Best Medium format system for long exposure?

[Paul2660]

I was hoping that this would not be the case. Nikon continues to stub their toes on this as adding timer is so easy. Just look at the D810A. Yes it appears that anything longer than 30 seconds will still need an intervalometer. That is sad.

Paul Caldwell

 

[dougpeterson]

Does anyone here have a test comparison of long exposures on an H6D-100c and IQ3 100mp? Preferably something in the 7-20 minute range (or longer) at around room temperature with all best practices adhered to (up to date firmware, processing in up to date versions of Phocus and C1 respectively, 16 bit raw mode).

We've just done this comparison in house, but I would really like to see a similar test from someone independent before we publish our test, so I can confirm our own findings were not spurious.

If anyone in NYC or LA has an H6D-100c and would be willing to run such a test we'd be glad to loan an IQ3 100mp H mount and H6X at no cost (so you can use the same lens and body and eliminate that as a variable).

 

[voidshatter]

I've been doing long exposure for a while so if you have questions just ask

First of all, forget about any CCD digital back - these have "poor" dynamic range as of 2017, and they rely on darkframe noise reduction (except some Hasselblad). They are also prone to tiling issues. Just don't choose any of these - it will be an obvious downgrade from your existing Sony.

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.

Thirdly, the IMX161 sensor (50MP 44x33) is perhaps the best "medium format" (mini format) for long exposure, since you can disable darkframe noise reduction and still get decent results. Phase One's IQ150/250/350 work great. Hasselblad's X1D works better than Fuji's GFX. If you don't mind waiting, then next year's IMX411 and IMX461 may also work well for long exposure, subject to manufacturer's new designs.

Lastly, the best long exposure gear is Nikon's D800E, D810 etc, with the best cooling, beating medium format solutions. I could shoot sun-trail (example 1: 7689 seconds, example 2: 9072 seconds) with a single exposure of 3 hours with Nikon's IMX094 sensor. No medium format digital can do this yet (without darkframe NR), not as far as I'm aware of. Maybe the D850 will also work great but I'll need to test it to find out. Sony's A7 series are not suitable for long exposure. The A7R (Mark I) is no match against Nikon's D800E. The A7R-II overheats, and Sony cameras are generally star eaters.

Remember that you'll need to be careful with the filter systems to use. Lenses with a bulb front element or a large diameter would force you into carrying the 150mm filter system, which is also a compromise for hiking.

 

[Hausen]

The more I read about the D850 the more I am tempted to go that route. My last Nikon was the F6 and I know that if I go the cheaper D850 route I will still wish the MFD anyway.

 

[Enda Cavanagh]

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.

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.


I do hope that Phase One can offer true use of long exposures without dark frames. Currently you get the horrible red affect if used in Aerial mode as you outlined in your post.

 

[Ed Hurst]

I have used the Pentax 645Z extensively in this way. The dark frame can be turned off. The results I get are very good indeed (though, naturally, improved with the use of a dark frame). In my experience, the results are as good or better than the D800E; probably similar in terms of long exposure issues, but with the general superiority of the MF file maintained, so better overall.

I tend to shoot my dark frames separately at the end of a shoot if I think I will need them (say when the exposures are particularly long or if I am feeling particularly OCD), then manually apply. But for exposures under 20 mins, rarely find them to be needed. Overall noise is fine anyway; it's just easier to have a dark frame in terms of managing hot pixels.

BTW, I believe that any camera with that 44x33mm CMOS sensor would perform well in this area, but have formed the impression from others' accounts that the Pentax implementation of it is particularly good from a LE perspective.

 

[vieri]

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

 

[Ed Hurst]

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

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

 

[Hausen]

Well after going on a 18km hike here in the Gold Coast Australia I realized that the Nikon D850 + PC19 or 24-70 wasn't going to happen. My cameras come with me and while likely a wonderful cam it isn't conducive to hiking.

So I managed to find a great deal while here in Aussie on X1D + 30mm + the bag, battery and strap giveaway. Am stoked and I pick it up tomorrow in Brisbane. So I have finally joined the MFD club:thumbup:

Thanks for everyone's contributions. Have always loved Hasselblads, had 903SWC and Arcbody + 3 leneses in my past and now a digital.

 

[vieri]

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

 

[Ed Hurst]

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,

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

 

[D&A]

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 when shot between 45-65mm with the upper range between 65-85mm no slouch but requires stopping down.

One big surprise is the newly revised FA HD 35mm f3.5 lens. It appears to be identical to the older version except for possibly coatings, but I am certain their redesigned the aspherical element contained within. Gone is the extremely field curvature with soft corners from mid distance to infinity. Samples of this lens are extremely sharp across the frame at all distances from f4 onwards and I would put it in the same league as the FA 120 f4 macro easily.

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 lack of 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 decent corner performance at close range and mid distance (still not as exceptional as central resolution). Its central resolution it should be noted is quite exceptional at all focusing distances.

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.

*** One thing I should mention as I did originally in my published findings. Most lenses, especially the legacy lenses greatly benefit from autofocus fine tuning each and every lens. It makes an extraordinary big difference in performance. In fact the new 25mm f4 benefited greatly from this in achieving better corner performance. Some samples of the 25mm don't even reach infinity unless AF fine tune is employed to move the infinity focus point forward to a greater focusing distance.

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)

 

[Ed Hurst]

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)

Thanks Dave. I agree with all of that - including the fact that one's conclusions on some of the older lenses (and the 25) depends very much on whether you have a good sample.

I guess the key question on this thread is whether, outside of the 28-45 and 90, the system allows a superior LE result than a good 35mm system. I certainly believe that it does if one is selective on the lens models one uses, manages sample variation (in some cases) and uses some lenses stopped down. All of which is practicable - though not ideal, of course. But worthwhile if one believes that the end result is superior to, say, a LE on a D800E (can't speak for D850 yet!).

 

[D&A]

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)

 

[Krosavcheg]

Speaking of long exposures, tried a wake-up/sync cable with RZ67 and IQ160 - no luck.
Pressing wake-up button, triggering mirror, triggering lens shutter - get error message on the back: "Delay between TwoShot pulses too long. Should be max 4 seconds".

 

[vieri]

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 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

 

[vieri]

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 Dave,

you make a very good point and a very interesting one here. The look of MF images.

I definitely agree with you. MF images have a different look to them, even with comparable megapixels; and I agree with you that the MF look is, for the lack of a better word, "better", has more depth, is more "expressive".

However, if you are a working photographer, there are many variables to be considered. For landscape work, sharpness all over the frame is certainly one (when needed), and I for one couldn't survive selling images on look alone - at least, even if this could work with some kind of images, I surely couldn't live with technically not-so-great lenses for all my images (perhaps others have different needs, and that's absolutely fine).

I had to deal with the some problem after moving to Leica. The SL and the 24-90mm are great; the Voigtlander 15mm is great; the 90-280mm is even better. But then I got the S 007: no long exposures, no ultra-wide angles and no longer lenses, all of which made it impossible to use as a sole system for all my work, but when everything clicked that system gave me the best look I have ever seen. That said, I ended up selling it and getting a second SL: working in the field with S + SL was not as feasible as having two SLs, and even if I loose a little in the look department, I gained in flexibility, size and weight, practicality with accessories, extras and so on, practicality and speed in the field, and so on.

So yes, there is something extra in the way MF looks; however, if you are a working photographer often you need to give up to something (there is no perfect system for everyone), and for me it was giving up to a bit of look - mind you, the SL images look just great to me, even if they lack that little something, sometimes, compared with the S 007's. Perhaps is because of the quality of the 24-90mm, I am not sure, or the quality of the Voigtalnder extra-wide, but they are extremely appealing to me.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[The Smoking Camera]

I have shot long exposures with the Nikon d810 and Sony Rx1rm2. I have an X1D question. Assume one shoots aperture priority which necessitates a several minute exposure. If you step away and return how do you determine if the exposure is complete without handling the camera? Also, are there any other X1D quirks, issues or advice one may offer. Thanks.

 

[Ed Hurst]

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

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

 

[vieri]

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

Hello Ed,

indeed, this is one of the good forums around This is why, I can take the liberty to say that you kinda sorta made that 6x7 point clear already :ROTFL:

Seriously speaking, the 6x7 lenses are indeed very good (I had 2 of them, 45 and 55mm, and enjoyed both) but - comparing the Pentax 645 system to a 35mm system - one should also keep in mind that 6x7 lenses are much larger and heavier than 645 lenses, which in turn are already larger and heavier than 35mm lenses. Plus, you need an adapter for them, adding extra bulk and a little extra weight too.

My point is, a system is more than this or that part of it... which, I guess, is a point I already made as well! :ROTFL:

Best regards,

Vieri