[Fontan]

Actually low light performance is a huge part of DxO's rating and the 645z blows away all their favourite cameras in low light. And you call landscape photography "controlled light>" Well no, that's erroneous. You take a studio with no windows, and s few racks of lights on the ceiling and 20 or thirty movable light platforms around the edges, that is controlled light. Outside in the sunshine with various atmospheric effects, humidity, and the odd cloud from time to time, that is not controlled light. IN fact you have no control over the light. You take what you get. Landscape photographers love the 645z because of the incredible resolution and dynamic range. So, yes I would expect an evaluation of the 645z to exceed all other cameras, even in DxOs biased opinion, in everything but sports.

Hm . . . . That is true and that is not.

A really good and experienced landscape photographer who knows what he or she is doing knows exactly what lighting situations translate to their "vision." He has a scenery, and a vision of what he wants this scene to look like when printed; and he knows that only a certain set of conditions that can work for him. It is as you say very true that you cannot control outdoor lighting let alone humidity, atmospheric pressure effects etc. But, a good one at that will wait until that set of conditions are met, or that he can instantly recognize them when he sees them or accidentally run into them, and knows by experience what set of exposures and ISO and shutter speeds that can work, purely based on the capabilities of the equipments he uses. If the conditions are not "met," then he won't bother setting them up. He would come another day, or look for another compelling scene. Much of the concept of what he wants is complied not during the actual act of shooting, but when he day dreams about it, much like a novelist ponders the plot of the next novel he is going to write.

It is true that with the advancement in dynamic range of the sensors these days one can certainly take pics, and manipulate to make them look like what he has in mind to begin with. Or that one can also just randomly take pics, take them home, and post process them to death until they look "cool." There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of those methods. It certainly takes quite a bit of skills and experience to go this route. Both methods can certainly yield dramatic results.

Having said that, who I consider to be superb landscape photographers that I have seen and met tend to fall in the former group of photographers, although again there is nothing wrong with any of these methods, mind you. For me, the part of the thrill of being a landscape guy in some ways lie in the accidental and truly random nature of it - capturing moments that I may never ever see again in my life time, and the fact that I was there for that moment is in fact far more special than the fact that I actually captured them. But, in the end the lighting and such is very much "controlled" in the mind of a shooter, if you will.

[Nicolas06]

From the photos that I know you are doing: nice macro shots of flowers, landscape around the great national park that surround you , and photos of birds with manual focus A-400mm , you'd better get a full frame mirrorless. The only issue for you is that it's not a Pentax. Other than that, when do you use 8 frames per second and multi-point AFC tracking (a flower can't run away from you)? People say "I buy DSLR because it is the best" sorry, the key point of DSLR is fast AF, the weak point of MILC is AF tracking. Again, a guy who was doing mostly landscape photography once told me "Pentax is not good because they have only 11 point AF and Nikon has 39 points, next time I'm going to buy a Nikon" I asked him "What AF point do you use?" he replied "I only use the center point" ... then I said "Why do you need 39 AF points when you don't use the 11 AF points that you already have on you Pentax ?" ...he stayed silent.

Man the issue is that if normhead buy a 150-500, he'll get more magnification (500mm vs 400mm) combined with AF support. But if normhead buy an A7 + adapter for more money, he will loose magnification (APSC 24MP vs FF MP) and none of his lense will AF on it.

Buying the A7 would just make thing more cumbersome. I'am not even sure lenses like the 18-135 would be able to be stopped down anymore.

[Nicolas06]

People that use the 645Z are really satisfied with it. Basically it a medium frame (cropped I admit like most digital MF) that is as easy to use as any classical DSLR APSC or FF. The picture quality is outstanding both at base iso and high isos. If DxO goes it acts together and publish it, it would show with the best score in the chart.

It would not make the 645Z a low light king neither because the lenses are not especially fast but that not really the goal of theses MF cameras. The goals is to get the best quality, absolute best. Not to have better noisy picture of black cats at nights.

[normhead]

Hm . . . . That is true and that is not.

Like most things , thanks for expanding.

[pacu]

It would not make the 645Z a low light king neither because the lenses are not especially fast but that not really the goal of theses MF cameras. The goals is to get the best quality, absolute best. Not to have better noisy picture of black cats at nights.

With or without moonlight, I need to know... Does anyone think about all these cats, the pain they bear to satisfy internet photography forums.

Just joking.

Actually people think quality as f/1.4 ... f/1.2 .... f/1 .....

Microcontrast be damned.

[Nicolas06]

With or without moonlight, I need to know... Does anyone think about all these cats, the pain they bear to satisfy internet photography forums.

Just joking.

Actually people think quality as f/1.4 ... f/1.2 .... f/1 .....

Microcontrast be damned.

Without moonlight so you can justify an A7S and a non native lens in manual focus to go with it at f/1.2 . You can nail the focus on the left eye of the cat and have the other eyes artistically softened by the suttle transition from a true f/1.2 lense on a real great format like FF. Too bad you'll shoot it at 25600 iso anyway...

[falconeye]

But EVF is just a few years away from being as good as OVF. I've been hearing this since I joined this forum in 2009...

Yeah. That will have become true the day I come home and confuse the TV with the window I try to open

[howieb101]

The evf vs ovf is still an important difference.

I bought a Fujifilm X-E1 because its a fantastic looking camera, the reviews were good and I got it cheap. I look though the X-E1 evf and think why not just go with the K-S1 and a few Limiteds. I personally enjoy peering through an OVF more than an EVF.

The K-S1 one is 150gms heavier than the X-E1 but Limited lenses are small and light, while Fujifilm lenses are both quite large and not inexpensive.

Longer term Ricoh/Pentax are going to have to have a proper mirrorless.

Longer term Ricoh/Pentax are going to have to have a proper mirrorless. It need not be Pentax branded, ie, could be Ricoh, but they will be forced to have a product offering in that market segment I would think.

Along these lines the Ricoh GR line should also include a fullframe model. They are already buying sensors for the Pentax K1 so it makes sense to have some kind of economies of scale by buying for two models rather than one.

Maybe it's an upcoming surprise for GR users! Let's hope.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Everything I have read about the A6000 and the A7r II says that these cameras do not take a back seat to SLRs when it comes to auto focus and tracking. Biggest issues probably have more to do with the EVF black out while taking photos, but surely that is fixable in the future.

You can correct this by shutting off "auto review" however when shooting continuous shutter mode its still pretty laggy

---------- Post added 11-15-15 at 11:57 PM ----------

Man the issue is that if normhead buy a 150-500, he'll get more magnification (500mm vs 400mm) combined with AF support. But if normhead buy an A7 + adapter for more money, he will loose magnification (APSC 24MP vs FF MP) and none of his lense will AF on it. Buying the A7 would just make thing more cumbersome. I'am not even sure lenses like the 18-135 would be able to be stopped down anymore.

Magnification is not the same thing as Cropping

[Nicolas06]

Magnification is not the same thing as Cropping

In pratical terms if you want 900mm framing FF equivalent you either buy a 900mm and a FF or you buy a 600mm and FF and apply a crop factor of 1.5 or you directly take an APSC with 600mm.

If you manage to find a 900mm lens on FF you'll get an adventage, counting the lens is good enough and you can afford it. If you limit yourself to a 600mm you'll crop anyway and to keep same level of details as a 24MP APSC, you'll need a 55MP FF. If you only have 24MP you'll be limited to 10.5MP, significantly less details.

For practical purposes like printing, this has indeed some implications for the quality of the final output.

[biz-engineer]

In pratical terms if you want 900mm framing FF equivalent you either buy a 900mm and a FF or you buy a 600mm and FF and apply a crop factor of 1.5 or you directly take an APSC with 600mm. If you manage to find a 900mm lens on FF you'll get an adventage, counting the lens is good enough and you can afford it. If you limit yourself to a 600mm you'll crop anyway and to keep same level of details as a 24MP APSC, you'll need a 55MP FF. If you only have 24MP you'll be limited to 10.5MP, significantly less details. For practical purposes like printing, this has indeed some implications for the quality of the final output.

Could you please show your shots at 600mm ?

[Nicolas06]

Could you please show your shots at 600mm ?

You can go to 300mm+ thread if you are interrested. 300mm is already 450mm so if you crop a bit, you are there... and 300mm is only the minimum

And you your shoots from the 100-300 f/2.8 and FF?

[biz-engineer]

And you your shoots from the 100-300 f/2.8 and FF?

Yes I've posted one !

[Sliver-Surfer]

In pratical terms if you want 900mm framing FF equivalent you either buy a 900mm and a FF or you buy a 600mm and FF and apply a crop factor of 1.5 or you directly take an APSC with 600mm.

If you manage to find a 900mm lens on FF you'll get an adventage, counting the lens is good enough and you can afford it. If you limit yourself to a 600mm you'll crop anyway and to keep same level of details as a 24MP APSC, you'll need a 55MP FF. If you only have 24MP you'll be limited to 10.5MP, significantly less details.

For practical purposes like printing, this has indeed some implications for the quality of the final output.

Wrong....Simple Analogy...you have a roof that is 100sqft and a neighbor has a roof that is 150sqft a local bi-law says you can only put 24 solar panels on each roof. 100sq ft roof can fit 24 x 4.2sq ft panels whereas 150sq ft can fit 24 x 6.25sq ft panels.
The bigger roof is going to produce the same voltage as the small one but.. it is going to collect 1.5x more light energy(Watts) per unit of time.

This analogy when translated to sensor size means less noise(iso) or higher shutter speed or higher aperture so you could just crop the picture by 1.5x in pp and it will be the same. I have Both a 24mp aps-c and a 24mp FF. There is no IQ or "magnification" advantage to aps-c.

[clackers]

This analogy when translated to sensor size means less noise(iso) or higher shutter speed or higher aperture so you could just crop the picture by 1.5x in pp and it will be the same.

You've just admitted, you're taking a loss in resolution. (Thumbs down)

I have both 24Mp APS-C and FF and always use APS-C for wildlife.