Pentax 645Z vs A7RII IQ and bang for the buck

[turtle]

I agree with previous comments that the 28-45 is better at 35mm than the 35mm A lens. Colour, contrast and CA are evidently better and resolution is a touch higher, but the A series lens is still superb and a much better option if you can do without the flexibility and SR of the zoom. Personally, I prefer the zoom, because I like to tweak the focal length as needed and its wonderful to have prime lens quality while doing so.

Back onto the A7R II and 645Z comparison, I agree the Z has an edge and produces superior textural detail. That said the A7R II isn't far behind at all. The system just needs better lenses at the wide end to compete with the Z. Comparing my 28-45mm with the 35mm FE Sonnar on the A7R, the Sony cannot come close in edge performance. The Z is perfect across the frame, although one has to look out for curvature that creeps in at the long end, which can affect the centre bottom of frame softer than the corners if you focus too far into the scene for the given aperture.

At some point the Z will be replaced with 70 or 80MP update, one assumes, so then what? I think the decision is simple: if you want a Z get a Z. If you want a Sony because its not that far behind and much smaller and cheaper, get the Sony. Both are incredible. The Z has the edge for now IMHO and will leap ahead again when the same sort of pixel pitch and BSI sensor hits the Z, but this won't matter to most people, because both already provide all the quality most need. I look at my Z files and for the first time ever conclude that I could shoot this camera without ever wanting more, for colour and B&W. Its that good.

On the price front, its worth doing the maths. A 645Z with 35mm A a 75mm FA and a few used zooms is no more expensive that the A7R II and a bunch of the latest Sony/Zony/Zeiss optics... Food for thought. My personal decision has been to continue investing in the Pentax and keep my Sony kit (Mk I bodies) as a fairly simple one. I may add a 21mm Loxia or 25mm Batis at a later point, but for my more structure landscape work, the Pentax is the one that satisfies me most. The 4:3 aspect ratio is also a part of that equation. I far prefer it for landscape work. For travel, the decision would be simple: Sony all the way...

 

[wagabundo]

Hi Paul,

110LS and/or 120mm would be a nice fit to fill the gap between the 80LS and 150mm.

Might as well get the 240LS too since you're shopping.

:ROTFL:

here it is

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/gear-fs...af-mamiya-phase-one-645df-mint-condition.html

 

[hcubell]

Thanks Howard, that's made the decision for me. I will probably get another A7RII body now. Wonder why the A7SII is the same price with a lower MP resolution. Just the enhanced video capabilities should not push the price up that much. I guess they don't want it to eat up into the RII sales.

Looked at your Rajasthan gallery. Very good stuff. I am not into portraits, especially those of indigenous peoples, I have a problem with that. But that's just my problem I guess. In any case, I grew up with such sights around me so it is nothing 'exotic' as far as I am concerned. The vistas and little streets of the villages still fascinate me, so that would be my focus, of course apart from the iconic monuments and historical artifacts.

Portraits are generally not my thing either, but for me, India was all about amazingly interesting and friendly people and explosions of color. I did not think of them as "indigenous" any more than I think of people in Paris as "indigenous." I was not on a photography workshop. On my own. I did run into a couple of workshop groups who had hired local residents to "pose" for the photographers. I don't object to it on moral grounds. I just find that contrived. I believe you should find your own voice.
As a setting for landscape photography, I did not go there expecting to find "vistas" and I did not.

 

[Jon Warwick]

I look at my Z files and for the first time ever conclude that I could shoot this camera without ever wanting more, for colour and B&W. Its that good.

I'd be intrigued to understand why you especially like the Z files (I think I recall you've been a Monochrom, and Mamiya 7 user too in the past? - apols if not the case!). Do you think it's the Z's high 50mp res that you like, or are you seeing a MF "look" and higher IQ due to the larger sensor?

I'm asking because i've recently tried the Leica S (a new Leica S-E and 70mm lens is now < £ 8k these days), and i see a large difference in the image quality from the S vs. any M camera I've used (M240, Monochrom etc). I'm not sure if it's a higher MP thing that is giving this impression when i review the comparison images in VERY large prints, or if it's the S's larger "medium format" sensor, or if it's the absolute world class (albeit bulkier) S lenses ..... or a mix of all these things. But i see higher res, much better smoothness, and much better tonality that gives a more "3D look" from the S. Similar to 35mm vs. 6x7 film differences!

One thing's for sure, the S noticeably surpasses M image quality - and hence was curious why you think the Z is also "that good" to see if i can understand what i'm seeing with the Leica S? Many thanks!

 

[Pradeep]

Portraits are generally not my thing either, but for me, India was all about amazingly interesting and friendly people and explosions of color. I did not think of them as "indigenous" any more than I think of people in Paris as "indigenous." I was not on a photography workshop. On my own. I did run into a couple of workshop groups who had hired local residents to "pose" for the photographers. I don't object to it on moral grounds. I just find that contrived. I believe you should find your own voice.
As a setting for landscape photography, I did not go there expecting to find "vistas" and I did not.

Howard, I did not mean to be critical of your portraits from a moral perspective at all, if it came across as such, my apologies.

I've met many people on workshops around the world who show me images of their trip to India (because I am originally from there I suppose). Almost all such images are of the people, especially women, shy young brides with the vermillion in the hair, nose-rings, long braids, colorful saris etc. Many of these pictures are taken inside people's homes. I met a woman last year on a workshop in France who very proudly showed me these pictures, some obviously taken in the inner sanctum of somebody's home. She is from North Carolina and I thought I should ask her how she would feel if I went up to her front door in Raleigh and said, boy you look so exotic, like a fairy-princess, with your golden hair and blue eyes, can I take your photo to show off to my friends back home? And by the way, your young daughter looks like a little Barbie doll, may I take her photo too?

It is not hard to imagine what the local reaction would be if the situation was reversed. Indians are very friendly people especially when they see foreigners, they want to be nice to them and would not refuse if you asked to take a photo. I could never ask a young Indian bride to pose for me, would probably get beaten up by her family! I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I am strangely very conscious of the fact that if I point my camera at somebody with the obvious intent of taking their picture, I am intruding upon their personal space even if it is a public place and I am 10 feet away. But then everyone has their own moral compass and who am I to be judgmental? I just have a problem, but like I said, it's my problem.

And by 'indigenous people' I meant those different from you, the 'aboriginal' people, from a native culture that is quite unlike yours. And I agree, people in Paris could be considered that. In fact thirty years ago when I first went to England, I thought I was on another planet, everybody looked so different!

It is true, though, Indian clothes are a riot of primary colors, especially in rural India and of course the weddings if you can attend one are spectacular.

Vistas in Rajasthan are awesome as they are in many places in India. You just need to know where to look. This is true of almost anywhere in the world I suppose.

 

[torger]

Concerning A7r-II, C1 and profiles. As said I don't use C1 much these days so I don't have the latest version and can thus not open A7r-II files, but if I could I would certainly test and see if IQ250 profiles work for it. Has anyone tested? Or maybe they've blocked cross-camera profile use in the latest version?

I've noted that many Sony sensors have highly similar color responses, A7r-II and 645z seems almost identical, perhaps even exactly the same with just IR filter / lens differences causing minor color differences. I haven't been able to test but I would not be surprised if the IQ250, 645z, A7r-II all have almost exactly the same color response and thus could use the same profiles.

 

[rhern213]

HI Doug:
My plan is the 35, 55LS and 80LS, and eventually pickup a 150mm 2.8 as it's one of the best optics Mamiya ever made.

Paul C

I've got a great 150 2.8 for sale :thumbup:

 

[rhern213]

Concerning A7r-II, C1 and profiles. As said I don't use C1 much these days so I don't have the latest version and can thus not open A7r-II files, but if I could I would certainly test and see if IQ250 profiles work for it. Has anyone tested? Or maybe they've blocked cross-camera profile use in the latest version?

I've noted that many Sony sensors have highly similar color responses, A7r-II and 645z seems almost identical, perhaps even exactly the same with just IR filter / lens differences causing minor color differences. I haven't been able to test but I would not be surprised if the IQ250, 645z, A7r-II all have almost exactly the same color response and thus could use the same profiles.

Yes you can apply any profile, including any lens correction you want to any file in C1. I attached a sample below from an A7R2 file. The Sony profile seems to be applying a bit more saturation or contrast in which you can see a slight difference in the greens/yellows/reds in the photo. However the more neutral gray colors seems practically identical to me.

Here's the A7R2 profile:
C1 A7R2 Profile by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

Here's the IQ250 profile:
C1 IQ250 Profile by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

 

[JohnBrew]

I've noted that many Sony sensors have highly similar color responses, A7r-II and 645z seems almost identical, perhaps even exactly the same with just IR filter / lens differences causing minor color differences. I haven't been able to test but I would not be surprised if the IQ250, 645z, A7r-II all have almost exactly the same color response and thus could use the same profiles.

Agreed. I found I had to apply similar color adjustments to the CFV-50c as my D810. I was expecting the MFDB to be better but it appears they are much the same across the board. Maybe there's something to be said for consistency?

 

[anGy]

Concerning color response I've profiled both cameras (using imaging resource images, haven't actually held the cameras in person) and the respond so similar that I think they have the exact same color filters on the sensors.

If you're a Capture One fan you can use A7rII there but not the Pentax 645z (unless hacking C1) which may be a factor.

If anyone's interested in my A7r-II and 645z DNG profiles you can download them here:

http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0104-pentax-645z-neutral.dcp
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0104-pentax-645z-neutral-plus.dcp
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0104-sony-a7r2-neutral.dcp
http://torger.dyndns.org/dcamprof-v0104-sony-a7r2-neutral-plus.dcp

The "neutral+" variants contains some (very) mild subjective adjustments. It's possible to make C1 profiles too, but I haven't done that for the A7r-II.

Thanks Torger for this work :clap:
I've tested your A7RII profile against mine. Yours makes a great job in greens and yellow discrimination I think. A bit less sure about the blue (turns the blue skies a bit towards magenta it seems).

 

[torger]

Thanks Torger for this work :clap:
I've tested your A7RII profile against mine. Yours makes a great job in greens and yellow discrimination I think. A bit less sure about the blue (turns the blue skies a bit towards magenta it seems).

The profiles are made from shots I got from Imaging Resource's web site, a colorchecker 24 under simulated D50 (Solux halogens I think). The reference color data is generic though so I cannot guarantee the accuracy, but I have reasons to believe that it's quite good

Adobe's stock profile is deliberately desaturated with blue turned towards cyan, which does have some advantages in terms of robustness when you shoot artificial lights such as nightscapes. In a direct comparison with Adobe's profile my profile will certainly look more magenta.

I would not be that surprised if it turns out too much magenta in a controlled measurement though, I've had issues with precision in that range for some other Sony sensors which are a bit special in that they have very high blue sensitivity meaning that small errors there get magnified.

This can be fixed quite easily manually when generating a profile, but as I do these profiles "in the blind" (I don't own the A7r-II or the 645z) I can't do that much.

 

[anGy]

I've made my lightroom profile based on a Gretag Macbeth shot under a Just Normlicht proof station. It is already better than the adobe stock profile but clearly not as good as yours for greens/yellows.
If you need a raw A7RII landscape file just ask, I can provide.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Hi Paul,

110LS and/or 120mm would be a nice fit to fill the gap between the 80LS and 150mm.

Might as well get the 240LS too since you're shopping.

:ROTFL:

Let's not forget the 2x converter and lens support Ken. You are slacking!

Paul: 150/2.8D is awesome. The 240LS in all seriousness is also an outstanding optic. :thumbup:

 

[DougDolde]

I have the Mamiya D 150mm that I bought from Ken Doo. It's pretty damn sharp. Here's a full rez image of a three frame stitch, but cropped somewhat. It's from Lava Point which overlooks Zion National Park.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3vis33v45jqqs95/PANO-39.tif?dl=0

 

[rhern213]

Thought I'd post these examples I just took: RAW conversion in LR with lens correction applied, no other changes.

The A7R2 is with the 55 1.8, at F8
The 645z is with the 75 2.8, at F9

A7R2
_DSC5478 by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

645z
IMGP0012 by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

A7R2
_DSC5478_CC by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

645z
IMGP0012_CC by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

A7R2
_DSC5478_BC by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

645z
IMGP0012_BC by Richel Hernandez, on Flickr

 

[jagsiva]

The last two crops of the truck are quite interesting. The 645Z is noticeably sharper for sure. More promising is the tonal detail in the power pole and those ceramic thingies, there looks to be quite a bit more in the darker shades in the pole and the highlights in the ceramics with the 645Z.

 

[rhern213]

oops, didn't realize I screwed up one of the center crops, I re-posted it.

 

[tsjanik]

The difference is quite striking, even on an internet post. I'm a bit surprised.

 

[torger]

It seems to me that the most striking differences are lens related, it's considerably higher local contrast in the 645z files.

It could possibly be diffraction-related too, f/8 on A7r-II means more diffraction per pixel than f/9 on 645z.

 

[torger]

Yes you can apply any profile, including any lens correction you want to any file in C1. I attached a sample below from an A7R2 file. The Sony profile seems to be applying a bit more saturation or contrast in which you can see a slight difference in the greens/yellows/reds in the photo. However the more neutral gray colors seems practically identical to me.

Here's the A7R2 profile:

Here's the IQ250 profile:

Doesn't seem totally off at least, but I was expected lower difference in saturation. To really know if they are "compatible" one would have to have a IQ250 shot as well... well, still interesting.

It should be said that even if cameras are very different, like Canon camera with Canon sensor vs a Sony camera with Sony sensor, low saturation colors typically look sort of right with the other camera's profile.

Cameras seems to be more similar now in color response than they used to be, and they are easier to match a human observer, I suppose the CFA coatings simply has got better.

I don't think there is any MFD advantage is color response any longer, but there's surely a profile advantage when using stock profiles, Phase One spend a lot more time manually perfecting the IQ250 profiles than the A7r-II profile for sure. That said Phase One put a big bunch of subjectivity into their profiles, most obvious is that they are typically rendering stuff with a warm tone (yellow tint), which one may or may not like.