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!

Price drops for Phase one backs....

FredBGG

Not Available
Just to clarify what I say here - Fred - if you read my post, you'll see that I wrote "Medium format has done a good job of pushing entry level pricing to more reasonable levels"...

That includes Pentax, and at times Phase One (before the P20+/21+/25+ were discontinued) as well as Leaf (Aptus-II 22, 28, etc...), and Hasselblad (H3D-II 31). The point was the pricing, not the subjective merits of the products.


Steve Hendrix
I simply wanted to make two points.

First is give a heads up that Phase One is discounting. I found out through an email from a dealer. I thought I would pass it on because it is not on the Phase One website yet.

My other point in response to Steve Hendrix is that I do not think that MF in general has done a good job at lowering prices. If anything the huge progress from 35mm DSLR manufacturers is forcing them to do so. I think it is very significant that Pentax, a high volume 35mm DSLR manufacturer, makes the best deal and best body when comparing 44x33mm sensor cameras.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
"Not so nice bokeh"? This is lens specific, nothing to do with back/ body

Yair
Well I hate to break the news to you but the body indirectly has a lot to do with the bokeh.
You see there is this thing on the front called a bayonet mount and electronic communication
between lens and body...... so you can only mount compatible lenses if you want to maintain full functionality.

The phase one lenses with the exception of the 150mm 2.8 IF are not particularly nice when it comes to bokeh. That said the 150mm 2.8 IF is really really good and I've said that before.

I have also given praise where it is merited. One good thing about the Phase one body is that thanks to the focal plane shutter you can use some 3rd party lenses using adapters and well a older 645 lenses.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Fred,

I am also interested in knowing why the H4D prism is not so good, it is obviously not a WLF or a loupe but as a prism it works very well in my opinion.

Joris.
It works, but it could be far better. It's a professional camera and photographers like me have shoots that can go over 8 hours.

My problem with the prism is that you have to keep your eye really centered for viewing to be good. Prisms that are really good are the high eyepoint Nikon prisms and the best of all being the Fuji gx680 Prism that is actually just a highly polished mirror and an eyepiece. However that eyepiece has a very large rear element and large magnification.

I think that both Hasselblad and Phase one went with to compact a design for their prisms (the Phase One is better though IMO). Both have really crappy eyecups. Considering the price of their systems there should at least be a few more eyepiece options. Just look at what is offered on high end movie cameras. I would not even call phase ones eye cup and eyecup.

Here is what a proper eyecup looks like:



Notice how you don't have your nose stuffed up against the camera back.

Being in Southern California I shoot on the beaches and in the desert. I hate it when stray light is getting in the lens and it's especially a pain in the *** when using ND filter and polarizers for shallow depth of field.

What complicates things even more is that the prism of both the Hasselblad and Phase one are irregular shapes so it is hard to fit any third party professional level eyecups to it like the Bisley scope maximizer and the I-cuff

Here are some more images of proper eyecups.





I brought up the issue of a better eyecup with Phase One USA, but they said they would not make an eyecup for the DF. I even pointed them to the Bisley scope maximizer that could be easily have a plate made for it to attach to a DF with rotation. It would avoid the cost of a mould.

One thing that people don't realize is that a really good eyecup with some weight and stiffness to it contributes to more stability. IMHO the Bisley scope maximizer makes a world of difference in stability.

Here is the Fuji Prism with a Phase One back to give you a better idea of the size of the eyepiece.



and here is the "little rubber cushion" on the back of the Phase One

 

yaya

Active member
Yair ... if you read my post it was a comparison between 44x33 entry level sensors.
Right....do you think that Pentax see and/ or market the 645D as their "entry level 44x33mm 40MP product"? It's the most expensive Pentax flagship ever made for crying out loud!
Have you compared the bokeh on the Pentax 55mm/2.8 to the Schneider 55mm/2.8 LS or the Hasselblad HC50? Any insights or examples?
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
I simply wanted to make two points.

First is give a heads up that Phase One is discounting. I found out through an email from a dealer. I thought I would pass it on because it is not on the Phase One website yet.

My other point in response to Steve Hendrix is that I do not think that MF in general has done a good job at lowering prices. If anything the huge progress from 35mm DSLR manufacturers is forcing them to do so. I think it is very significant that Pentax, a high volume 35mm DSLR manufacturer, makes the best deal and best body when comparing 44x33mm sensor cameras.

On the issue of lowering prices we can agree to disagree. But until recent years, pricing on digital backs averaged roughly $16K - $30K. In just the past few years, while top end pricing has maintained or gone up, entry level (which was my point) has gone down to start around $7,000. I don't have an opinion on the significance of Pentax in response, particularly regarding the subjective usage of the term "best".


Steve Hendrix
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think it is fine to have "pot stirrers" and their supportive minions. Keeps things lively.

No one has to read anything anyone says if they don't want to. It is also natural that those with different experiences and different personal tastes may well disagree, and say so.

A few thoughts:

Personally, I'm not stepping backwards to 35mm from any maker at any megapixel as my main Image Quality tool, nor am I about to start shooting 5X7, 4X5 or 8X10 film again, even though I like the aesthetic ... for someone else, not me.

Liking someone's work isn't the same as liking the same tools for your work, unless you want to be like someone else.

I do not mix up Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax, Rollei, etc.. They are different approaches that happen to be 645 based MFD. Painting a format with a broad brush based on a like or dislike of one make or model, or a personal experience is unfair. Also, if you are directionless, you could probably end up trying all of them eventually and never be satisfied ... then leap on every new gadget the makers dream-up and sell with the ferocity of an evangelist.

Or, you may know exactly what your direction is, and be perfectly content with something other than MFD. Never the twain shall meet.

I do no buy the premise that MFD is for slowing down because of the gear. I shoot candid and structured wedding work with MFD, and there is NOTHING slow about shooting a wedding. Of course, I don't machine gun everything and cross my fingers ... never have.

I do not buy that all MFDs are low ISO machines. "Low" is a relative word. My H4D/40 did a beautiful 1600. Most 35mm DSLRs that do higher ISOs introduce to many image compromises beyond 1600/3200 for my tastes ... so it is a non-issue IMO. Besides, I often use lighting anyway.

I understand the desire for weather proofing ... for some users. Weather proofing is another non-issue for me. My subjects aren't out frolicking in the rain after $2,000 worth of wardrobe/hair&make-up, and either do I without some cover. Besides, I've been caught in a howling Monsoon down pour a few times that soaked me to my shorts in a few seconds, and the H camera just kept on shooing. Tight tolerances perhaps?

Pricing is also relative. Depends on how long you've been in MFD, when and how you paid for the initial price of entry, and how wise you were in up-grading. If starting from scratch today, in this economic climate, it has to give one pause. However, if you are pretty focused on your creative direction the path will be clearer, either way.

-Marc
 

dick

New member
Right....do you think that Pentax see and/ or market the 645D as their "entry level 44x33mm 40MP product"? It's the most expensive Pentax flagship ever made for crying out loud!
I was put off Pentax by their TV ad, which said:

"When the talk comes round to cameras, simply say that you have a Pentax"

¿Do they still sell cameras to talk about?

Have they ¿like Mamiya? made some progress in the last 40 years?

Yes.. Hasselblad have also changed...

They no longer build "the standard" mount compatible digibacks.
 

SergeiR

New member
I think it is very significant that Pentax, a high volume 35mm DSLR manufacturer
They are pretty small, actually. Nor they do make 35mm dSLR, actually, but sub-35mm dSLR. Even in Japan they got only 7.5% share of market as of 2011. Across all the SLRs they got
- worst AF (precision + speed)
- worst ISO response (as in - iso is actuallys sub- for real iso response, about 75%)
- worst stabilization (never got past ancient patents, Olympus and Minolta got way better performance there, comparing in-body stabs)

If it werent for samsung making clones and (receding) army of fans (specially in Eastern European countries, who had piles of m42 optics they like to reuse) who were waiting for 645 and still waiting on full frame 35mm - they'd be deader than dodo.

So revolutionary they are not. But it was good of them to finally make good on 2 decades of promisses and finally make attempt on MF market.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
They are pretty small, actually. Nor they do make 35mm dSLR, actually, but sub-35mm dSLR. Even in Japan they got only 7.5% share of market as of 2011. Across all the SLRs they got
- worst AF (precision + speed)
- worst ISO response (as in - iso is actuallys sub- for real iso response, about 75%)
- worst stabilization (never got past ancient patents, Olympus and Minolta got way better performance there, comparing in-body stabs)
Can you link to where that information in performance. Especially ISO where Pentax still has some of the best APS-C sensors, at least in reference to DoX Mark.

BTW, Minolta has not been making cameras for about seven years. Are you saying Pentax is worse than a seven-year old Minolta 6MP DSLR?

As far as AF speed and precision, I think you will find the 645D giving all the MFD cameras out there a run for their money. Can you even tune the AF in say a Mamiya to specific lenses? Multi-point AF?

If it werent for samsung making clones and (receding) army of fans (specially in Eastern European countries, who had piles of m42 optics they like to reuse) who were waiting for 645 and still waiting on full frame 35mm - they'd be deader than dodo.

So revolutionary they are not. But it was good of them to finally make good on 2 decades of promisses and finally make attempt on MF market.
I understand the sales of the 645D have been very good. Certain their "attempt" has resulted in a modern MFD camera unlike their competitors that have done very little to update their models. In the MF world, the 645D is revolutionary, but that is maybe because of the low bar set by the competition.

Naturally, Pentax was just sold to Ricoh and so we will have to see what that means. But at the time Ricoh announced that it was going to continue to pursue their MFD line.

And while we are at it, perhaps we can compare the Pentax 645D ISO 1600 (unbinned) and multi-minute exposures with the MF competition.
 
Last edited:

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I can go along with Fred on the viewfinder issue, on the DF, if you're looking into it at any angle other that perfectly straight, forget it. Pain in the neck for us shooting on a copy table and trying to get accurate polarization.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
They are pretty small, actually.
Ummm... compared to what? Olympus with only the E-5 left? Sony that seems to go all EVF now? Sigma? That leaves Nikon and Canon at the top before Pentax. I call that major. And when it comes to digital MF, there aren't many competitors either, so they're a major player there as well.
 

ondebanks

Member
Well I hate to break the news to you but the body indirectly has a lot to do with the bokeh.
You see there is this thing on the front called a bayonet mount and electronic communication
between lens and body...... so you can only mount compatible lenses if you want to maintain full functionality.

The phase one lenses with the exception of the 150mm 2.8 IF are not particularly nice when it comes to bokeh. That said the 150mm 2.8 IF is really really good and I've said that before.

I have also given praise where it is merited. One good thing about the Phase one body is that thanks to the focal plane shutter you can use some 3rd party lenses using adapters and well a older 645 lenses.
Fred, you can even in principle use the Pentax 645 lenses, whose bokeh you love, on the Mamiya/Phase bodies! The difference of 7.57mm in the flange focal distance is enough to permit this, although I've yet to see someone make an adapter*. Naturally, there will only be manual focus operation and manual aperture control, but that works a-ok for me and many others with our M645 lenses.

Ray

* One perhaps unfair interpretation for the lack of an adapter is that there is no Pentax 645 lens that anyone would especially want to put on a Mamiya - i.e. for every P645 lens there's already an equally good Mamiya lens.
 

SergeiR

New member
Can you link to where that information in performance. Especially ISO where Pentax still has some of the best APS-C sensors, at least in reference to DoX Mark.
you dont want to get me started on DoX, trust me :)

It is not one of best sensors (unless we count all of them in one batch), i have shot on exact same scenes side by side with Pentax reporters for years, when i did event shoots while visiting Russia. I had very very good chance to compare results. It is just a sensor. More or less ok. Nothing super brilliant about it.

Remark about ISO is based purely on number of situations (and considering i am doing quite a number of them every year - its more than couple of occasions) when i am doing workshops in Russia, and i would meter scene for students, explain how it all works, how and where histogram would go. And then out of group of 10-14 people i always have only poor soul with Pentax dSLR (different models) who gets scene underexposed by range of 0.7-1.5 Ev. After few years, i just give them fair warning, originally it was confusing as hell, b/c you get people with Nikons, Canons, Olympuses , Sony/Minoltas who are all fine.. So - my trust to that system went seriously down.

BTW, Minolta has not been making cameras for about seven years. Are you saying Pentax is worse than a seven-year old Minolta 6MP DSLR?
yes. And results from Olympus E-1 from same age on iso 100 are better too.

Sony inherited Minolta's stab, and they didnt do much to it. So it is essentually same tech.

As far as AF speed and precision, I think you will find the 645D giving all the MFD cameras out there a run for their money. Can you even tune the AF in say a Mamiya to specific lenses? Multi-point AF?
where exactly did i said anything about AF on 645D?


And while we are at it, perhaps we can compare the Pentax 645D ISO 1600 (unbinned) and multi-minute exposures with the MF competition.
Why? I personally couldnt care less for iso 1600 (and Live View for that matter, or video). Give me GOOD iso 25/50/100/400 and leaf shutter.

I.e i am not bashing Pentax. I am just saying that dSLR sub-35mm Pentax is not something i would ever consider as a "thing".

I am glad them delivered on 645 that has been in blue prints for so many years and people yearned for it. I am glad that there is allegedly decent AF system and some good quality - it makes other MF manufacturers to act. And i dont mind price reductions that would come from this and/or technology upgrades/exchanges (except for video!) .

But my original remark was purely about Pentax as major player on dSLR market.


Bloomberg numbers:

Worldwide Digital Camera Market Shares by Vendor
====================================================
Vendor 2010 2009
----------------------------------------------------
Canon 19 19
Sony 17.9 16.9
Nikon 12.6 11.1
Samsung 11.1 10.9
Kodak 7.4 8.8
Panasonic 7.6 7.6
Olympus 6.1 6.2
Fuji 4.9 5.4
Casio 4 4.7
PENTAX 1.5 1.7
Vivitar 1.2 0.7
Other 6.7 7

(cant find Bloomberg report for 2011, sorry)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
But my original remark was purely about Pentax as major player on dSLR market.


Bloomberg numbers:

Worldwide Digital Camera Market Shares by Vendor
====================================================
Vendor 2010 2009
----------------------------------------------------
Canon 19 19
Sony 17.9 16.9
Nikon 12.6 11.1
Samsung 11.1 10.9
Kodak 7.4 8.8
Panasonic 7.6 7.6
Olympus 6.1 6.2
Fuji 4.9 5.4
Casio 4 4.7
PENTAX 1.5 1.7
Vivitar 1.2 0.7
Other 6.7 7

(cant find Bloomberg report for 2011, sorry)
But only 5 of those vendors sell DSLRs, and two of them, Sony and Olympus are on their way out of that market (although Sony SLT can be considered being a kind of semi-DSLR).
 

FredBGG

Not Available
"Way better auto focus"? Compared to Pentax?



Yair
OK..... lets elaborate on the autofocus of the 3 MFD systems.

Phase One:
Three focus sensors located very close to the center of the screen.
No indication of which sensor locks or attempts to lock focus.
Focus lock indicator is at the bottom of the screen.
No end user calibration can be performed.
No auto compensation of focus when focusing and recomposing.

Hasselblad H4:
Only center focusing point, but the system includes true focus that auto adjusts focus when recomposing significantly improving focus and making the use of auto focus on features away from the center of frame in the final composition way more accurate. The photographer however has to take care not to move forwards or backwards when recomposing.

Pentax 645D:
User adjustable focus calibration.
11 point focus sensor with precise focusing screen indicators. Also indicates what point is locking focus. Has focus sensors most spread out for a MFD system permiting more accurate focus and less focus and recompose.
 
Top