Pentax 645D, or 645Z: CCD vs. CMOS

[KeithL]

CCD vs. CMOS.

Swings and roundabouts as far as I’m concerned.

My M9 files have a certain look out of camera that I admire but as I always do some post work this is of limited advantage over my M240 files. The comparatively limited dynamic range of the M9 can be problematic.

The advantages of the CMOS sensor in the M240 are many including more robust files that are more amenable to post, greater dynamic range and better high ISO performance. The addition of liveview and the EVF greatly expands the type of work that can be undertaken and the lenses that can be used. Critical framing and focus regardless of the lens used is key.

If I was a wedding or social photographer shooting huge amounts of files where skin tone was particularly critical I’d pick up the M9 rather than do all that post. For much of my own work I pick up the M240.

I’m thankful I have both.

 

[tsjanik]

Shashin (and Tom), I'm thinking about switching from Nikon D800E to Pentax 645D for my studio still life work. I want to go for larger sensor and CCD.
The only thing that still stops me from doing so is that I'm used to Capture One software and the way it handles Nikon files. How do you process Pentax files, what's the best RAW converter and will I miss C1?
Thanks! (Sorry, it's a bit off topic)

As you likely know, C1 doesn't support the 645D, and so I have little experience with it. I'm sure Shashin and others have more experience with RAW converters, but I have been very happy using ACR and find the adjustments I make are consistent i.e., routine and fast. The 645D is usable at ISO 1600 (3200 really if you underexpose), but suffers from chroma noise that ACR removes very well; I usually don't apply luminance NR as the noise reminds me of film grain and NR softens the image. Here's an example at 1600 (heavy crop of a sailing ship on Lake Erie, I could have applied luminance NR, but prefer the slight grain):


_IGP9295 by tsjanik47, on Flickr

 

[Pics2]

Great info, thanks! So, ACR is just fine then. I have some experiance with it, too, so, I hope, it won't be a problem to adapt.

 

[Shashin]

Shashin (and Tom), I'm thinking about switching from Nikon D800E to Pentax 645D for my studio still life work. I want to go for larger sensor and CCD.
The only thing that still stops me from doing so is that I'm used to Capture One software and the way it handles Nikon files. How do you process Pentax files, what's the best RAW converter and will I miss C1?
Thanks! (Sorry, it's a bit off topic)

The same as Tom, I use ACR. I am really happy with ACR for with 645D files. But since I also shoot a p25+ back, I have C1--Phase files in ACR stink.

 

[gazwas]

CCD vs. CMOS.

Swings and roundabouts as far as I’m concerned.

My thoughts exactly.

If you have both cameras, compare their look and one HAS to be a winner then it will most probably be the one you know and are most familiar with. Whether that makes CMOS or CCD better for your chosen subject (landscape?) is just not relevant as its too subjective.

What matters is does the extra cost involved getting the latest and greatest with all the additional features of CMOS (live view, small DR increase, long exposures, lower noise) add any benefit to your work?

As simple as that I'd say.

 

[Pics2]

The same as Tom, I use ACR. I am really happy with ACR for with 645D files. But since I also shoot a p25+ back, I have C1--Phase files in ACR stink.

Thanks!

 

[Ed Hurst]

Another vote for ACR. When I first got the 645D, I used the app Pentax provided and occasionally saw benefits (if I was willing to put in a lot of time) - but the terrible workflow just put me off using it; the benefits are minor and the disadvantages significant.

 

[SeattleDucks]

Great comments. This discussion has helped move my thinking forward.

I realize now I have to try the 645D CCD for myself, so this afternoon I purchased a like new sample (only 300 actuations). I'll put the 645D through its paces during several weeks of landscape shooting in various parts of the US starting in May. I'm sitting on a pile of lovely Pentax A manual focus glass (I prefer these to the newer FA versions) so should be ready to go after I test to confirm the lenses are good samples.

For now I will remain on the 645Z preorder list, but may end up canceling and putting in more time with the 645D through my scheduled autumn shoots, and likely rent a Z at some point this year to do my own comparisons with the new Sony 51.4mp CMOS sensor implementation.

I do hope the 645D can produce a print that satisfies me a bit more than the D800 results at the target size of 40" x 30". I'm not expecting it to print as gorgeously as my scanned 4x5 transparencies, but I'll be elated if it equals the overall print results from 6x7cm.

Ross

 

[dougpeterson]

Ross, I'll be in Seattle next Thursday. I'd be glad to bring a phase tech cam kit with me if you want to compare to your new 645D.

Or just to have a beer.

 

[SeattleDucks]

Ross, I'll be in Seattle next Thursday. I'd be glad to bring a phase tech cam kit with me if you want to compare to your new 645D.

Or just to have a beer.

Thanks for that offer Doug. Seattle is a spectacular place to have a beer with so many top craft brewers in the region. Portland is perhaps even more amazing for great ales. I won't be able to make it as I moved to Florida last year. I will be back doing some mountain shooting and microbrew drinking in the Pacific Northwest this summer :clap:

Ross

 

[Shashin]

Ross, two accessories I found really great with the 645D are the gridded viewfinder screen and the 645 Refconverter 90 degree angle finder. I also like the weatherproof IR remote, although some prefer a cable release. Enjoy.

 

[tsjanik]

Ross, two accessories I found really great with the 645D are the gridded viewfinder screen and the 645 Refconverter 90 degree angle finder. I also like the weatherproof IR remote, although some prefer a cable release. Enjoy.

A wife (in my case) or SO who is willing to carry stuff is the most valuable accessory

The IR remote is inexpensive and very handy. The eyepiece magnifier is really helpful for critical focus, although I suspect it's rendered unimportant with the 645Z.

PS: Ross I fell in love with the Pacific northwest when I passed through in 1973 (I do remember a billboard stating "Would the last person out of Seattle please turn off the lights". Times have changed; I have returned many times, mostly to visit the N. Cascades. Florida has its charms too, but for me not as compelling.

Tom

 

[mmbma]

I love the images from CCD cameras I've used: 1ds, Leica M8, M9, CFV39, etc. however in every case the usability of the newer models (CMOS based) won out. The CMOS files are more clinical, cleaner, but lack the warmth of the CCD sensors.

However I don't think one is better than the other. You can easily adjust the raw files to look like one another. In the end I don't think CMOS or CCD would positively or negatively impact the quality of your photos. That is still based on the photographer

 

[D&A]

The same as Tom, I use ACR. I am really happy with ACR for with 645D files. But since I also shoot a p25+ back, I have C1--Phase files in ACR stink.

Me too! I work with a number of different RAW converters but as suggested above, ACR works exceedingly well for 645D Raw files.

Also as mentioned by others, the IR waterproof remote is handy as are attaching two dovetails QR plates for both axis of the camera for tripod work.

Dave (D&A)

 

[tsjanik]

.................. I'm not expecting it to print as gorgeously as my scanned 4x5 transparencies, but I'll be elated if it equals the overall print results from 6x7cm.

Ross

Ross,

You may be interested in this comparison I did when I got the 645D. I shot the same scene with a 645N and 645D using the 35mm A and a 67II using a 45mm.; scans on a Nikon 9000. The 645D clearly bests the 645N. The 67 and 645D are close, but the angle of view for the 67 is larger. My conclusion: the advantages of the 645D win out.

Tom

tom's: 645N, 645D, 67II

 

[SeattleDucks]

Ross, two accessories I found really great with the 645D are the gridded viewfinder screen and the 645 Refconverter 90 degree angle finder. I also like the weatherproof IR remote, although some prefer a cable release. Enjoy.

Thanks for the heads up. The seller installed a screen he says makes manual focus much easier, the Pentax AB-82 AF Split-Image Matte.

 

[SeattleDucks]

A wife (in my case) or SO who is willing to carry stuff is the most valuable accessory

The IR remote is inexpensive and very handy. The eyepiece magnifier is really helpful for critical focus, although I suspect it's rendered unimportant with the 645Z.

PS: Ross I fell in love with the Pacific northwest when I passed through in 1973 (I do remember a billboard stating "Would the last person out of Seattle please turn off the lights". Times have changed; I have returned many times, mostly to visit the N. Cascades. Florida has its charms too, but for me not as compelling.

Tom

LOL! Love the sign from '73. The area does have an abundance of stunning scenery. In addition to the North Cascades I particularly loved spending time at Mount Rainier. The only problem with the PNW for me is the weather, tends to be some of the dreariest in the US for about 8 months per year. In stark contrast, fall/winter/spring here in the Tampa Bay area has been incredible.

 

[SeattleDucks]

Ross,

You may be interested in this comparison I did when I got the 645D. I shot the same scene with a 645N and 645D using the 35mm A and a 67II using a 45mm.; scans on a Nikon 9000. The 645D clearly bests the 645N. The 67 and 645D are close, but the angle of view for the 67 is larger. My conclusion: the advantages of the 645D win out.

Tom

tom's: 645N, 645D, 67II

Thanks for that Tom, very interesting to see.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess I posted the response to the wrong posting, sorry!

A few observations:

I was shooting Pentax 67 before switching to digital. Mostly I was shooting Velvia and scanning on a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (3200 PPI).

Once I got to 24MP (Sony Alpha 900) I made a few comparisons between scanned 67 and the Alpha 900, and I am pretty sure that the Alpha 900 came out on top. The articles are here:

Pentax67+Velvia vs Sony Alpha 900

Sony Alpha 900 vs. 67 analogue, round 2

I recently also shoot P45+ on a Hasselblad 555ELD, and I am using LR5.4 Initially I didn't like the colour, but I made a color profile using Adobe DNG Profile Editor using a ColorChecker and I have been quite happy.

This article has some info: P45+ colour rendition

Right now, I cannot really tell the P45+ and Sony Alpha 99 (that I use now) apart in A2-size prints, neither for colour nor for resolution. I have not made that many comparisons as I mostly shoot with one or the other camera, but in the comparisons I made they are close. Larger sizes there is probably a difference, but A2 is what I normally print.

As a side note, I own Capture 1 (7.2), and I have tried it a lot. In my experience C1 has significant advantages over LR5 in keeping color aliasing low, but I much prefer LR 5 processing in most other respects, so I live with it's weakness in colour aliasing control. (LR has some algorithms for tone mapping highlights and shadows, which are markedly superior to C1, in my view.)

Best regards
Erik

Ross,

You may be interested in this comparison I did when I got the 645D. I shot the same scene with a 645N and 645D using the 35mm A and a 67II using a 45mm.; scans on a Nikon 9000. The 645D clearly bests the 645N. The 67 and 645D are close, but the angle of view for the 67 is larger. My conclusion: the advantages of the 645D win out.

Tom

tom's: 645N, 645D, 67II

 

[Ken_R]

I do hope the 645D can produce a print that satisfies me a bit more than the D800 results at the target size of 40" x 30". I'm not expecting it to print as gorgeously as my scanned 4x5 transparencies, but I'll be elated if it equals the overall print results from 6x7cm.

Ross

Hi Ross:

I used Pentax 6x7's quite a bit back in the day.

The 645D will help you produce some really nice color prints. Certainly cleaner than what you will get with the 6x7.

I owned a 645D for a little while and tested it alongside a D800E (20x30 and up to 30x60in prints). The Nikon has about equal resolution. You might see tiny differences depending on the lens used, settings, technique, subject and depth of field differences. The Nikon does have more dynamic range. Without a doubt although the Pentax has more DR than any Canon. ((I used the Zeiss 15mm, 14-24mm and the 24mm PC-E with the D800E and on the Pentax I used a 35mm A (best 35mm I found, better than the FA I also had), 45-85mm FA and 55mm DFA))

I had to go with a PhaseOne IQ160 / Arca Swiss / Rodenstock HR-W lens setup to really improve on the D800E resolution. In the process I got great (back) shifting/rise/fall capability plus front tilt/swing. Also got awesome tethering and software integration, color, and just amazing edge to edge lens performance. My IQ160 setup obviously also handily beats the 645D I had in all aspects of image quality.

For wide angle landscape work a tech camera is unbeatable. Even if the resolution of the back were equal to what you get with a DSLR the lens performance, edge to edge, is much better and you get great lens/back movements plus the versatility of being able to build a system for your needs / wants or use the back on multiple systems (like I do with a Hasselblad H1).