Read more..
Visit Camera Enthusiast!
Earlier this year, Nikon launched the D800 and D800E 36-megapixel DSLRs, bringing the resolution of full-frame cameras much closer to that of professional medium format bodies, such as the Pentax 645D- at least on paper!
Those of you who've been following our reviews for a while probably know that back in 2011, we compared the Pentax 645D to the Nikon D3x (24-megapixel) and found the Pentax to have a clear advantage in terms of image quality. Sensor technology has been evolving rapidly, though, and we had a hunch that the new D800E might change things a bit. And it did.
We recently decided to pick up a D800E and face it off against the 645D. We found the Nikon D800E to nearly match the resolution of the 645D, and it scored higher in terms of noise and dynamic range thanks to its newer CMOS sensor. So does the D800E dethrone the 645D? Well, there are lots of things to consider when buying a camera for professional studio or landscape use, and this is why we performed an in-depth comparative review of the two cameras rather than just look at their image quality.
Read the Nikon D800E vs. Pentax 645D comparative review to find out which camera is best for professionals in need of a high-resolution camera!
I think that the objective of this article is not to compare these two cameras but to describe what to expect from the full-frame pentax camera (someone had to say it, why not me? :) )
cured noodles - point taken but it's law of diminishing returns in photography - my bargain £ 350 K01 with my £ 30 Super Takumar 50 1.4 is around a tenth of the price of the Nikon D800 and a modern lens. We are certainly spoilt for choice nowadays!
You cant compare this two cameras, because you must compare two systems and Pentax have no system. For price of 645D body you could buy all Nikon system (body and few lenses). And Pentax 645D is not real medium format camera, it is crop 645 (which is already crop from medium format).
And most funny part of this rewiev is this "Nowever, Nikon has poor lens adaptability". Really funny because you can use on Nikon D800e all range of Nikon lenses from 1970 til now without any adapters.
In terms of convenience (size, handholdability, AF speed/accuracy, lens choice) D800 beats 645D hands down. No matter how many words would be written around and about, once you pick up D800 by your hands, bring it to your eye, and start shooting you realize how advanced and how refined this camera is.
In terms of image quality, both with respect to resolution and with respect to color/tonal reproduction that matter is totally different and 645D is more than capable camera no matter the year, really. It is still quite revolutionary as it still has AF, is weather resistant and it is very much possible to shoot with it without tripod.
So the comparison here is mostly apples and oranges. The only similarity between these two great photographic tools being close number of pixels. IMHO, it does not justify the comparison.
Viewed at 100% the 645d blows the doors off the D800e. But it's also obvious the difference is the lenses, not the sensor. The 645 could support much higher resolution, but the 800e has already gone beyond what the smaller lenses can resolve. They're both similar in the center, but at the edges...well!
Oh. 645D is old model. Wait next new one.
is the Zeiss 15 2.8 $2700 better than Rokinon 14mm 2.8? Its a matter of opinion. As you get into the high end stuff, the marginal benefits (small improvements in sharpness, distortion, etc) are very minimal but the marginal costs ($2700) become enormous. Its just a matter of how much money do you have and how badly do you seek perfection. If you are a landscape photographer w nice budget who shoots at low ISO mostly the extra $5,500 may very well be well spent. If you are the average DLSR user however, probably even the costs of a full frame are not justifiable....
I dont think its $5,500 better, parks.
Well said @parks!
I think we can all agree the D800 produces great images, but to me the 645 D images at lower ISOs are still quite a lot better and that's with a camera / sensor combination nearly 2 and a half years old. The bar is continually raised with each new generation in sensor technology and smaller size sensor cameras can catch up significantly with large formats when they have the latest sensors. However, just like the K5 almost caught up with Full Frame the laws of physics still hold up. I look forward to the next generation 645D especially if it sports a slightly increased sensor size.
to get advantage of the full 36mpix in the D800, there are critical parameters that need to be considered, even mor than that of the 645D
The 645D is definitely a studio/landscape/architecture camera. It's for people who aren't in a rush when shooting and who configure their setup to capture exactly what they want, just how they want it :)
For what use is the 645D designed for? Who is its intended user/demographic?
A bit of a flawed article.
One could never quite compare medium format to anything less. Even if the so-called megapixels are exactly the same - the image quality is **always** determined by the size of the sensor. Plus those medium format lens' are designed for the larger sensor - with much higher tolerances. Sure the Nikon lens' are smaller, but the medium format lens surpass anything in terms of both optical quality and resolution.