera. Not good for seamless multiple exposures for example. It's a very messy workflow and not very streamlined. I might be missing something here because I have worked with the Hasselblad H system up to now with is much more straightforward. The quality was outstanding on these long exposures. Incredibly clean and detailed but as I said I would love to hear how the Hasselblad H6D 100 compares.Secondly, the IMX211 sensor (e.g. Phase One IQ3 100MP) generates a huge amount of heat, and is hence prone to red shadow noise, unless you shoot with darkframe noise reduction enabled, which is a severe compromise for landscape where you don't have much time to wait for the best moments of sunset/sunrise.
One more vote for the Pentax 645z, best MF sensor for long exposures I ever used (including Phase up to the P65+, Leaf up to the 12R, Leica S2 and S007). However, with one caveat: camera and sensors are all well and good, but then you need lenses. I used the 645D and 645Z for a long time, with pretty much all Pentax lenses up to 200mm, but the only lenses that were up to the sensor were the new 28-45 and 90mm. Every other lens, and you'll not see much difference from a good 35mm system. More, if you need ultra-wide or long teles you are out of luck with MF in general... this is why I left MF (for now), but this is obviously besides the point
Hello Ed,Hi Vieri,
I take your point about lenses being a key part of the imaging chain that determines the final output quality, and agree that the Pentax system is not world-beating in every lens. However, with complete respect, I think your conclusion is too simplistic. The 28-45 and 90mm lenses are certainly the most obvious great examples in the range. There are also other lenses that are great and make the system shine (delivering results better than a good 35mm system and, in LE, beating other MF). For example, the 6x7 75mm f2.8AL, the 6x7 300mm f4EDIF, the 645 120mm f4 (either A or FA flavours), the 6x7 400mm f4 EDIF and the 645 25mm f4 DA (especially stopped down). And other lenses are certainly very good if used stopped down - the issues you mention are most apparent when used wide open. I agree with your view that the system needs more great lenses, but I don't accept that there are no lenses other than the two you mention that are good enough to make the inherent superbness of the 645Z sensor (when used for LEs) good enough to beat 35mm systems and indeed other MF systems.
This is based on experience rather than tests so, as ever, YMMV.
Love your work!
Ed
Hello Ed,
well, to keep things simpler I was thinking about native 645 lenses, not adapted 6x7 lenses or any other adapted lenses. It appears to me that in this case you implicitly agree with me, since you just mention two lenses out of dozens available: the 120 f/4 and the 25mm. I had both of them. The 25mm (last version) was acceptable in the center, but soft in the corners even stopped down. Plus, the 25mm makes it very difficult to use filters, which for long exposures (the OP's interest) is a bit of a problem. The 120 mm f/4 (FA) is very good, probably the best of the old Pentaxes, but definitely not on the same level of the 28-45mm and of the 90mm. Again, all based on user experience (2 years with the 645 system, D and Z), not on formal testing, and with the outmost respect for other people's experience, needs and requirements.
Now, to be the point is that for me to go MF (and invest accordingly) I need to get a system that is WAY above what I can get by staying with 35mm; the gain in IQ should be worth the hassle and the financial strain. The Pentax 645 system, IMHO and for my work, is not that system, and what lets it down is the lack of good optics. I actually think that Pentax really followed a completely wrong strategy going for the K1 and neglecting the development of the 645. They had a great APS-C with the K3, and they had the know-how and experience to make the 645 a GREAT system. See what Fuji did: great APS-C, great MF, no FF. Pentax was WAY ahead of Fuji on APS-C (perhaps debatable for lovers of the xtrans sensor) and definitely on MF, and they simply got sidetracked by the K1 (probably they got blinded by the FF sirens), at least in my opinion; now they have a good APS-C, a decent MF with some great lenses and some duds, and they came to the FF party way too late in the game, again with some lens deficiency. But I digress...
Back to the topic, adapting lenses can solve some problems and cover some weak focal, but in doing so (again, for my work and with the most extreme respect for others' needs and requirements) it introduces problems of a different kind, mostly in the workflow, slowing you down, and in the weight / bulk of the system which for me is an issue (a 10 kg bag is much more pleasant than a 15 kg bag!).
I respect that others might think differently; with respect, if I might suggest you anything I wouldn't call someone else's approach and conclusions simplistic only because they differ from yours. Trust me, I know the 645 system pretty well, I worked with it 2 years, and I thought long and hard before moving away from it
Best regards,
Vieri
Hi Vieri, Ed and others who are discussing the Pentax 645 digital system, specifically the lenses. My brief comments reflect general use of the Pentax 645 lenses on the 645D and Z bodies, not specifically for LE and in addition, my comments don't reflect the exceptional Pentax 67 lenses adopted for use on a 645D or Z body, many of those pointed out by Ed.
Some may recall when the 645D was first released, I did a comprehensive test of multiple samples of most all of the Pentax 645 legacy lenses at the time and posted my findings here on Getdpi. The 25, 90mm and 28-45 zoom were yet to be announced or released. I consider these latter three lenses in the upper tier of performance as Vieri and others have pointed out and I had subsequently tested rigorously more than 3 samples of each of these since my initial testing, but never found the time to post those results.
Keep in mind, my assessment is based on examining resulting files at actual pixels (100%), across the entire frame.
Whether one is willing to put up with testing samples of legacy lenses to find a good sample or not, may alter their perception of the performance of these lenses. Only the FA 120 macro had virtually no sample to sample variation and would consider this lens (again as pointed out by others), at the upper 2nd tier of excellent performing lenses. Among this upper 2nd tier is the newly revised FA HD 35mm f3.5 lens. Its optical arrangement and specs looks almost identical to the legacy FA 35mm f3.5 but its performance is anything but and I would put it on par now with the FA 120 f4 macro. The FA 45-85 zoom (again predicated on a good sample), comes close to the FA 120 macro and newly revised FA HD 35mm f3.5 when shot between 45-65mm with the upper range between 65-85mm no slouch but requires stopping down.
The 25mm f4 is an enigma and after testing many samples and finding most have softer corners compared to a very high resolving center, its variability from sample to sample makes it difficult to accurately access. One of the reasons for this corner sharpness is it suffers from the same fate as the older FA 35mm 3.5 lens...extreme field curvature. This is most noticeable and is at its greatest at longer distances and infinity. That's why these lenses show good corner performance at close range and mid distance (still not as exceptional as central resolution.
Then there is the FA 300 f4 645 lens, which also is right there with the FA 120 f4 macro. The Fa 400 f5.6 is somewhat behind and probably falls into the 3rd tier group with the FA 75mm f2.8, FA 200 f4, all of which benefit greatly from stopping down. The WR 55mm f2.8 is a good lens but then again its those darn corners that lag behind. Then again this is the new entry lens to the system, much as the old FA 75mm f2.8 was for the 645 film bodies. Hence the price of the WR 55mm is reasonable.
The behemoth manual focus 600 f5.6 645 lens is very good but that's a very specialized lens. I left out the FA 150 f2.8 because unknown to some, that is a specialized lens. It was designed as a portrait lens and is excellent when used as such, especially wide open and a stop down. When shot at f8 it is quite sharp but unlike the 120 f4 macro, was designed to render delicately.
Then on the 4th tier are some of the various zooms which I won't go into for now. Some are so so, some adequate when stopped down and the best of them is the Fa80-160 zoom...the best samples of this lens do reach 3rd tier status.
Is there a complete collection of lenses that perform like the 90mm and 28-45mm lens in this system? No! Yet there are many capable lenses that aren't too far behind (when a great sample is found), that can be had for a song and dance compared to a $5,000 lens (unless one decides to purchase one of these older legacy lenses brand new as recently issued by Pentax).
I agree, support for new lenses has been spotty. who knows, maybe Pentax is preparing to release a mirrorless 645 body and is putting their focus on a new set of lenses for this system with an adaptor for all the current 645 lenses....as opposed that the inattention was simply Pentax concentrating on the K1 & system. Who knows.
I honestly believe if the entire system consisted of top of the line performing $5,000 lenses, much as all the new ones cost, I don't believe they would have as many users entering the system. Pentax has always tried to be a value leader. Depending on ones requirements, I think the system has enough lenses at various price points and performance levels to reach the requirements of many...yet certainly not all! Everythings a compromise and with all the choices out there today, one has to choose the system that fits into their budget and also does what they expect it to do.
Dave (D&A)
Hello Ed,Hi Vieri,
My apologies if the sentiment I expressed appeared negative to you. I assure you that I did not say what I did because your approach and conclusions differ from mine - but because they were based on a smaller set of options (e.g. not including 6x7 lenses), which is therefore simpler / narrower in scope (not as a matter of experience/opinion but as a matter of factually including fewer options). Perhaps the issue is the meaning that you attach to the word "simplistic". However, in pointing out the high quality, viable options you excluded from consideration, it was not my intention to offend or belittle, which is how you appear to have construed it. I assure you that I would not operate in that way.
Yours with best wishes,
Ed
Hello Dave,Thanks Ed. I revised a good deal of my lengthy post above just now and added additional information, including a considerable amt about the sometimes problematic 25mm and also the newely revised FA HD 35mm f3.5 lens. You may want to take a look at my revised additions.
I can only speak for myself, but when the 645D came out and many were wondering, if its 40MP were really superior to the then D800 37MP. I found not so much on a computer screen, but even with decent legacy lenses, comparative prints were vastly different between the two camera systems. Even though sharpness with some great Nikon glass surpassed the Pentax 645D generated image, the depth and dimensionality of many of the Pentax images were clearly superior in my opinion and also of those shown prints in a blind comparison picked out the Pentax prints far more often than not.
Viewing on a screen is a limiting factor when comparing images from different systems and glass.
As for LE use, I cannot comment on which systems are superior, as that's not my specialty, even though I occasionally do some night and star trail imagery. That aspect I'll leave to the experts here to discern and dissect the advantages and disadvantages of the various systems. I will though read with great interest for future endeavors.
Dave (D&A)
Hello Ed,
is all good, no problems here :thumbup:
I based my reaction on the definition of simplistic: treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are: "simplistic solutions"
synonyms: facile, superficial, oversimple, oversimplified, schematic, black and white; shallow, pat, glib, jejune, naive: "the proposed solutions are far too simplistic"
Which didn't sound too positive to me, nor did match my approach to choosing lenses and camera systems. Thank you for your message and clarification about the way you intended it. Best regards,
Vieri
Hello Ed,Hi Vieri,
Thanks for your message - one of the things I appreciate about this forum is the way in which we can all have discussions and debates with divergent opinions and do so without the angst that is so common online .
For the benefit of those reading this thread to make a decision, I do think it's worth emphasising that excluding the best 6x7 lenses (and the excellent 645 120mm) from an evaluation of the Pentax system could lead to an overly simple conclusion that the system only has two lenses good enough to make its results beat a good 35mm system.
All the best,
Ed