Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: 645Z DXO Mark

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    288
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Amazon (dprevs), DX0, etc are all store fronts, promoting what they want to sell.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    492
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    While the 645z is a great camera, I'm not so sure DXO marks such as these are really that relevant beyond internet bragging rights. IMHO DXO opening back up to MF testing won't serve much purpose other than MF owners talking in forums justifying their purchase of system X or system Y, or 35mm photogs pointing out there's not much difference between a D850 (score of 100 I think) and MF (645z with score of 101). None of this discussion will be anything new.

    From the list of cameras in the screenshot of the DXO database in the PetaPixel article, I've owned the D800E, D810, A7RII, and 645z. The A7RII was my least favorite when it came to long exposures, but other than the differences in lens lineups between the systems, there wasn't anything I could do with one camera that I couldn't do with another. I made great images with each of those cameras, and if I put images together with each system side by side, I doubt anyone could tell the difference. This isn't a bad thing, and I'm happy to be a photographer in a world where there are so many great options out there.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    The 101 score,if it comes out at that (which will surprise me since DxO has made it clear that score was not 100% completed), will at least be a testament to the Sony 50MP chipset. First released in January 2014:

    https://luminous-landscape.com/iq250-back-announced/

    With the Phase One IQ250. Now less than 1 year old Fuji and Hasselblad systems both of which added to the capabilities of the sensor over Phase One, (ES, touchscreen, multiple AF points to mention a few).

    The 645z is still a great deal and has gotten even better lately. My only issue is the future of Ricoh, the parent company. But I am sure that for the 645z warranty/repair etc will be around for at least the next 5 to 10 years. Pentax IMO did the same thing with the K1, taking the same 36mp chipset and added a huge number of improvements. However they never addressed the white dot issue for raw even though it was fully known about (see Nikon D810 white dot recall), and instead only added a firmware fix for in camera jpgs. If you are an astro shooter, you fully know the reasons NOT to capture as jpg. Pentax has not added any new lenses for either the MF or 35mm line in over 1.5 years even though they have mentioned several new lenses "coming". And the 3rd parties like Sigma,Zeiss etc no longer make their most current lenses for the K mount, and there is no way to convert the mount without loss of infinity.

    I am in the process of selling off my K1 investment, keeping only the base body and 1 lens for Astro work. But it still is an impressive body, one that can be fully immersed in water, along with a WR Pentax lens which is something no other WR camera in the 35mm format can do as far as I know. Pentax, had a great idea with pixel shift, however they totally failed on the raw conversion. There is no mainstream software that can take a pixel shift image and really render it correctly. LR fails totally, and C1 never choose to make the conversion (I guess scared that for some reason it might compete with the MF sales, it can't be that hard as Iridient has had it for over a year now). Pentax should have pushed Adobe to work again on the conversion, but nothing has ever been updated. That only leaves Silkypix which I have tried, Vr 6,7 8 and just don't like the workflow. Pixel shift has huge, really huge possibilities (25% to 35% more captured resolution, vastly cleaner files at base ISO and up to 6000, and much more control on highlights, but the raw conversion just did not make it.

    Paul Caldwell
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    ............................. There is no mainstream software that can take a pixel shift image and really render it correctly. LR fails totally, and C1 never choose to make the conversion (I guess scared that for some reason it might compete with the MF sales, it can't be that hard as Iridient has had it for over a year now). Pentax should have pushed Adobe to work again on the conversion, but nothing has ever been updated. That only leaves Silkypix which I have tried, Vr 6,7 8 and just don't like the workflow. Pixel shift has huge, really huge possibilities (25% to 35% more captured resolution, vastly cleaner files at base ISO and up to 6000, and much more control on highlights, but the raw conversion just did not make it.

    Paul Caldwell
    Paul:

    I have a K-1 which I haven't used much, but have had success with Rawtherapee and PS. Others, with more experience than I, report good success.
    e.g,
    https://lonekheir.wordpress.com/2017...-therapee-5-1/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS_emMnuufg

    Tom
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    You bring up a great point, yes rawtherape does an excellent job on the raw and pixel shift files from the K1. However it won't export (at least I couldn't get it to) to dng format.

    Since I still want to use LR or C1 for the tweaking, as I just prefer the toolsets, and know them the best, I have looked for a way to get a democasic done, but outputed to dng like the Iridient transformer now does for X trans.

    Anyway, great point on rawtherape.

    Paul Caldwell

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    The 101 score,if it comes out at that (which will surprise me since DxO has made it clear that score was not 100% completed), will at least be a testament to the Sony 50MP chipset. First released in January 2014:

    https://luminous-landscape.com/iq250-back-announced/


    The 645z is still a great deal and has gotten even better lately. My only issue is the future of Ricoh, the parent company. But I am sure that for the 645z warranty/repair etc will be around for at least the next 5 to 10 years. Pentax IMO did the same thing with the K1, taking the same 36mp chipset and added a huge number of improvements. However they never addressed the white dot issue for raw even though it was fully known about (see Nikon D810 white dot recall), and instead only added a firmware fix for in camera jpgs. If you are an astro shooter, you fully know the reasons NOT to capture as jpg. Pentax has not added any new lenses for either the MF or 35mm line in over 1.5 years even though they have mentioned several new lenses "coming". And the 3rd parties like Sigma,Zeiss etc no longer make their most current lenses for the K mount, and there is no way to convert the mount without loss of infinity.

    Paul Caldwell
    I have both cameras 645Z and K1. They are fantastic tools with great output and there is very little I can't do with them for my kind of work. Very happy with them. I had to Leitax Zeiss lenses to get there with the K-1 though.The total silence on support and new lenses is a concern for me as well. There was supposed to be a very expensive new FA 50/1.4 for the K-1 this or last month. But still nothing.
    It is a bit frightening, a company where nothing happens.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    If you watched the new videos on Luminous Landscape featuring Charles Cramer, you know that Charlie is using a 645Z as his primary camera along with an A7R II .

    He previously shot Phase One, I believe at least an IQ180.

    Knowing what a perfectionist printmaker Charlie is I find this amazing !

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    If you watched the new videos on Luminous Landscape featuring Charles Cramer, you know that Charlie is using a 645Z as his primary camera along with an A7R II .

    He previously shot Phase One, I believe at least an IQ180.

    Knowing what a perfectionist printmaker Charlie is I find this amazing !
    Doug:
    Not so surprising, the camera has a number of virtues including the largest lens selection of any MF system. Speaking of LuLa, I believe the late Michael Reichmann's last camera was a 645Z (I really miss his contributions to the site). What was surprising to me was Charlie's use of the 45-85mm zoom for macro shots at Pebble Beach rather than the 120mm macro and his fondness for the Pentax 150-300mm zoom. I have that lens and love it, but my impression is that most users prefer the primes.

    Tom
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Senior Member DougDolde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Joshua Tree, CA
    Posts
    546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    The only thing that bothers me about the 645Z is it's
    appearance. I find it unappealing to look at. I won't use the word
    ugly but...
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    The only thing that bothers me about the 645Z is it's
    appearance. I find it unappealing to look at. I won't use the word
    ugly but...
    Homely it might be. I saw a hilarious post that stated the 645Z looked like a Greyhound bus; made me think the Pentax name on the front of the camera, surrounded by a silver rectangle, is reminiscent of a license plate.
    Think of it as a cosmetically-challenged car or device that is wonderful at its task. You do develop a fondness.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by tcdeveau View Post
    While the 645z is a great camera, I'm not so sure DXO marks such as these are really that relevant beyond internet bragging rights. IMHO DXO opening back up to MF testing won't serve much purpose other than MF owners talking in forums justifying their purchase of system X or system Y, or 35mm photogs pointing out there's not much difference between a D850 (score of 100 I think) and MF (645z with score of 101). None of this discussion will be anything new.

    From the list of cameras in the screenshot of the DXO database in the PetaPixel article, I've owned the D800E, D810, A7RII, and 645z. The A7RII was my least favorite when it came to long exposures, but other than the differences in lens lineups between the systems, there wasn't anything I could do with one camera that I couldn't do with another. I made great images with each of those cameras, and if I put images together with each system side by side, I doubt anyone could tell the difference. This isn't a bad thing, and I'm happy to be a photographer in a world where there are so many great options out there.
    Last summer I did a side by side test with the best normal lens on the Fuji XT2 (27mm), Nikon d800 (55 micro nikkor) and the Pentax 645z (lens I have forgotten, borrowed from a friend). What I found was that I couldn't tell the difference. It was not a scientific test, it was a working (retired)professional's assessment. There is some difference between an APS 24 mp sensor and a 50MP MF sensor, but not unless you put them side by side. I was happy that the quality of equipmwnt is so high. I was disappointed since I wanted to justify getting a MF system. i really could not see any difference between the MF and the Nikon. For those photographers that can see the difference and are happy with the equipment I think that is fantastic. For myself, at the 16x20-20x30 inch range of prints, the Fuji at 16x20 or the Nikon at 20x24 is quite adequate, in the Rolls Royce sense. (in the olden days, RR used to rate their horsepower as adequate, I always felt that, that was a proper rating system as opposed to a score of 100 vs 101.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    If I recall well, "a Greyhound bus from the 50's"
    It was me. 🙈
    Few years later, now we have the X1D and the GFX. Particulary neither is a beautiful camera but they are much better looking. I don't have a name for them. LOL!
    Eduardo



    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    Homely it might be. I saw a hilarious post that stated the 645Z looked like a Greyhound bus; made me think the Pentax name on the front of the camera, surrounded by a silver rectangle, is reminiscent of a license plate.
    Think of it as a cosmetically-challenged car or device that is wonderful at its task. You do develop a fondness.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    In contrast to what some people state I do see a difference, when printed large between full frame and the Pentax 645Z. To start with I find the color handling of the Pentax 645Z files a bit better then the K-1 and way better as the Sony A7r. With the latter I had a lot WB and color problems. All the color/ lithography problems in my book were shots with the A7r. Some of them are still not the way I want them. It is just very hard to get them as they should be.
    Also the detail and spaciousness of the Pentax 645Z files are just superior to the other 2 camera's. For publishing and big prints I will stick as much as possible tot he Pentax 645Z till something better comes along I can afford. No use for me to jump to Fuji GFX yet - although I like their fast growing new lens line - because I will not gain anything except less weight.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Uaiomex View Post
    If I recall well, "a Greyhound bus from the 50's"
    It was me. 🙈
    Few years later, now we have the X1D and the GFX. Particulary neither is a beautiful camera but they are much better looking. I don't have a name for them. LOL!
    Eduardo
    Yes Eduardo, I remember now it was you. I still chuckle sometimes about that description, but I must say I'm not happy about seeing a bus when I get my camera

    Tom
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    11

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    In contrast to what some people state I do see a difference, when printed large between full frame and the Pentax 645Z. To start with I find the color handling of the Pentax 645Z files a bit better then the K-1 and way better as the Sony A7r. With the latter I had a lot WB and color problems. All the color/ lithography problems in my book were shots with the A7r. Some of them are still not the way I want them. It is just very hard to get them as they should be.
    Also the detail and spaciousness of the Pentax 645Z files are just superior to the other 2 camera's. For publishing and big prints I will stick as much as possible tot he Pentax 645Z till something better comes along I can afford. No use for me to jump to Fuji GFX yet - although I like their fast growing new lens line - because I will not gain anything except less weight.
    Agree Michiel. Your and Quentin's posts convinced me to get a K-1. It's a great camera, but I always prefer the Z when possible, which is most of the time.

    Tom
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    In contrast to what some people state I do see a difference, when printed large between full frame and the Pentax 645Z. To start with I find the color handling of the Pentax 645Z files a bit better then the K-1 and way better as the Sony A7r. With the latter I had a lot WB and color problems. All the color/ lithography problems in my book were shots with the A7r. Some of them are still not the way I want them. It is just very hard to get them as they should be.
    Also the detail and spaciousness of the Pentax 645Z files are just superior to the other 2 camera's. For publishing and big prints I will stick as much as possible tot he Pentax 645Z till something better comes along I can afford. No use for me to jump to Fuji GFX yet - although I like their fast growing new lens line - because I will not gain anything except less weight.
    Michiel, did you ever try to create a custom profile for these camera's to get them closer together regarding colour? Or are these just differences in colour caused by different default colour profiles in your raw converter?

    I think I can understand the difference in detail and spaciousness, but I always thought colour should be manageble (with some upfront work).

  18. #18
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by DougDolde View Post
    The only thing that bothers me about the 645Z is it's
    appearance. I find it unappealing to look at. I won't use the word
    ugly but...
    That doesn't bother me so much, I just find it too big (recently saw one for sale 2nd hand at a store in Antwerp). It was tempting, but due to size I'm afraid I would leave it at home most of the time in favour of smaller/lighter camera's.

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by pegelli View Post
    Michiel, did you ever try to create a custom profile for these camera's to get them closer together regarding colour? Or are these just differences in colour caused by different default colour profiles in your raw converter?

    I think I can understand the difference in detail and spaciousness, but I always thought colour should be manageble (with some upfront work).
    I just use the standard Adobe color profiles for these cameras after i lost a special made colour profile, made by someone on this forum (forgot who it was) for the Pentax 645Z
    The blues (skys) in that profile seemed a bit better but overall I have no color problems for the Z. AWB is great on the camera.

    Like you I always thought you could manage colour very well in post processing but I found it very hard with the A7r files, especially afterwards. K-1 does a better job (no AA filter) with the same sensor as the A7r. Especially for printing I found tree A7r files impossible to correct. Could be my limited lithographic knowledge but I tryed very hard. Watched a lot of tutorials for it

    The files from the Pentax 645Z are most of the time perfect colour wise straight out of the camera. Except night and twilight shots are harder due to the different colour temperatures involved with the different artificial lights and late sunlight.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,075
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by pegelli View Post
    That doesn't bother me so much, I just find it too big (recently saw one for sale 2nd hand at a store in Antwerp). It was tempting, but due to size I'm afraid I would leave it at home most of the time in favour of smaller/lighter camera's.
    You would love it! It is not much bigger as your big Sony camera.
    And you can travel and pick a small set of lenses if you wish. A35, FA55, FA75 and A150

    I'll have a fat camera and remain slim
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 645Z DXO Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    You would love it! It is not much bigger as your big Sony camera.
    And you can travel and pick a small set of lenses if you wish. A35, FA55, FA75 and A150

    I'll have a fat camera and remain slim
    I fondled with it in the shop and I think it's twice as heavy and "voluptuous" as my Sony A850 (not the smallest/lightest/subtle DSLR out there), which is now usually left at home in favour of an A7 which is really small (I think the same as your A7r) and a few few MF primes. Still need to make a profile for it, but colour wise I have no real problems with it, but I hardly make pictures worth printing in a book so converting it to a lithographic printable file is entirely uncharted territory for me.

    So my remedy for staying slim will have to be to go out further and longer
    My Pics
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

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