Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 76 of 76

Thread: 645Z Going wild!

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    I'll have to agree with Dave, the 120mm vs. 150mm extreme corners at f/8 to f/11, the 150 is just a bit sharper/more even across the frame.
    I still have yet to do my sanity check by shooting a real-world subject at infinity using that tilted camera trick, maybe I'll do it today, but weather has been terrible. I need to know whether my 120/150 are in line with what others have, as Pentax lenses are known to have a lot of sample variance.

    Edit: I think I must have a really terrible 120mm sample, the corners on the 150mm are better at nearly every aperture than the macro: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/test.jpg
    Last edited by Kolor-Pikker; 19th May 2015 at 02:56.

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolor-Pikker View Post
    I'll have to agree with Dave, the 120mm vs. 150mm extreme corners at f/8 to f/11, the 150 is just a bit sharper/more even across the frame.
    I still have yet to do my sanity check by shooting a real-world subject at infinity using that tilted camera trick, maybe I'll do it today, but weather has been terrible. I need to know whether my 120/150 are in line with what others have, as Pentax lenses are known to have a lot of sample variance.

    Edit: I think I must have a really terrible 120mm sample, the corners on the 150mm are better at nearly every aperture than the macro: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/test.jpg
    Thanks for your observations! Again as I previously mentioned, its all relative. The Pentax 120mm was designed 1st and formost as a 1:1 true macro lens and thus its strongest performance is in closest subject distance range for it was optimized for. Infinity is furthest from this range of course.

    In 35mm cameras, I have a Sigma 150mm macro which also goes down to 1:1 and is as exceptional optically as the Pentax. It too does exceedingly well at all distances but it can be readily seen that at infinity and away from the center of the frame, sides/edges and corners are definitely lower in resolution. Its still has good detail there like the Pentax 120, but simply this distance doesn't play to its strength.

    In contrast, The Leica S 120 lens is a close focusing lens (macro only goes down to 1:2), which is significantly different than a 1:1 macro, and thus its easier for it to be optically to be stronger at longer distances (which it is), especially if lens was not optimized for min distance in it 1:2 close focusing range.

    Although I cannot speak for your given sample of 120 macro, it may be just fine...even in what you are observing at infinity....unless you find another sample that seems to do better at infinity subject distances.

    Oh I too did the tilt/angle test at infinity the days I was testing the Pentax vs Leica S macros...the actual flat field building at distance was a beautiful early 20th century structure with lots of ornate detail...somethings rarely seen in todays modern urban landscape.

    Dave (D&A)

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Thank you very much Joe, greatly appreciated.. Lou, you'll notice none of the new lenses like your 25mm, 28-45 zoom, 90mm macro amd a few older lenses like the manual focus 600 f5.6 are included in the posted results. I've tested multiple samples of these lenses too but since the intial posted report (Part I) simply haven't had time to write up Part II. Something always comes up to get in the way. I have though provided general feedback on each when asked.

    Dave (D&A)
    Dave
    Good stuff and most appreciated. In a few words can you please summarize your 645Z fingings with the 28-45 and 90 macro? I see your 45-85 analysis. Just got one used and will try to calibrate for a trip in 2 weeks. From what I read, you seem to calibrate each and every lens on the 645Z. I must be more thorough. Thanks for all your help.
    Lou

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Dave
    Good stuff and most appreciated. In a few words can you please summarize your 645Z fingings with the 28-45 and 90 macro? I see your 45-85 analysis. Just got one used and will try to calibrate for a trip in 2 weeks. From what I read, you seem to calibrate each and every lens on the 645Z. I must be more thorough. Thanks for all your help.
    Lou
    Lou, thank you for your kind words, its very much appreciated. Its all about sharing and I've derived so much info from yourself and many others in a great many areas.

    As usual I am at work and currently on my cell phone so for the time being what I'll do is cut and paste a bit of info regarding the 28-45 zoom you asked about from am email I sent to a forum member recently. I'll quickly make a few changes to shat I wrote him. Its quite general and lacks the specifics of my in depth testing of this lens but until I write up a comprehensive report, it will give you a head start on what to expect. Please keep in mind details like specific f stop performance each at three specific distances as such was not discussed nor in depth observations about field curavture or distortion to any great degree. OK, here is what I basically wrote in that email:

    "One of the last major in-depth lens testing with 645 lenses I did was a direct head to head comparison of the Pentax 25mm vs. the 28-45 zoom you mentioned....with the zoom set at 28mm of course and then tested the zoom alone throughout its range.

    At 25mm, the zoom is a sharper lens at the more open apertures, especially in the outer zones away from the center. The center resolution between the two are domewhat close...elsewhere less so (zoom sharper as mentioned). There is more field curvature and distortion in the zoom as expected in an overcorrected lens (which gives it its advanatge in sharpness), but for landscape work, its mostly kept in check in the so called reasonable range and is easily correctable in post processing.*

    The single focal length 25mm lens is often notorious for CA. Pentax was aware of this and redesigned the 25mm mid run and one of the things they did is to extend the hood over the front element (this now for a cropped sensor only) but it only had a mild effect in reducing it. The zoom exhibits quite a bit less in situations that trigger CA.

    The 25mm is a moderately hefty lens but the zoom is downright big and heavy and that in itself can be a big disadvanatage for some unless you are mostly using it tripod mounted or don't mind the extra weight and size for transport along with other gear.

    The zoom's range of course is ideal and matches well with the 45-85 zoom."

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 19th May 2015 at 12:21.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Dave
    I find this encouraging about the 28-45. Pehaps the extra 3mm the 25 gives me on long distance trips is not worth the extra weight or should I say opens up room for a 45-85.

    Have you had any luck with the new 90 macro? For me it seems to fill a nice gap especially if the 45-85 zoom is to be less used above 65-70mm. My question centers at this point on landscape use, but generally all uses.

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Hi Lou,

    The short answer is if one puts aside size and weight differences between the 25mm and 28-45mm zoom, in most all cases I'd much prefer the zoom vs. the 25mm. Their are exceptions though (seems there always is) and if one needed the lens that had lower distortion charateristics on the fly (say for a client to view on the spot), then the 25mm might be preferable. Same with say interior shots where the widest possible of angle of view was necessary...that 3mm might be important. For most other situations, the versitilty of the zoom is hard to ignor (again aside for the additional weight and size).

    Regarding the 90mm, there is no question that optically it is a superb lens, especially after having examined my test results, yet for me personally its a lens thats I often had trouble justifying. Its big, and relatively bulky for a single focal length 90mm medium format lens and is neither a true macro (goes down to 1:2 if I recall), and I wasn't enamored with it as a portrait lens. Too sharp for the latter. Although it would result in two lenses, I prefer having the 120mm macro and 150mm for portrait work. The latter is so light I often think they left out some of the elements .

    Of course all my comments haven't taken into account the vibration reduction capabilities and advanatges of the new lenses...which contributes greatly to their bulk and weight. Its a tradeoff in some ways.

    Dave (D&A).
    Last edited by D&A; 19th May 2015 at 16:43.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Your "too sharp" comment regarding the 90 macro reminds me of the old Hasselblad V 100/3.5 lens that many fashion/portrait photograhers complained was too sharp for their needs and that was like 30+ years ago.

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    Your "too sharp" comment regarding the 90 macro reminds me of the old Hasselblad V 100/3.5 lens that many fashion/portrait photograhers complained was too sharp for their needs and that was like 30+ years ago.
    .

    Yep...obviously great in lots of shooting situations but not what I personally would choose as a classic portrait lens (excepr if I was attempting to achieve a partiular look).

    Dave (D&A)

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Regarding the 90mm, there is no question that optically it is a superb lens, especially after having examined my test results, yet for me personally its a lens thats I often had trouble justifying. Its big, and relatively bulky for a single focal length 90mm medium format lens and is neither a true macro (goes down to 1:2 if I recall), and I wasn't enamored with it as a portrait lens. Too sharp for the latter. Although it would result in two lenses, I prefer having the 120mm macro and 150mm for portrait work. The latter is so light I often think they left out some of the elements .
    There are a couple of factors at play here, the first one is that Pentax is still betting on the fact that one day a full 645 sensor will become available, and continues to make lenses that can cover that format, minus the revised 25mm which may produce vignetting.

    The other factor is what I call the "Otus effect", where a lens can be anything from a $400 small plastic lens to a huge $4000 prime that's the size and weight of a 24-70mm zoom, but have the same basic parameters all to get that last 5% of performance. With the increasing demands of digital sensors, lenses are constantly getting bigger and heavier to give enough tolerance room for lens designers to create quality optics.

    With each new lens Pentax comes out with, I see them getting better at targeting the needs of high-res imaging, with the 55 & 25mm being where they dropped the ball on not anticipating the needs of these sensors. Even though 51mp is technically not much more than 40mp, the same lenses I've used on the D do feel softer on the Z, so I expect them to continue to over-design their lenses... this will come at larger weight and size of course.

    As for sharpness you can always turn it down during Raw conversion, you can soften something up, but you can't add back detail that's not there.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    I just must have received a very good 55/2.8 as I have nothing, but praise for it at my end.

  11. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    I just must have received a very good 55/2.8 as I have nothing, but praise for it at my end.
    It is a good lens, but not "ERMAHGURD this is what I left 35mm for" good, at least at wide open aperture. Maybe I'm just being unreasonable, but the 645Z needs "killer" lenses like small format cameras have, including the Otus, Sigma 50mm Art, and the Sony 55/1.8 - something that can resolve the sensor edge-to-edge, lack any sort of CA wide open and act as the centerpiece of the system.

    With the 55 SDM I find myself often stopping down to f/4+ to get good detail even when I don't need the extra depth of field, it's not as big a problem as on other systems due to the extreme usable ISO range, but I'd still rather take a sharp image at f2.8 and ISO1600 than f/4.5 and ISO4000.

    Also apologies to Pradeep for hijacking his thread.

  12. #62
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolor-Pikker View Post
    There are a couple of factors at play here, the first one is that Pentax is still betting on the fact that one day a full 645 sensor will become available, and continues to make lenses that can cover that format, minus the revised 25mm which may produce vignetting.

    The other factor is what I call the "Otus effect", where a lens can be anything from a $400 small plastic lens to a huge $4000 prime that's the size and weight of a 24-70mm zoom, but have the same basic parameters all to get that last 5% of performance. With the increasing demands of digital sensors, lenses are constantly getting bigger and heavier to give enough tolerance room for lens designers to create quality optics.

    With each new lens Pentax comes out with, I see them getting better at targeting the needs of high-res imaging, with the 55 & 25mm being where they dropped the ball on not anticipating the needs of these sensors. Even though 51mp is technically not much more than 40mp, the same lenses I've used on the D do feel softer on the Z, so I expect them to continue to over-design their lenses... this will come at larger weight and size of course.

    As for sharpness you can always turn it down during Raw conversion, you can soften something up, but you can't add back detail that's not there.
    Completely agree with your assessments that the 25 and 55mm lenses fell short in addressing the potential of both the 645D and 645z, especially that the 25mm was initially a $5,000 lens. The 55mm was an entry way lens much like the original FA 75mm was a entry way lens for the film 645 body. In that case some design compromises had to be made in order to reach a certain price point.

    The reason images (especially those from the higher resolving new lenses) seem softer on the 645z is because of its use of a CMOS sensor vs. the 645D's CCD. If the same lens is used on both cameras to take the identical image and then sharpened appropriately for each camera, the differences in sharpness and ability to resolve detail is virtually the same.

    Some samples of the 55mm are a bit sharper on edges and sides than others but if one examines their files carefully at higher magnification and are critical in their assessments, its generally noted that there is gradual falloff of side, edge and corner sharpness on most samples. Those areas are good but not great.

    There are a number of reasons newely introduced lenses are designed for full frame 645. One is as you pointed out, the potential for a full frame 645 digital camera in the future. Secondly after Pentax scrapped its entire line of full frame 35mm lenses when they entered the digital fray with APS sensor DSLR's, they didn't take into account that one day they might re-enter that arena. They didn't want to make that mistake twice. Lastly there is still a good size contingent in Japan that still shoots with Pentax 645 film cameras.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 20th May 2015 at 09:00.

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolor-Pikker View Post
    .................

    Also apologies to Pradeep for hijacking his thread.
    No apologies needed, I am quite enjoying the wealth of information that is welling up in the fount of knowledge that this forum has become for me.

    You always learn from your betters and also from your peers. It is a great experience and I for one am very grateful.

    Pradeep
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    I just must have received a very good 55/2.8 as I have nothing, but praise for it at my end.
    I defense of wide angle lenses (the 55 is not really wide but it is not a portrait lens either), who shoots them wide open? What would be the point? Most WA lenses are used for landscape/street photography where you want as much DOF as possible, and if the light is low, you put it on a tripod and get your image.

    It is the longer lenses, like the 200 or over that are much more important wide open. They are the 'portrait' lenses of wildlife and just like the 85-120mm range for humans, for birds and animals th e 200-600 length is where one needs quality at the highest aperture. You need not only the smooth bokeh, but unlike the unforgiving sharpness of the Pentax 90, you need it to be super sharp as well. That is hard to do and that is why good long teles are so expensive.

    And so while I am happy to stop down a wide lens, I would prefer I did not have to do so with a 200mm or longer one.

    Pradeep
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    462
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    I defense of wide angle lenses (the 55 is not really wide but it is not a portrait lens either), who shoots them wide open? What would be the point? Most WA lenses are used for landscape/street photography where you want as much DOF as possible, and if the light is low, you put it on a tripod and get your image.
    In the fun with MF and tech cam threads I've seen lots of interesting shots made with lenses like the Rodie 32HR wide open at f/4 and the effect is very pleasant IMO, yet the optics are well-corrected enough to even produce a tack sharp image. I would leave things like this open to choice, rather than what you are and aren't supposed to do, ideally aperture should only control depth of field and not be stopped down for technical reasons, on any lens.

    In fact, the unique look of very wide lenses at open aperture on medium and large format is something that a lot of photographers are trying to emulate as of late, by stitching shots from say an 85mm lens on 35mm to create a "virtual" FoV equivalent to a 85mm lens on 6x7 or larger.

    Today I was around the city and took shots with the 55 at every aperture from f/4 to f/9, and while there were some shots I would have liked to take at f/2.8, I knew it wouldn't have been able to handle the backlighting from the sun.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolor-Pikker View Post
    In the fun with MF and tech cam threads I've seen lots of interesting shots made with lenses like the Rodie 32HR wide open at f/4 and the effect is very pleasant IMO, yet the optics are well-corrected enough to even produce a tack sharp image. I would leave things like this open to choice, rather than what you are and aren't supposed to do, ideally aperture should only control depth of field and not be stopped down for technical reasons, on any lens.

    In fact, the unique look of very wide lenses at open aperture on medium and large format is something that a lot of photographers are trying to emulate as of late, by stitching shots from say an 85mm lens on 35mm to create a "virtual" FoV equivalent to a 85mm lens on 6x7 or larger.

    Today I was around the city and took shots with the 55 at every aperture from f/4 to f/9, and while there were some shots I would have liked to take at f/2.8, I knew it wouldn't have been able to handle the backlighting from the sun.
    I see what you are saying. But that is what I would call 'being creative' which is how people use the Lensbaby type of gear, to get something different, a look that has not been tried and it can certainly be very effective in certain situations.

    I agree about there being 'too much light' sometimes. As photographers we are always complaining about there not being enough (certainly where wildlife is concerned since the best action occurs around the blue hour). I too had that problem with my Leica summilux 50 on the M bodies, just could not shoot at 1.4 wide open since there was way too much light in the daytime. Even with the max shutter speed of 1/4000 I would blow out some of the highlights.

    One thing about Leica though, their lenses are superb and the size is unbelievable. The 28 elmarit I have can fit in my jeans pocket and is super sharp. The price is super too, but that's one place I would say it is probably worth it, in this realm of unrealistic ambitions and pricing by manufacturers.

    Just realized, I meant the Leica lenses for the 35mm bodies, some maybe overpriced but most are superb and the greatest appeal is the size and quality.

    Pradeep
    Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........

  17. #67
    Senior Member David Schneider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    509
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Based my my daughter & son-in-law's trip on safari in SA, you've made a wise choice. As you said, animals are much closer to you in SA compared to, say, Kenya. That gives you more opportunities and as you are closer to the animals, makes using MF a lot easier.

  18. #68
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    No way I'm gonna take that much gear

    I'm looking into solar chargers and will probably get one for the trip.

    It must be time for your travel Pradeep, have a fantastic trip!
    Looking forward to see some images when you come back.

    Peter

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    Peter, in the end you may end up with just as much gear as me on my trip

    Seriously though, there are solar chargers now with USB ports that you can charge your iPhone off of. I have one that is slightly bigger than a letter-sized sheet of paper, can be folded when not being used, weighs very little. I am sure there are others that can generate more current too.

    Pradeep
    Peter
    My website

  19. #69
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    Pradeep: I'm not a wildlife photographer, but I sometimes shoot birds since they are prevalent where I live and I enjoy the images.
    You may say you are not a wildlife photographer, Tom, but the photos say otherwise. These are amazing images, the last in particular. I shoot 4x5 film and keep toying with the idea of splurging for a MF back and technical camera, but as a hobbyist hard to justify the expense. Your images on a 645D (which B&H sells new for under $5,000) makes me think that I should give up on the technical camera idea (and movements) and get one of those. (The 645Z is affordable too, but I like the look of the CFA on the CCD chip better.) Then again no back or camera will magically give me your skill set.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Way, way too much kit IMO. Its not weight or even physical clutter that will be the issue, but brain clutter. You will have too many options and choices, resulting in less immersion into 'the zone'.

    I'd keep the 645z as the core kit (most lenses), with Canon in support and overing the long end. Leave the 1D X at home, bring the very able 7D II (if you need amazing high ISO the 645Z can cover) with 100-400 II and a wide zoom, like 24-70.

    If you have or will buy a metabones, the A7R body only can come to augment the Canon kit and have another lens attached and ready to rock, but if its only for a 35mm walkaround, I would leave it at home, for sure. If its worth photographing, I suspect you will get out the big gun 645z!

    As for the 645Z, I'd probably also drop the 55mm DA and go for the 45-85 zoom for more flexibility. Add a few teles and you are set. If either kit dies, you can get thru fine on the other kit. If not, you can keep your 645z on one side for the more purposeful and closer shots and the Eos rig with appropriate lens attached for fast action and long reach. Simple.

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,427
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobalobo View Post
    You may say you are not a wildlife photographer, Tom, but the photos say otherwise. These are amazing images, the last in particular. I shoot 4x5 film and keep toying with the idea of splurging for a MF back and technical camera, but as a hobbyist hard to justify the expense. Your images on a 645D (which B&H sells new for under $5,000) makes me think that I should give up on the technical camera idea (and movements) and get one of those. (The 645Z is affordable too, but I like the look of the CFA on the CCD chip better.) Then again no back or camera will magically give me your skill set.
    Thanks very much for the compliments, it's appreciated. I was concerned about changing to CMOS in the 645Z as well, but honestly don't see any significant difference. Yes the Z and D render color slightly differently, but I don't have a strong preference and the live view and high ISO of the Z are considerable advantages especially with long lenses. Either camera produces great files.

    Since you use 4x5, I've listed a link below to a 645D(Z) adapter to use on 4x5. I haven't tried it, but have been tempted. I assume it would only allow focus with longer focal length lenses:

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/150755497910...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

    Below are two shots comparing the Z and D (75mm lens, f/8) allowing the camera to determine exposure time. I should add these were RAW files opened with ACR with no adjustments and shot under mixed lighting using AWB, I did no post processing. Neither camera captured the orange hue of the daylily very well, but the Z is closer:

    645Z
    IMGP0788 copy by tsjanik47, on Flickr

    645D
    _IGP6026 copy by tsjanik47, on Flickr

  22. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Thanks for the comparison (and link), Tom, and you're right, if anything I prefer the Z image better also, though the point being, as you say, that the differences are small enough to disappear in settings and processing. On a different thread, an experienced contributor on this forum suggested that the Sony chip may be somewhat weaker on clarity (which I take to be micro-contrast) than the CCD backs, but that I run through Topaz clarity fixes this. If that's true then, price aside, I agree CMOS is the way to go.

    My one hesitation (assuming that I ever gain the courage to spend $10,000 or more on a camer system) is that so far, without exception, the truly breathtaking medium format landscape photos I've seen--the ones that have colors and images that jump of the page--are from CCD sensors. Then again, the Sony chip is new and more CMOS sensors are sure to follow. Thanks again.

  23. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    The best MF photos would be from CCD, because CMOS sensors have been around for no time at all, so the images are not there yet. Nobody feels this way about 35mm images, because CCD is long gone for the main part.

    I own a Monochrom Mk I and am under no illusions about the CCD. I love the images it produces, but would not expect them to look any better at the same low ISO than those from the Mk II Monochrom, when both are processed optimally.

    The clarity issue is partly a feature of dynamic range, I think. There is just so much of it with the 645Z and then there are the lenses, where legacy A and FA lenses do not generate the contrast of much more modern lenses, generally speaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobalobo View Post
    Thanks for the comparison (and link), Tom, and you're right, if anything I prefer the Z image better also, though the point being, as you say, that the differences are small enough to disappear in settings and processing. On a different thread, an experienced contributor on this forum suggested that the Sony chip may be somewhat weaker on clarity (which I take to be micro-contrast) than the CCD backs, but that I run through Topaz clarity fixes this. If that's true then, price aside, I agree CMOS is the way to go.

    My one hesitation (assuming that I ever gain the courage to spend $10,000 or more on a camer system) is that so far, without exception, the truly breathtaking medium format landscape photos I've seen--the ones that have colors and images that jump of the page--are from CCD sensors. Then again, the Sony chip is new and more CMOS sensors are sure to follow. Thanks again.

  24. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by turtle View Post
    The best MF photos would be from CCD, because CMOS sensors have been around for no time at all, so the images are not there yet. Nobody feels this way about 35mm images, because CCD is long gone for the main part.
    Point taken.

    The clarity issue is partly a feature of dynamic range, I think. There is just so much of it with the 645Z and then there are the lenses, where legacy A and FA lenses do not generate the contrast of much more modern lenses, generally speaking.
    This makes a lot of sense, and I recall noticing the same thing even on tiny-sensor pocket-cameras when they switched from CCD to CMOS. And it this is all or largely what is going on, then it would seem that the CMOS dominates as one can always adjust contrast in post-process and no one would rationally spend $10,000 or more (sometimes much more) without adjusting images in post.

    But, and here's the thing, I've yet to see a landscape image from the Sony chip on which the photographer chose to replicate the micro-contrast of the many dozens of breathtaking MF CCD images that can be found and these differences can be seen even on a computer screen. (Recently, for example, I looked at the sample images on Phase One's site, and even on a computer screen could distinguish the CCD and CMOS images without fail.) So while I've been convinced that there is no inherent limitation in the CMOS chips (CFAs aside), I do wonder why this pattern seems to persist. This said I am no expert, not close, just a consumer of information on this topic, which interests me. So I thank you and others who are willing to share their knowledge.

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Lobalobo, its a hot issue that causes flame wars, but we can only report what we see, right?

    I know that I had to be quite a lot more aggressive with the 645Z files than even the A7R, simply because 14+ stops of DR (it feels like more with the 645Z vs the A7R) plus legacy lenses (rather than Zeiss FE) meant flat files. I think this difference causes people to be taken aback. I know I was, after working with Canon's 11.7 stop 5D III files and they're still CMOS! There may be other, more fundamental differences, but I can't say I see them myself. Manufacturers sometimes post awful 'example files' for their cameras, so I would not be surprised if Phase One was just allowing the 'base file' differences from the CCD vs CMOS to show through. I would not know.

  26. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    68
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z Going wild!

    Quote Originally Posted by turtle View Post
    Lobalobo, its a hot issue that causes flame wars, but we can only report what we see, right?

    I know that I had to be quite a lot more aggressive with the 645Z files than even the A7R, simply because 14+ stops of DR (it feels like more with the 645Z vs the A7R) plus legacy lenses (rather than Zeiss FE) meant flat files. I think this difference causes people to be taken aback. I know I was, after working with Canon's 11.7 stop 5D III files and they're still CMOS! There may be other, more fundamental differences, but I can't say I see them myself. Manufacturers sometimes post awful 'example files' for their cameras, so I would not be surprised if Phase One was just allowing the 'base file' differences from the CCD vs CMOS to show through. I would not know.
    All perfectly sensible and your point about Canon's files being less flat further supports the view of every engineer I've seen who's opined on this: that there is nothing inherently limiting about a CMOS as compared to CCD technology, quite the opposite. The only question, then, is why so many perceive an advantage to the CCD images and your explanation is persuasive. And, needless to say, anyone who buys a MF camera or back in order to present just the "base file" as you put it, is likely wasting his or her money. Thanks.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •