Pentax 645D vs S2

[Shelby Lewis]

You'll be lucky to find one!

tell me about it!

 

[tetsrfun]

like the flawed, but delicious Zeiss 110/2FE
*******
Had mine out yesterday afternoon, shooting rotting logs in the woods at f/2. It may be a flawed lens but it has a personality.

Steve

 

[David Schneider]

Let's not forget because of the different nature of each company, the Pentax glass will certainly be improved substantially, while the Leica lens line will remain about the same for many years.

How do we know this? I mean, I hope so and you are mostly likely correct, but with companies buying other companies it's a matter of faith rather than a matter of fact. Hopefully new technology allows new lens design to match characteristics of digital files better than the older film lenses, but until there are out on the street for some typical usage, it's speculation. A good bet for sure, but still speculation.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

Reading through the responses above, I am a little surprised that nobody seems to be taking into account the fact that the 645D is a 4:3 format camera and the S2 is a 3:2 format camera. For me, cropping images is something to be avoided to the greatest extent possible, because I am always seeking to achieve the best possible IQ from my equipment, and as such, I cannot bear to throw away ~15% of an image's pixels during post processing to crop it into a more pleasing (to me, anyway) shape and I don't seem to be able to pre-visualize compositions I can't see on a ground-glass or LCD. To be honest, the 4:3 format was one of the factors behind my decision to move up to MF digital rather than to buy a Nikon D3x or some other high-res DSLR.

I understand that the 3:2 format is an important part of Leica's sacred legacy, so it makes sense Leica would so spec the S2, but I'm surprised that a camera's native format doesn't appear to be an issue for this forum's many pros, who are often incredibly picky about other aspects of a product's performance. Although I'm not a potential S2 buyer for other reasons (i.e., cost, although I suppose I could be persuaded to overlook this if the camera's performance was so much better than its competition in every other respect that I couldn't afford not to buy one), this fact alone certainly gives me pause ... is this really a complete non-issue for everybody else and I'm the only one who feels this way? <puzzled>

 

[bensonga]

Re whether 3:2 (Leica/35mm) vs 4:3 (645) format images result in unwanted cropping or throwing away of a part of the image.....doesn't it depend on what your usual print size is? For me, I rarely print on paper larger than 11x17 or 13x19 inches.....and for those paper sizes, if I want to make maximum use of the paper space, I'm better off with a native 3:2 format image (if I've done the math correctly). On 8.5x11 inch paper, I would be better off with a 4:3 format image, but I've usually got more than enough resolution so I'm not too concerned about having to crop a bit off the image for a Letter size print. I think that only if I regularly wanted to print on 17x22, 20x24, 24x30 etc size papers would I be better off with a 4:3 format image.

Gary

 

[etrigan63]

As Gary said, it really depends on the ultimate destination for your images. I print 16x20 of cropped images from my D700, but I have gone as far up at 20x30. Any MFD will give me a hell of a lot more pixel to work with, that's a certainty. But if I don't print 40x60 will they be wasted?

Not if the image meets my standards.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

Re whether 3:2 (Leica/35mm) vs 4:3 (645) format images result in unwanted cropping or throwing away of a part of the image.....doesn't it depend on what your usual print size is?

Not for me, it doesn't. I generally compose my images right to the edge of the frame in-camera and that's also the image I expect to print. Perhaps it's just me, but I won't allow paper size to affect my compositions and it doesn't bother me to trim excess paper from my prints depending upon their size. YMMV, obviously...

(As a humorous aside, my father absolutely hates to see any part of the screen of his 16:9 format 52" flat-screen be blacked-out because a program was filmed in something other the 16:9 format. Whenever this happens, he always uses the stretch and/or zoom commands on his remote to expand the image so that it covers the entire screen, regardless of the negative effect this has on the IQ, because he can't stand to "waste" any of the screen area that he paid for!)

 

[bensonga]

Not for me, it doesn't. I generally compose my images right to the edge of the frame in-camera and that's also the image I expect to print. Perhaps it's just me, but I won't allow paper size to affect my compositions and it doesn't bother me to trim excess paper from my prints depending upon their size. YMMV, obviously...

Well that can be the case regardless of whether you have a 3:2 or 4:3 format image, so I must not be understanding your original post correctly and this idea of wasting or throwing away 15% of the image.

I remember that Pentax used to make a point in the marketing of the Pentax 6x7 that this format scaled up nicely for 8x10, 11x14 or 16x20 enlargements. I still like the 6x7 aspect ratio of my P67 transparencies....but it doesn't fit as nicely on my 11x17 and 13x19 inch paper. I must be like your dad in that respect....hate to see the wasted space on the paper and sometimes I'm even tempted to crop my P67 image to the correct aspect ratio (for the paper) and then bump the enlargement up a tad to fill it.

Gary

 

[fotografz]

Reading through the responses above, I am a little surprised that nobody seems to be taking into account the fact that the 645D is a 4:3 format camera and the S2 is a 3:2 format camera. For me, cropping images is something to be avoided to the greatest extent possible, because I am always seeking to achieve the best possible IQ from my equipment, and as such, I cannot bear to throw away ~15% of an image's pixels during post processing to crop it into a more pleasing (to me, anyway) shape and I don't seem to be able to pre-visualize compositions I can't see on a ground-glass or LCD. To be honest, the 4:3 format was one of the factors behind my decision to move up to MF digital rather than to buy a Nikon D3x or some other high-res DSLR.

I understand that the 3:2 format is an important part of Leica's sacred legacy, so it makes sense Leica would so spec the S2, but I'm surprised that a camera's native format doesn't appear to be an issue for this forum's many pros, who are often incredibly picky about other aspects of a product's performance. Although I'm not a potential S2 buyer for other reasons (i.e., cost, although I suppose I could be persuaded to overlook this if the camera's performance was so much better than its competition in every other respect that I couldn't afford not to buy one), this fact alone certainly gives me pause ... is this really a complete non-issue for everybody else and I'm the only one who feels this way? <puzzled>

I agree, but that specific subject was beaten to death when the S2 was initially launched :deadhorse: ... as was the fact that you can't use all that S2 resolution on a tech camera, or view camera with full movements, that utilize optics that no MFD SLR can match, including Leica. A lot of MFD folks use Alpa, Cambo, Sinar, Rollei, etc. bodies with their MFD backs (something I don't think you can do with the Pentax either ... right?)

It is what it is, and doesn't seem to be a deterrent to those who want the S2 form factor over the modular MFD with a 4:3 format.

-Marc

 

[Paratom]

You can choose 3:4 in the d3x viewfinder by the way. yes you loose some pixel but framing works fine.
For me the interesting thing is that I get along fine with both ratios.
The only thing I often dont like is to have to crop afterwards because often it seems I frame the subject in a way it fits good in the viewfinder and sometimes it doesnt work any more if I have to crop it to a different format.

Reading through the responses above, I am a little surprised that nobody seems to be taking into account the fact that the 645D is a 4:3 format camera and the S2 is a 3:2 format camera. For me, cropping images is something to be avoided to the greatest extent possible, because I am always seeking to achieve the best possible IQ from my equipment, and as such, I cannot bear to throw away ~15% of an image's pixels during post processing to crop it into a more pleasing (to me, anyway) shape and I don't seem to be able to pre-visualize compositions I can't see on a ground-glass or LCD. To be honest, the 4:3 format was one of the factors behind my decision to move up to MF digital rather than to buy a Nikon D3x or some other high-res DSLR.

I understand that the 3:2 format is an important part of Leica's sacred legacy, so it makes sense Leica would so spec the S2, but I'm surprised that a camera's native format doesn't appear to be an issue for this forum's many pros, who are often incredibly picky about other aspects of a product's performance. Although I'm not a potential S2 buyer for other reasons (i.e., cost, although I suppose I could be persuaded to overlook this if the camera's performance was so much better than its competition in every other respect that I couldn't afford not to buy one), this fact alone certainly gives me pause ... is this really a complete non-issue for everybody else and I'm the only one who feels this way? <puzzled>

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well it's a very interesting topic actually . Most of us grew up in the 3:2 world but since shooting MF 4:3 i have grown to love this format framing and I simple do NOT crop almost never with this system. 4:3 matches my vision best and when i have to shoot 3:2 with my Sony I can feel the struggle to shoot 3:2 again. When I did the S2 review and Phase kit your working with both at the same time and it is very strange to do that but I did prefer the 4:3rds every time. The S2 would be a adjustment just like when i shoot the Sony it is a mental adjustment. I don't really like it but I have been shooting so long that you mentally find ways around it. I wish my Sony was 4:3 rds to be honest.
With this system I will crop and I hate to crop ever.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

Well it's a very interesting topic actually . Most of us grew up in the 3:2 world but since shooting MF 4:3 i have grown to love this format framing and I simple do NOT crop almost never with this system.

I was never comfortable with 3:2 and fell in love with square when I bought a used Minolta Autocord TLR way back when. I proceeded to shoot square almost exclusively until I discovered view cameras and then I slowly learned to work with the 4:5 format. But when I bought my first "serious" digital camera in late 2006 (a Panasonic DMC-L1, btw, because I was taken in by its old-school controls, such as the aperture ring on the lens!), I immediately fell for the 4:3 format and, like you, found that it "matches my vision best."

I don't really like it but I have been shooting so long that you mentally find ways around it.

Sort of like how a professional racecar driver learns to adapt his style to drive around a poor handling car, eh? Unfortunately, when I was racing cars, I was anything but a professional -- you think photography is an expensive hobby?! -- and my ability to adapt to a car that was handling poorly on the day was quite limited, despite my decent skill at hustling one that's handling well around a track fairly quickly.

I find the same to be sort of true with me and cameras. If I have to actually think about what I'm doing when using a camera, then the quality of my results falls off precipitously. Which is how I came to end up with a Contax 645 outfit, but that's another matter...

I wish my Sony was 4:3 rds to be honest.

I hate to say it, because I've since been thoroughly seduced by MFD's IQ, but if there was a high-res DSLR available in the 4:3 format, then I probably wouldn't have ended up with an MF system. If it also had Live View, then I almost certainly would have stopped short of MF digital ... for a while, anyway, as I'm sure the siren's song would have lured me here eventually!

 

[Audii-Dudii]

The only thing I often dont like is to have to crop afterwards because often it seems I frame the subject in a way it fits good in the viewfinder and sometimes it doesnt work any more if I have to crop it to a different format.

Apparently, I have little imagination, because I have to actually "see" an image before I can photograph it (which is why stitching doesn't work for me, at least with the gear I'm using now). And after I have photographed it, I can't seem to see anything except the image as it was captured.

I don't have any philosophical objection to cropping images, mind you, but it just doesn't seem to work very well for me.

 

[jonoslack]

I hate to say it, because I've since been thoroughly seduced by MFD's IQ, but if there was a high-res DSLR available in the 4:3 format, then I probably wouldn't have ended up with an MF system. If it also had Live View, then I almost certainly would have stopped short of MF digital ... for a while, anyway, as I'm sure the siren's song would have lured me here eventually!

Personally - despite several years shooting Olympus 4/3, I was really relieved to get back to 3:2 on the Sony . . . I wonder why that's why I haven't ended up with an MF system!

 

[fotografz]

For me the issue is end destination, not what I may like or not like.

I make $$ from prints and the clients mat and frame them ... 8X10s, 16X20s and so on. I hate making them buy custom frames and mats.

Plus, unless I remember to shoot the 3:2 loose enough, I get into trouble with not enough head room for the live subject width. 5X7s are a real headache.

So, I print 8X10s on 8,5X11 paper, 11X14s on 13X19 paper, and 16X20s on 17X22 paper. I don't consider it waste since it provides a white area around the image to hold the print in hand ... and allows for ease of matting.

Most wedding albums lend themselves to 8X10 ratios ... although the coffee table books can use just about anything.

Wish some 35mm DSLR maker would do a full res 4:3 ratio camera ... not a crop option, a full sensor. LOL!

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You hit a good point and the truth is you are correct if you actually have to think about the framing than yes you can fall short. As I teach on the workshops this is my big thing when i am walking around helping people with there shots , yes i am over there shoulder A LOT. I'm sure some would rather me go away. LOL But this is my forte is composition and framing. What I see is folks struggling with the camera to get what they think is correct and for some it's a real fight. Now as more experienced you get this gets more into just a flow with the mind. But I see a lot of folks really killing themselves to get there and it just takes time and learning composition and framing without actually thinking about it is hard to do and I try very hard to work with them and get that as natural as possible. It's not easy and it takes time and good understanding of composition. Honestly I think this maybe the hardest things to master in photography forget the gear but getting your head around making the image work is the key and a lot of that is composition and framing and if your struggling with aspect ratios than it will be very hard. Some love 3:2 and nothing wrong with that if they can do it right. For some reason 4:3rds fits the world better in my mind.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

For me the issue is end destination, not what I may like or not like.

And therein lies the fundamental difference between a professional and a hobbyist, as the only "customer" I ever have to please is myself! When push comes to shove, unlike you, I don't have to deliver the goods on any given day...

Wish some 35mm DSLR maker would do a full res 4:3 ratio camera ... not a crop option, a full sensor. LOL!

You and me both, brother!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm going to bring up last workshop for a second as we had one very nice gentleman come on it and he scared me to death as he would not really frame and compose in camera .What he would do is take handheld panos or tripod and do a upper horizontal pano a middle horizontal pano and a lower horizontal pano. So one shot maybe 30 or 40 images . He would than stitch that all together than from there crop to what he liked. Now i thought how the hell do you do that, it goes against every compositional shooting rule in the book. Well let me tell ya he blew me away with his images and no kidding gave me a whole different perspective on composing in camera because he came out with images that where composed and framed very nice and good images to. Basically his idea was to take a 4/3rd GF1 and get as much file as he could and he did that with stitching and such. Honestly he impressed the heck out of me.

Now here is the really scary part not only did he do the stitching for each shot he also did a bracket for each shot. So it actually was 3 shots per shot in each step in his pano. So to get ONE frame image at the end of the day it was like 90 frames to get there with bracketing. WOW

 

[Audii-Dudii]

I'm going to bring up last workshop for a second as we had one very nice gentleman come on it and he scared me to death as he would not really frame and compose in camera .What he would do is take handheld panos or tripod and do a upper horizontal pano a middle horizontal pano and a lower horizontal pano. So one shot maybe 30 or 40 images . He would than stitch that all together than from there crop to what he liked.

To each their own, eh? As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat...

That said, I can imagine how disorienting this experience must have been for you given your role as a teacher. What advice would you possibly be able to offer somebody who has such a working method?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well the bracketing just adds more fuel to the fire. That one I questioned but light does change and on a couple images you could see the differences in the stitch. But I was truly baffled and helped as much as I could on at least the intended area he was shooting. I did help a lot in post with processing and cropping but he really threw me for a loop and it is something that I have never seen and it will not be forgotten on my end. I totally give him a lot of credit though, he did shoot some really great stuff. He is a member here and hope he reads this , I know he will get a good laugh. I hope he does another workshop too, I got a real kick out of this.

His bottom line was to get the most from the 4/3rds out of it because shooting MF was something he could not do physically because of the weight issue and his back. Great problem solving solution for him.