WOW....Pentax is really starting to make waves

Zygonyx · 09-01-2015, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Mistral75

The biggest problem with the Pentax 645 lenses lineup is that ...
And, among the 12 Hasselblad H and 19 Phase One lenses, only one is faster than f/2.8: the Hasselblad HC 100mm f/2.2. There is no disadvantage for Pentax there. More problematic is the absence of leaf shutter lenses in the Pentax 645 lineup.

1. You Will soon see when DxO will have completed their tests, that there is no quality issue with "old" XXth century 645 Pentax glass.
Being myself an intensive user of 8 of them, you could take that for granted : when i compare results with APS-C system i see less flaws than e.g. on recent DA K lenses.
2. Hassy is selling bigger 645 sensors than Pentax, so even f/2.8 gives their system an advantage over current Pentax 645 one.

To a certain extend, if Pentax doesn't improve it's 645 DFA lenses in speed and/or its 645 sensor in size ; it is risking a new-commer like Fuji on the MF digital market to purely absorb it's market shares in the medium term.
Notwithstanding the impact of it's possible (if not very probable) "overpixelled" 35mm, that is likely to developp internal cannibalism.

Last edited by Zygonyx; 09-01-2015 at 08:52 AM.

Tom S. · 09-01-2015, 08:56 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Nass

I used to think that too... until I actually started getting asked to do reviews. The problem being this - it takes time to give the eq a thorough test, to learn to use the eq, it takes time and thought to write a sensible review, and it takes time to upload it onto websites. These companies benefit from reviews, heck they may even quote them on their literature or website and use any shots you do with it. Yet these same companies quite happily make profit from us by selling us equipment at expensive prices. So I just don't see why this shouldn't be a two way street, and if they expect us to help them out to make them their profit, they can give me something in return!

But I think this is where the trickiness starts, because when you're given something sure it's a natural impulse to be grateful and in return give an overly good review. I think the really excellent reviewer has to remain objective and not let anything influence their review, and be open about being compensated for their time in their review. Beyond that, the review has to speak for itself. People soon twig if it's a paper thin 'just read the mfr specs and rewrote the blurb' "review" (many are, especially online) or a decent review from someone who takes some time to properly learn, use, evaluate and compare the product, giving it some good field use. I have several things currently in this category, all of which I'm currently evaluating. And I've turned away every company that's asked me to review without any compensation, I simply value my time too much and whilst I love companies that make this stuff, I have no illusion about them being anything other than profit-making enterprises at consumer expense.

I stand by my statement. Car companies may lend cars to reviewers, but they don't give them to them. Appliance companies typically do not lend or give appliances for reviews, hence publications like Consumer's Reports. While I didn't categorically rule out interviews of gifted items, I reserve judgement of such reviews especially when they find little to criticize. If Pentax wanted to offer the reviewer the chance to buy the item at a discounted price, considering it is used, it might be OK, but it still leaves two doubts in my mind: did Pentax thoroughly inspect the item before sending it to make sure there were no flaws, and did they offer the reviewer a ridiculously low price to buy it, say $1.

I much prefer places that let consumers review products such as Amazon. Even then, you have to be careful of companies padding reviews or consumers with axes to grind or leaving stupid reviews: "I rated it a one because I didn't like the color.". Still, if you read them carefully, you can usually see what's what. In the case of the 645z, Amazon only has 5 reviews, yet 3 of the 5 are useful and it is doubtful they came from people Pentax gave or even lent the camera to.

Wired · 09-01-2015, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by tuco

Do you have a 55/2.8 for your FF camera? Would you consider that a fast, middle or slow lens on a FF camera?

The 645D/Z has a 55mm sold as its normal lens. IMHO, its not much of a medium format coming from shooting ~100mm as a normal lens on a medium format camera. Until the sensor gets larger on MFD do we draw the comparisons of DOF with max aperture to legacy medium format cameras. The jump from FF to 645D/Z is less than the jump from APS-C to FF in terms difference in sensor sizes. So I say, yes, f2.8 is pretty much just as "slow" or "fast" on a 645D/Z as a FF camera.

When other manufactures start entering the MFD arena, I suspect we will see far more capable sports action from these MFD cameras as well as faster glass.

I don't consider it in slow or fast though. f2.8 is f2.8 when it comes to light gathering, that doesn't change in its basic definition. To me f2.8 is "fast". But I typically shoot f4 for most of my work, so that really doesn't affect me.

bxf · 09-01-2015, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Nass

I used to think that too... until I actually started getting asked to do reviews. The problem being this - it takes time to give the eq a thorough test, to learn to use the eq, it takes time and thought to write a sensible review, and it takes time to upload it onto websites. These companies benefit from reviews, heck they may even quote them on their literature or website and use any shots you do with it. Yet these same companies quite happily make profit from us by selling us equipment at expensive prices. So I just don't see why this shouldn't be a two way street, and if they expect us to help them out to make them their profit, they can give me something in return!

But I think this is where the trickiness starts, because when you're given something sure it's a natural impulse to be grateful and in return give an overly good review. I think the really excellent reviewer has to remain objective and not let anything influence their review, and be open about being compensated for their time in their review. Beyond that, the review has to speak for itself. People soon twig if it's a paper thin 'just read the mfr specs and rewrote the blurb' "review" (many are, especially online) or a decent review from someone who takes some time to properly learn, use, evaluate and compare the product, giving it some good field use. I have several things currently in this category, all of which I'm currently evaluating. And I've turned away every company that's asked me to review without any compensation, I simply value my time too much and whilst I love companies that make this stuff, I have no illusion about them being anything other than profit-making enterprises at consumer expense.

Firstly, you fail to mention the fact that you review products in order to either be able to sell them or attract readers to your website, magazine, or something similar. You are not doing it for the companies' benefit. They can claim that YOU are benefiting from their products.

Secondly, since you say that companies may use your work to their benefit, then surely we can surmise that this would not be the case if the review is not favourable. When such is the case, the reviewer would not expect to receive any token of gratitude, I imagine. Would this then not be incentive, consciously or subconsciously, for writing a review more favourable than one would have been inclined to write if such considerations did not exist?

Even if the "gifts" were offered unconditionally up front, before the review is written, it can have an effect on future relationship between the reviewer and relevant company. There is a definite potential for skewed objectivity.

ChristianRock · 09-01-2015, 11:15 AM

55mm f/2.8 is about 42mm f/2.4 in 24x36mm (FF). Being fully useful wide open means it's not a bad proposition at all - but of course it doesn't sound sexy...

I'd say a 60mm or 65mm f2 made for the smaller image circle would solve this issue without being too big. And a bigger 100mm f2 would be a dream come true for many, I bet they could charge 5 thousand dollars and they'd still sell a bunch!

Wired · 09-01-2015, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

And a bigger 100mm f2 would be a dream come true for many, I bet they could charge 5 thousand dollars and they'd still sell a bunch!

For FF or for MF?

Because a 105mm f2 does exist for Nikon FX format and its around $1000... and freakin sexy! I got the 135mm f2.0 variant and love it almost as much as my 77mm Limited.

Zygonyx · 09-01-2015, 01:03 PM

Well, this file is mainly about Medium Format

ChristianRock · 09-01-2015, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Wired

For FF or for MF?

Because a 105mm f2 does exist for Nikon FX format and its around $1000... and freakin sexy! I got the 135mm f2.0 variant and love it almost as much as my 77mm Limited.

I was saying for the 645, cropped digital circle (44x33).

Simen1 · 09-02-2015, 12:54 AM

If i can get the same or thinner DoF and better light gathering in low light, plus SR, for a much lower price when choosing FF in stead of MF i will do that.

645 would be more interesting if it had SR, larger aperture lenses, much more megapixels, was full frame 645 or other significant advantages.

I know sensor size is a driving cost, but imagine a way to get around that problem, make a 6x7 full frame digital scanning back purely for tripod landscape photography. Those sensors cost almost nothing and could use the existing lenses. Scanning sensors can even have more then the usual three primary colors and different polarized lines. That could make B/W photography a much more difficult science and more interesting.

thibs · 09-02-2015, 02:17 AM

Yeah, and forbid any landscape if there's slight wind.

No, it isn't worth it but for studio. Even 4x5 users do not care but extremely rare case (studio).

Poit · 10-11-2015, 04:19 PM

It's interesting how this thread quickly turned from my initial intention (to say 'hooray' Pentax is making real inroads) into various arguments about 'gifts' and lens selection. A couple of points I'd like to make, having read the replies to this thread:

1) Adam your comments were quite discouraging (the "big boys aren't worried"? Yeah right....1D and D4 sales are threatened at this price point). Are you on Nikon's payroll? For the owner / administrator of PF you are certainly a miserable and negative voice here;
2) 'gifts' besides, Ricoh didn't gift him the camera. It's a glowing review with no bias (perceived or otherwise);
3) As I said to start with, this is what Pentax needs. It's why I've always advocated a good FF. Pentax getting back in the 'real' game, and not just a mickey-mouse consumer producer.

Go Ricoh....keep doin' what you're doin'

lytrytyr · 10-11-2015, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Poit

1) Adam your comments were quite discouraging (the "big boys aren't worried"? For the owner / administrator of PF you are certainly a miserable and negative voice here;
3) Pentax getting back in the 'real' game, and not just a mickey-mouse consumer producer.

The implication that products like the K3 are "mickey-mouse" sure sounds negative to me.

Wild Mark · 10-11-2015, 04:55 PM

I have read Adam's post and have to say it did not read negative at all. Pentax Ricoh could go head to head with the big boys and succeed/ fail OR they could find a niche market and kill that market. I think Adam was speaking of the latter.

Over time, one can then launch products that take the 'big boys' on ...... but not without some resilience in the product line first.

**woodywesty** · 10-11-2015, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Wild Mark

I have read Adam's post and have to say it did not read negative at all. Pentax Ricoh could go head to head with the big boys and succeed/ fail OR they could find a niche market and kill that market. I think Adam was speaking of the latter.

Over time, one can then launch products that take the 'big boys' on ...... but not without some resilience in the product line first.

Agreed! Adam is spot on and has been a constant supporter of Ricoh/Pentax. Even so, if Ricoh is off the mark once in awhile he calls them on it as he or any of us should. Ricoh/Pentax is putting out some great gear.

Poit · 10-11-2015, 08:55 PM

It was a negative reply to a very great review. The major rep of this site (being Adam) should celebrate such glowing reports, not say "yeah, it was ok...but not really important"

---------- Post added 10-12-15 at 02:59 PM ----------

If Mr Adam was so knowledgeable on the topic, he will have read reviews about people selling their 1d/d4 kit and buying 645.

Gimme a break....I don't think this site is in favour of Pentax at all (although some members may be)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pets Wow, I have a LOT to learn! This is going to be fun!	trip	Photo Critique	13	12-30-2014 05:55 PM
Wow, it really is all you are saying !	philby85	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	07-10-2011 09:45 AM
Wow, this guy really hates the K5 and says Pentax is 2 generations behind Canikon	crossover37	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	131	05-16-2011 10:36 PM
K-5... Wow wow wow wow wow!! Hugely impressive.	65535	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	85	11-08-2010 08:45 PM
Is DXO lens correction really able to make a lens THAT much better?	shaolin95	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	09-22-2009 07:53 PM

09-01-2015, 08:39 AM	#31
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Originally posted by Mistral75 The biggest problem with the Pentax 645 lenses lineup is that ... And, among the 12 Hasselblad H and 19 Phase One lenses, only one is faster than f/2.8: the Hasselblad HC 100mm f/2.2. There is no disadvantage for Pentax there. More problematic is the absence of leaf shutter lenses in the Pentax 645 lineup. 1. You Will soon see when DxO will have completed their tests, that there is no quality issue with "old" XXth century 645 Pentax glass. Being myself an intensive user of 8 of them, you could take that for granted : when i compare results with APS-C system i see less flaws than e.g. on recent DA K lenses. 2. Hassy is selling bigger 645 sensors than Pentax, so even f/2.8 gives their system an advantage over current Pentax 645 one. To a certain extend, if Pentax doesn't improve it's 645 DFA lenses in speed and/or its 645 sensor in size ; it is risking a new-commer like Fuji on the MF digital market to purely absorb it's market shares in the medium term. Notwithstanding the impact of it's possible (if not very probable) "overpixelled" 35mm, that is likely to developp internal cannibalism. Last edited by Zygonyx; 09-01-2015 at 08:52 AM.

09-01-2015, 08:56 AM - 1 Like	#32
Tom S. Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 4,317	Originally posted by Nass I used to think that too... until I actually started getting asked to do reviews. The problem being this - it takes time to give the eq a thorough test, to learn to use the eq, it takes time and thought to write a sensible review, and it takes time to upload it onto websites. These companies benefit from reviews, heck they may even quote them on their literature or website and use any shots you do with it. Yet these same companies quite happily make profit from us by selling us equipment at expensive prices. So I just don't see why this shouldn't be a two way street, and if they expect us to help them out to make them their profit, they can give me something in return! But I think this is where the trickiness starts, because when you're given something sure it's a natural impulse to be grateful and in return give an overly good review. I think the really excellent reviewer has to remain objective and not let anything influence their review, and be open about being compensated for their time in their review. Beyond that, the review has to speak for itself. People soon twig if it's a paper thin 'just read the mfr specs and rewrote the blurb' "review" (many are, especially online) or a decent review from someone who takes some time to properly learn, use, evaluate and compare the product, giving it some good field use. I have several things currently in this category, all of which I'm currently evaluating. And I've turned away every company that's asked me to review without any compensation, I simply value my time too much and whilst I love companies that make this stuff, I have no illusion about them being anything other than profit-making enterprises at consumer expense. I stand by my statement. Car companies may lend cars to reviewers, but they don't give them to them. Appliance companies typically do not lend or give appliances for reviews, hence publications like Consumer's Reports. While I didn't categorically rule out interviews of gifted items, I reserve judgement of such reviews especially when they find little to criticize. If Pentax wanted to offer the reviewer the chance to buy the item at a discounted price, considering it is used, it might be OK, but it still leaves two doubts in my mind: did Pentax thoroughly inspect the item before sending it to make sure there were no flaws, and did they offer the reviewer a ridiculously low price to buy it, say $1. I much prefer places that let consumers review products such as Amazon. Even then, you have to be careful of companies padding reviews or consumers with axes to grind or leaving stupid reviews: "I rated it a one because I didn't like the color.". Still, if you read them carefully, you can usually see what's what. In the case of the 645z, Amazon only has 5 reviews, yet 3 of the 5 are useful and it is doubtful they came from people Pentax gave or even lent the camera to.

09-01-2015, 09:18 AM	#33
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by tuco Do you have a 55/2.8 for your FF camera? Would you consider that a fast, middle or slow lens on a FF camera? The 645D/Z has a 55mm sold as its normal lens. IMHO, its not much of a medium format coming from shooting ~100mm as a normal lens on a medium format camera. Until the sensor gets larger on MFD do we draw the comparisons of DOF with max aperture to legacy medium format cameras. The jump from FF to 645D/Z is less than the jump from APS-C to FF in terms difference in sensor sizes. So I say, yes, f2.8 is pretty much just as "slow" or "fast" on a 645D/Z as a FF camera. When other manufactures start entering the MFD arena, I suspect we will see far more capable sports action from these MFD cameras as well as faster glass. I don't consider it in slow or fast though. f2.8 is f2.8 when it comes to light gathering, that doesn't change in its basic definition. To me f2.8 is "fast". But I typically shoot f4 for most of my work, so that really doesn't affect me.

09-01-2015, 10:53 AM	#34
bxf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lisbon area Posts: 1,660	Originally posted by Nass I used to think that too... until I actually started getting asked to do reviews. The problem being this - it takes time to give the eq a thorough test, to learn to use the eq, it takes time and thought to write a sensible review, and it takes time to upload it onto websites. These companies benefit from reviews, heck they may even quote them on their literature or website and use any shots you do with it. Yet these same companies quite happily make profit from us by selling us equipment at expensive prices. So I just don't see why this shouldn't be a two way street, and if they expect us to help them out to make them their profit, they can give me something in return! But I think this is where the trickiness starts, because when you're given something sure it's a natural impulse to be grateful and in return give an overly good review. I think the really excellent reviewer has to remain objective and not let anything influence their review, and be open about being compensated for their time in their review. Beyond that, the review has to speak for itself. People soon twig if it's a paper thin 'just read the mfr specs and rewrote the blurb' "review" (many are, especially online) or a decent review from someone who takes some time to properly learn, use, evaluate and compare the product, giving it some good field use. I have several things currently in this category, all of which I'm currently evaluating. And I've turned away every company that's asked me to review without any compensation, I simply value my time too much and whilst I love companies that make this stuff, I have no illusion about them being anything other than profit-making enterprises at consumer expense. Firstly, you fail to mention the fact that you review products in order to either be able to sell them or attract readers to your website, magazine, or something similar. You are not doing it for the companies' benefit. They can claim that YOU are benefiting from their products. Secondly, since you say that companies may use your work to their benefit, then surely we can surmise that this would not be the case if the review is not favourable. When such is the case, the reviewer would not expect to receive any token of gratitude, I imagine. Would this then not be incentive, consciously or subconsciously, for writing a review more favourable than one would have been inclined to write if such considerations did not exist? Even if the "gifts" were offered unconditionally up front, before the review is written, it can have an effect on future relationship between the reviewer and relevant company. There is a definite potential for skewed objectivity.

09-01-2015, 11:15 AM	#35
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,912	55mm f/2.8 is about 42mm f/2.4 in 24x36mm (FF). Being fully useful wide open means it's not a bad proposition at all - but of course it doesn't sound sexy... I'd say a 60mm or 65mm f2 made for the smaller image circle would solve this issue without being too big. And a bigger 100mm f2 would be a dream come true for many, I bet they could charge 5 thousand dollars and they'd still sell a bunch!

09-01-2015, 12:27 PM	#36
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by ChristianRock And a bigger 100mm f2 would be a dream come true for many, I bet they could charge 5 thousand dollars and they'd still sell a bunch! For FF or for MF? Because a 105mm f2 does exist for Nikon FX format and its around $1000... and freakin sexy! I got the 135mm f2.0 variant and love it almost as much as my 77mm Limited.

09-01-2015, 01:03 PM	#37
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Well, this file is mainly about Medium Format

09-01-2015, 01:56 PM	#38
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,912	Originally posted by Wired For FF or for MF? Because a 105mm f2 does exist for Nikon FX format and its around $1000... and freakin sexy! I got the 135mm f2.0 variant and love it almost as much as my 77mm Limited. I was saying for the 645, cropped digital circle (44x33).

09-02-2015, 12:54 AM	#39
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	If i can get the same or thinner DoF and better light gathering in low light, plus SR, for a much lower price when choosing FF in stead of MF i will do that. 645 would be more interesting if it had SR, larger aperture lenses, much more megapixels, was full frame 645 or other significant advantages. I know sensor size is a driving cost, but imagine a way to get around that problem, make a 6x7 full frame digital scanning back purely for tripod landscape photography. Those sensors cost almost nothing and could use the existing lenses. Scanning sensors can even have more then the usual three primary colors and different polarized lines. That could make B/W photography a much more difficult science and more interesting.

09-02-2015, 02:17 AM	#40
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Yeah, and forbid any landscape if there's slight wind. No, it isn't worth it but for studio. Even 4x5 users do not care but extremely rare case (studio).

10-11-2015, 04:19 PM	#41
Poit Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 423 Original Poster	It's interesting how this thread quickly turned from my initial intention (to say 'hooray' Pentax is making real inroads) into various arguments about 'gifts' and lens selection. A couple of points I'd like to make, having read the replies to this thread: 1) Adam your comments were quite discouraging (the "big boys aren't worried"? Yeah right....1D and D4 sales are threatened at this price point). Are you on Nikon's payroll? For the owner / administrator of PF you are certainly a miserable and negative voice here; 2) 'gifts' besides, Ricoh didn't gift him the camera. It's a glowing review with no bias (perceived or otherwise); 3) As I said to start with, this is what Pentax needs. It's why I've always advocated a good FF. Pentax getting back in the 'real' game, and not just a mickey-mouse consumer producer. Go Ricoh....keep doin' what you're doin'

10-11-2015, 04:39 PM	#42
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by Poit 1) Adam your comments were quite discouraging (the "big boys aren't worried"? For the owner / administrator of PF you are certainly a miserable and negative voice here; 3) Pentax getting back in the 'real' game, and not just a mickey-mouse consumer producer. The implication that products like the K3 are "mickey-mouse" sure sounds negative to me.

10-11-2015, 04:55 PM	#43
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	I have read Adam's post and have to say it did not read negative at all. Pentax Ricoh could go head to head with the big boys and succeed/ fail OR they could find a niche market and kill that market. I think Adam was speaking of the latter. Over time, one can then launch products that take the 'big boys' on ...... but not without some resilience in the product line first.

10-11-2015, 06:50 PM	#44
woodywesty Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Northern Wisconsin Posts: 725	Originally posted by Wild Mark I have read Adam's post and have to say it did not read negative at all. Pentax Ricoh could go head to head with the big boys and succeed/ fail OR they could find a niche market and kill that market. I think Adam was speaking of the latter. Over time, one can then launch products that take the 'big boys' on ...... but not without some resilience in the product line first. Agreed! Adam is spot on and has been a constant supporter of Ricoh/Pentax. Even so, if Ricoh is off the mark once in awhile he calls them on it as he or any of us should. Ricoh/Pentax is putting out some great gear.

10-11-2015, 08:55 PM	#45
Poit Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 423 Original Poster	It was a negative reply to a very great review. The major rep of this site (being Adam) should celebrate such glowing reports, not say "yeah, it was ok...but not really important" ---------- Post added 10-12-15 at 02:59 PM ---------- If Mr Adam was so knowledgeable on the topic, he will have read reviews about people selling their 1d/d4 kit and buying 645. Gimme a break....I don't think this site is in favour of Pentax at all (although some members may be)