[derekkite]

All true.

But my point is that people take pictures in adverse conditions, just because the equipment can pull it, not because there is something to be said by taking a picture.

You really ought to get out more.

[gorme]

Is the issue with DXO Mark that they are deliberately putting Pentax off, or is it that Pentax took a long time to send them a copy of the 645z and lenses to test? It seems as though they depend on other folks to loan them a camera and lenses to test (similar to Klaus on Photozone). It would have been in Pentax's interests to see them get a copy of the 645z pretty soon after release with a couple of their newer lenses. At least I would think so, but I don't think that happened.

The ROI of a 645Z is low compared to the ROI of a Canon 5Ds from a DxO Mark point of view, so they prefer to borrow it from Pentax. That beeing said, they do have some Pentax DSLR (K20, K7, K5, K3 at least, but not the Mk II versions) and some lenses.
The 645Z was sent to DxO Laboratories only this summer (in July together with 4 lenses), and the measures were done by the end of August. So the DxO Mark team has all the results... and we are still waiting for a publication

[Zygonyx]

Do you have a precise name for this 'community manager' (PM maybe) ?

double clic, on HFR forum.

[falconeye]

As for delaying 645Z results due to marketing concerns ...

... that may be a sign that 645Z did not break the current record and DxO does not want a popular (esp. in France) MF to score below FF. Of course, I don't know. But D810 with native ISO 50 is a serious competitor in the DR and Color scores. 645Z would have to win in high ISO which I am not absolutely sure about.

[Glorfindelrb]

Hiding the results, good or bad, is wrong for a ranking site. I do suspect more technical expert disagreements or eventually a wish to test a second unit after non convincing results. But as we have no info and with the initial misleading preview with 645D results pushed in the 645Z article, it's legit to suspect a conflict of interest.

Ricoh did the right call prioritizing the available stock to sell to real customers before sending it to reviewer. The review had no value without stock to sell.

DxO is traped if the results are good because the publication will raise the question "why so late" out of the small Pentax community and bad results would make 645Z users and testers question the pertinence of DxO Mark metrix. Thinking about it I feel like they may never release those results just to avoid those situations.

[rawr]

I think delaying the publication of test results, or just poorly handling the test process, for 'serious' medium format cameras like the 645Z is a bad look for a site like DxOMark.

Meanwhile every RAW-shooting Sony gets in the express lane for DxOMark testing, even point-and-shoots.

[Bpointman]

for entry level, my K-50 is sufficient, very good camera for me. I'll keep with it.

[Uluru]

The difference in sensor performance is negligible and ridiculous; same as comparing Tri-X 400 ASA with Agfapan 400 ASA, which has a different curve.
Photographers of old were saner that us today — we are insane, and DXO is the leader in insanity.
Crop sensors since K-5 are all excellent performers, regardless of camera model or maker. What really makes the difference is the lens in front of the camera, the quality of light it provides. Talking about sensor performance within came crop arena and same generation of sensors is a waste of time.

[enoeske]

The difference in sensor performance is negligible and ridiculous; same as comparing Tri-X 400 ASA with Agfapan 400 ASA, which has a different curve.
Photographers of old were saner that us today — we are insane, and DXO is the leader in insanity.
Crop sensors since K-5 are all excellent performers, regardless of camera model or maker. What really makes the difference is the lens in front of the camera, the quality of light it provides. Talking about sensor performance within came crop arena and same generation of sensors is a waste of time.

That's a really dumb attitude. Of course there are changes, even in the same generation of sensors. Wanting to quantify that difference is a totally reasonable act.

[Uluru]

As for delaying 645Z results due to marketing concerns ...

... that may be a sign that 645Z did not break the current record and DxO does not want a popular (esp. in France) MF to score below FF. Of course, I don't know. But D810 with native ISO 50 is a serious competitor in the DR and Color scores. 645Z would have to win in high ISO which I am not absolutely sure about.

It's the opposite.

The official results of 645Z will practically and officially severe sales of all MFs using same or inferior sensors. Hasselblad is already struggling selling theirs MFs, prices are cut heavily, and PhaseOne is the next victim. Nikon also has to lose something; a bit of their prestige, if nothing else.

Only thing that is preventing Ricoh from sweeping the MF market is Ricoh's ultra-slow response in releasing new lenses for the system. They release the camera, see how it will sell, then start thinking about new lenses and perhaps some better support; then in following 14 months, they "release a new lens", which is but old lens repacked. Very bad tactics.

If they do the same for the FF, "observe how it will sell" and see how users with old Takumars and FAs from the Clinton's era are happy, and then start thinking about lens prospects, then they will miss the train twice. (Stalling of the basic 70-200,for over a year!, promises same problem). They have already sealed the fate of the Q system for that same reason.

However, it seems they don't really care, so why would we? They are happy with whatever they do, and don't do.

[pacu]

It's the opposite.

The official results of 645Z will practically and officially severe sales of all MFs using same or inferior sensors. Hasselblad is already struggling selling theirs MFs, prices are cut heavily, and PhaseOne is the next victim. Nikon also has to lose something; a bit of their prestige, if nothing else.

Only thing that is preventing Ricoh from sweeping the MF market is Ricoh's ultra-slow response in releasing new lenses for the system. They release the camera, see how it will sell, then start thinking about new lenses and perhaps some better support; then in following 14 months, they "release a new lens", which is but old lens repacked. Very bad tactics.

If they do the same for the FF, "observe how it will sell" and see how users with old Takumars and FAs from the Clinton's era are happy, and then start thinking about lens prospects, then they will miss the train twice. (Stalling of the basic 70-200,for over a year!, promises same problem). They have already sealed the fate of the Q system for that same reason.

However, it seems they don't really care, so why would we? They are happy with whatever they do, and don't do.

I do not think that Nikon users are in the same buyers class as the people buing 645Z.

First most of them don't get the 4:3 aspect ratio.

Second traditionally the 35mm is a convenience thing, without the shooting discipline required they will not realise the added value the 645Z has over D810.

[falconeye]

the added value the 645Z has over D810.

This added value, as far as image quality goes, is the point of discussion wrt DxO marks here.

Theoretically, assuming an identical sensor tech, 645Z (44x33mm) should score 0.75 stops above D810 (36x24mm). However, with a native ISO value of 64 rather than 100, the D810 has a 0.64 stops advantage in turn.

Therefore, the 645Z should (assuming score points come equally from all 3 categories) score better than D810 with the following amount of added score points:
Dynamic Range: +0.55
Color Range: +0.55
Low Light ISO: +3.75
Total: +4.9

Where, according to DxO, any difference below 5 (or 1/3 of a stop) isn't significant (not visible to the naked eye).

We'll see what actuall numbers shall turn out to be. But this "added value" may be smaller than MF advocates would like, maybe including folks at DxO.

[pacu]

The 33mm vs 24mm on the smaller side of the picture is what makes the difference.

It's a 37.5% difference besides the aesthetics of the 4/3 aspect ratio and a more usable ratio for vertical photos. Your mileage may vary here.

For me is more meaningful difference than the difference of 35mm and aps-c which is just a differnce in size. My 2cents.

[Simen1]

According to some diagrams linked earlier in this thread the ISO score might not be that much better then D810. My guess is that the 645Z will be on par with D810 in total score, but notably better in DR and CR at ISOs outside those counting for the three sub scores. It will need some interpretation of the detailed graphs to see the strengths.

And MF is not worth it in terms of exposure because of the lenses available. If it had a few f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms it would be a different story. MF is about resolution and high ISO.

[Rondec]

I don't understand conspiracy theories that DXO Mark is hiding results to protect certain camera brands. Why should they care? There was a time when Canon cameras tested better than other brands, now Sony sensors are at the top of the heap. But DXO Mark's goal is to drive traffic to their own website in order to sell their software, right? I just don't think they care that much about having medium format support when there aren't that many medium format photographers out there.