[surfotog]

Hi Claude,

Pardon my lack of specificity, I was refering to the observations of several that the IQ of the 645D files are not as good as those from other MFDB's.


There are a number of threads on getdpi about the 645D. A search will reveal them all, but here is a quote from Bill Green which sums up the concerns: "Something about the images I have seen seem more like a high-res DSLR than the kind of smooth sharpness and tonality I have come to expect from MFDB's of all resolutions"

IQ is highly subjective, I don't know if it can be a verifiable fact. I'm simply reporting the concerns and observations of people whose opinion is respected. I don't know Bill Green. I have a friend who has been a professional for many years, and he has great respect for Bill, and his opinions.

Time will give us the answers we're looking for. I have no doubt the 645D is capable of excellent results, how they compare to other MF digital images has yet to be determined.

Hope this clarifies things.

Scott Marcellus

[Digitalis]

I will also mention that phase one profiles for pentax DNG files are nothing short of abysmal, so if that is the software he is using, his claim of the files being lackluster are probably right on the money. But to blame the CAMERA for the results that the software is producing is nothing short of blatant ignorance and stupidity.When it comes to working with DNG, ACR is one of the better choices out there DxO isn't bad either.

Pentax have always geared their cameras towards people who are competent in post-processing and working to get the most from their cameras.

[surfotog]

Digitalis,

Bill Green is neither stupid nor ignorant, and I'm sure is quite competent when it comes to PP.

I'm rooting for Pentax. I have wanted the 645D to become a reality since it was first announced years ago. I have a serious investment in long 67 glass that I would love a digital MF platform for.
The verdict on the 645D IQ will reveal itself in time. Is it on a par with other MFDB's? I don't think anybody knows at this point. I hope those who have worked with 645D raw files, as well as files from other MFDB's will join the conversation and share their impressions.

[Digitalis]

Bill Green is neither stupid nor ignorant

sorry, but that is just the impression I am getting. I have used Hasselblad cameras,phase one backs, digital backs from leaf as well. And I have seen output from the Pentax 645D and with proper PP the output is on par. IMO it is un-professional to compare a camera that you have been using for a few months to a camera you have only used fleetingly at best.

[Bob YILDIRAN]

According to DxO Labs, the scores for the 645D sensor were consistently higher than those of the Leaf Aptus 75S, H3DII 39 & 50, Phase One P45 Plus. Actually the D645 together with the Phase One 40 Plus lead the pack... even for the higher ISO capability.

Let's wait for more samples....

[surfotog]

Digitalis,

I'm glad to hear that based on your experience, the 645D files are on a par with other MFDB's.
I'm hoping to hear from others who have that type of experience.

On a seperate note, have you had the opportunity to use the 67 M* 800/6.7 on the 645D?

Cheers,
Scott

[Digitalis]

On a seperate note, have you had the opportunity to use the 67 M* 800/6.7

I have the 67 to 645 adapter on order, incidentally from my supplier they are back ordered on this particular item. I will initially test the M*800mm f/6.7 ED IF with and without the dedicated 2X teleconverter on my 645NII, which will be my reference point when I actually do get my hands on a 645D which will be early 2011. Currently the Pentax 800mm is the only production 67 lens of this focal length, no other manufacturer has a focal length that can match it. My principal concern will be shutter bounce and mirror related vibrations, with the pentax 67 being arguably the worst performer(the 67II does remedy this somewhat, but the 1/60~1/4th second shutter speeds is where shutter bounce is the most problematic). The original 645NII does remarkably well in this particular area of performance, with mirror lock up almost being a superfluous addition for general photography - but I consider it to be essential for extreme macro and perhaps even telephoto work- which is my goal to see how far you can go before things turn to custard.

[SteveM]

I have the 67 to 645 adapter on order, incidentally from my supplier they are back ordered on this particular item. I will initially test the M*800mm f/6.7 ED IF with and without the dedicated 2X teleconverter on my 645NII, which will be my reference point when I actually do get my hands on a 645D which will be early 2011. Currently the Pentax 800mm is the only production 67 lens of this focal length, no other manufacturer has a focal length that can match it. My principal concern will be shutter bounce and mirror related vibrations, with the pentax 67 being arguably the worst performer(the 67II does remedy this somewhat, but the 1/60~1/4th second shutter speeds is where shutter bounce is the most problematic). The original 645NII does remarkably well in this particular area of performance, with mirror lock up almost being a superfluous addition for general photography - but I consider it to be essential for extreme macro and perhaps even telephoto work- which is my goal to see how far you can go before things turn to custard.

I would be very interested in knowing how your 800mm performs on the 645d, especially if you could find an A*645 600mm to compare it too.

[Digitalis]

I would be very interested in knowing how your 800mm performs on the 645d, especially if you could find an A*645 600mm to compare it too.

I aim at obtaining a 645 A*600mm f/5.6 if the M*800mm f/6.7 ED IF doesn't pan out, probably what will be the biggest issue will be the size of the 800mm lens, at 5.5Kg(13lb) it's sheer weight might make it difficult to use under field conditions, I do not posses the kind of physique that would be required to be carting such a heavy lens in addition to the support system that will be required for it. - I doubt that there would be many people on here that could.

I currently have a FA 400mm f/5.6 as my longest 645 lens, and a FA*300mm f/4, (I have to see if I have a 400mm f/4 67 lens in my collection, that will make things interesting). I still have all my lens test data that was shot on film with comparisons with the 645 teleconverters. My money will be on the FA 400mm f/5.6 being ideal for the 645 digital, it is an extremely sharp lens. I recall the FA*300mm f/4 did pretty well with a 2X teleconverter behind it, but the 400mm f/5.6 managed to provide better results.

[claudefiddler]

I for one am looking forward to 645 test/reviews from members of this forum. DXO didn't reveal much. 11.5 stops of dynamic range I can really live with. What an improvement over chromes.

Can anyone comment on the 80 to 160 telephoto for 645. The 1.4 tele converter. Does the lens have an infinity stop? Is it sharp, specifically corner to corner. Quality build. Does the autofocus work? and work well or is a manual focus lens the way to go. How does it stand up to weather. Anything else... I'm completely unfamiliar with Pentax lenses. The one thing that I do know is that I'm interested in the medium/normal range telephoto.

On a different note note diglloyd.com just did an extensive Leica S2 review. This is a subscription based website. The review is excellent and in my opinion is a good benchmark for the type of comprehensive info that needs to be published on the 645D.

Thanks in advance.

Claude Fiddler
wildernesslight.com

[surfotog]

Digitalis,

The weight of the 645 A* 645 600/5.6 ED IF is considerable also, about 11 lbs, so it's not much lighter the the big 67 M* 800/6.7 ED IF. I find the sheer bulk of the M* 800 to be the biggest impediment to hauling it around.

The M* 800mm has a dedicated 1.4x converter, the T5-1.4x, but not a dedicated 2x. The standard Pentax rear converter 2x can be used. However, when I first got my M*800 and was testing it, I found that stacking the dedicated T5-1.4x and standard 1.4x converters gave sharper results than the 2x converter.

Scott

[D W]

I for one am looking forward to 645 test/reviews from members of this forum. DXO didn't reveal much. 11.5 stops of dynamic range I can really live with. What an improvement over chromes.

Can anyone comment on the 80 to 160 telephoto for 645. The 1.4 tele converter. Does the lens have an infinity stop? Is it sharp, specifically corner to corner. Quality build. Does the autofocus work? and work well or is a manual focus lens the way to go. How does it stand up to weather. Anything else... I'm completely unfamiliar with Pentax lenses. The one thing that I do know is that I'm interested in the medium/normal range telephoto.

On a different note note diglloyd.com just did an extensive Leica S2 review. This is a subscription based website. The review is excellent and in my opinion is a good benchmark for the type of comprehensive info that needs to be published on the 645D.

Thanks in advance.

Claude Fiddler
wildernesslight.com

The Pentax 645 1.4X was designed for the 300+mm focal lengths, due to mechanical position of elements some lenses will not work.
80-160 - The MF focus feels a little more solid due to not having AF mechanism and the AF/MF clutch. I believe the optic design is the same in both versions of this lens.

All the 645 AF lenses focuses a bit beyond infinity like all AF lenses. Considering the mass of optics needed to be move for focusing it is a good performer, not super speed like smaller camera/lenses. It does lock onto a good focus target accurately. I never had issues when shooting with AF point on the eyes.

However, to speed up AF speed the optical engineer sacrificed focus throw. This will take a bit getting used to in my work when I went with the 645N and AF optics back in 1997/98. The viewfinder was bright and easy to focus with, I usually use the grid screen with a pop-up eyepiece magnifier.

With proper technique I never had issues with mirror slap/vibrations in the image. Sometime we feel the slap vibration but they are post shutter mirror return vibrations. However I have not had a chance to pixelpeep the 40MP images as the above comments applied only to the 645/N/NII.

These are the lenses that I have had extensive experience using on my 645, 645N/II over the last 25 years:
A - 35, 45, 55, 75LS, 120Macro, 80-160, 150
FA - 33-55, 45-85, 80-160, 150, 300/4
67 with adapter - 400/4EDIF (Digitalis: if you can find your this is a great combo, very rare on used market)
Others with P6 Adapter - 30 Fisheye(Arsat), 45TiltShift(Hartblei)
Adapted to work with bellows - Nikkor M120/5.6, Macro Sironar N 210/5.6

[D W]

IQ of 645D

There are so many factor that goes into the quality of an image that we see as a jpg on the web or printed with a specific printer that I am reserving judgement until I have a chance to shoot 645D DNG under my environments and workflow using my calibrated monitor and output devices.

I have shot with the camera but was not allowed to remove images for further processing/studying and investigating.

[D W]

Handling of 645D.

For someone who has used the 645N/II professionally over 10 yrs and K20/K7 everything came naturally and was very intuitive.

[jeffkrol]

No point in getting worried yet. Though the reviewer seems to have a fairly unbiased opinion it is almost impossible to admit that an image is good or better then one from a mega-buck MF back/camera......
Nor to believe the quality can in any respect be equal..
BUT I will reserve any judgment till more samples/ reviews come in.....
for now:
Can the Pentax 645D or other MF digital cameras outresolve medium format film? - Photo.net Medium Format Forum
Large file:
All sizes | 645D sample | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
645d files scattered through this posters photos.....
645D sample | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
There may be some EXIF info to see the shutter speeds etc. but I didn't see it.
Click on a sample and go to the view all sizes to find the big jpgs... (probably don't really have to mention that......