ePHOTOzine compares 645D to EOS 1Ds Mark III

**rparmar** · 03-01-2011, 07:17 PM

Of course the Pentax has the better images and Canon wins on features. Not much to learn here but might help someone. Link.

Adam · 03-01-2011, 07:46 PM

I saw this a few days ago and thought it was very well-written nevertheless. A nice and fair comparison IMO.

piesforyou · 03-01-2011, 07:54 PM

Funny how Pentax (any model) so often get complaints of under-exposure.

SMPhoto · 03-01-2011, 11:06 PM

They complain about under-exposure because they're so used to the Canon over-exposing that they haven't seen a proper exposure in years!

**rparmar** · 03-02-2011, 04:41 AM

I agree. The Pentax model of underexposing produces images that are much more usable, just as the same technique was needed back in emulsion days. The Canon images blow highlights and simply look more garish, though some of this is the increased contrast and pumped colours (neither of which look bad in their own right).

The 645 images shown definitely need some tweaking (as the writer says) and since this could be done in-camera it was not entirely fair to compare them side by side with the Canon. But this comes down to a consistent issue with review methodologies. Which is why manufacturers (though not Pentax) pump their images by default... they get better reviews that way.

I didn't think the review was that well written and in fact the language was rather biased. For example (from memory) the 645D only "claims" to be weather-resistant whereas the Canon "is" rugged. They managed to turn the fact that the Pentax is light and well built for its sensor size into an advantage for the Canon, instead of properly claiming it's an overweight brick.

Some 100% crops would have immediately revealed the significant superiority of the Pentax images, which is likely why they were not provided.

And so it goes.

**Digitalis** · 03-03-2011, 03:52 AM

Good points rparmar, there is a fair amount of confirmation bias present in their review. To address the camera weight point I would say the Pentax 645 is very light for a medium format, but that can also be interpreted as saying the canon camera is a frigging brick for a 35mm camera(IMO that is exactly what it is considering it is just a 35mm camera, but I still use mine)

Canon 1Ds series cameras on their default settings don't sharpen their output or boost the saturation in camera. So I'm thinking that the reviewer has altered these settings to support his conclusion. For professionals the fact that the 645D doesn't go overboard in it's in camera sharpening, contrast or saturation speaks more of it's intended market - people who already know how to do this on their computers. I agree that the wording of this review doesn't particularly cast the 645D in a favourable light especially considering the lack of any direct comparisons in image quality and resolution.

gurtch · 03-03-2011, 11:10 AM

Digitalis said "For professionals the fact that the 645D doesn't go overboard in it's in camera sharpening, contrast or saturation speaks more of it's intended market - people who already know how to do this on their computers."

I was under the impression that if you shot RAW, which I do, that all in camera settings, such as saturation, "portrait", "scenic", etc, etc, were by-passed. These in camera settings only apply to jpgs. RAW is RAW is RAW....am I not correct? Or maybe I am mssing something. I shoot RAW files with a 1DS III, Alpha A900 (both are full frame DSLRs), and 645D. All the files need post tweaking, regardless of camera. None are "tweaked" in camera.
Best
Dave in NJ

eddie1960 · 03-03-2011, 11:17 AM

Gurtch
I think you will find the default display in Lightroom for example is using what would have been the jpeg parameter if you had shot jpeg as the raw has that info with it. i set my k7 to natural for that reason seems to be the least processed look then i can take that as a start point.

gurtch · 03-03-2011, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

Gurtch
I think you will find the default display in Lightroom for example is using what would have been the jpeg parameter if you had shot jpeg as the raw has that info with it. i set my k7 to natural for that reason seems to be the least processed look then i can take that as a start point.

You may be correct. I use Photoshop and my files usually need tweaking using all the sliders during conversion in ACR.
Best....
Dave

eddie1960 · 03-03-2011, 01:49 PM

mine do to but that's my poor technique

gurtch · 03-03-2011, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

mine do to but that's my poor technique

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!
Best....
Dave

**Digitalis** · 03-03-2011, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by gurtch

I was under the impression that if you shot RAW, which I do, that all in camera settings, such as saturation, "portrait", "scenic", etc, etc, were by-passed.

they are, but the small preview jpeg file embedded in the raw header still uses these parameters, and when you review files on your cameras LCD this jpeg file is what you are looking at - it would take too long for a camera to provide real time review of the actual raw data, I haven't seen a single camera that possesses that kind of processing power. Though when you load the files into any raw converter these image settings are promptly ignored.

Warped · 03-03-2011, 06:34 PM

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here - but I thought the review was either incorrect or glossed over a few things.

It states SDXC cards aren't supported - but I thought a firmware updte came out recently allowing the use of the XC cards?

It also states "When using flash with either camera, again the Canon is more flexible, having a maximum flash sync speed of 1/250sec, which is one stop faster than the 1/125sec of the Pentax" which technically is correct - but doesn't metnion that if you use a Pentax dedicated flash that High Speed sync is available and shooting at 1/500th with a flash isn't a problem (confirmed on my 645D with a Metz flash). Most strobes or other flash/strobe systems have optical sensors, so use a flash to trigger a studio set-up isn't an issue either, so there is an easy work around to the 1/125th sync speed issue.

Exposure is already covered above and I agree - would much rather properly exposed (in this case what they call under exposure) and the ability to brighten the image if desired easily in post, than blown highlights that are hard to recover.

I thought they missed one of the main reasons people go big with Medium Format - prints! Comparing an 18x24 or 24x32 inch print from the Canon and the 645D would show much more of a difference between the two systems and I feel missing that side of things is a major error when comparing any Medium or Large Format system to a 35mm DSLR system.

**Digitalis** · 03-03-2011, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Warped

It also states "When using flash with either camera, again the Canon is more flexible, having a maximum flash sync speed of 1/250sec, which is one stop faster than the 1/125sec of the Pentax"

An unintentional oversight from the reviewer? The 645D is able to make use of leaf shutter lenses which enable a maximum of 1/500th synch speed.

Originally posted by Warped

SDXC cards aren't supported - but I thought a firmware update came out recently allowing the use of the SDXC cards?

Pentax did release a firmware update for that, another unintentional oversight i'm sure.

**Fontan** · 03-04-2011, 06:51 AM

Is SDXC faster than SDHC? Here we go again. I am into beating a dead horse. I know I know.

03-01-2011, 07:17 PM	#1
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	ePHOTOzine compares 645D to EOS 1Ds Mark III Of course the Pentax has the better images and Canon wins on features. Not much to learn here but might help someone. Link.

03-01-2011, 07:46 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	I saw this a few days ago and thought it was very well-written nevertheless. A nice and fair comparison IMO. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Head to head shoot out Pentax 645D vs. Canon 1Ds Mark III	Mystic	Pentax News and Rumors	26	11-04-2011 04:36 PM
Leica S2 versus Canon 1Ds Mark III	Samsungian	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	10	02-24-2010 01:35 PM
The K20D is snapping at the heels of the Canon EOS 1DS MK II	ebooks4pentax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	04-04-2008 06:47 AM
Pentax k20 vs Nikon D3 vs Canon 1DS III images	feronovak	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	02-15-2008 05:01 AM

03-01-2011, 07:54 PM	#3
piesforyou Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 129	Funny how Pentax (any model) so often get complaints of under-exposure.

03-01-2011, 11:06 PM	#4
SMPhoto Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery Posts: 185	They complain about under-exposure because they're so used to the Canon over-exposing that they haven't seen a proper exposure in years!

03-02-2011, 04:41 AM	#5
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	I agree. The Pentax model of underexposing produces images that are much more usable, just as the same technique was needed back in emulsion days. The Canon images blow highlights and simply look more garish, though some of this is the increased contrast and pumped colours (neither of which look bad in their own right). The 645 images shown definitely need some tweaking (as the writer says) and since this could be done in-camera it was not entirely fair to compare them side by side with the Canon. But this comes down to a consistent issue with review methodologies. Which is why manufacturers (though not Pentax) pump their images by default... they get better reviews that way. I didn't think the review was that well written and in fact the language was rather biased. For example (from memory) the 645D only "claims" to be weather-resistant whereas the Canon "is" rugged. They managed to turn the fact that the Pentax is light and well built for its sensor size into an advantage for the Canon, instead of properly claiming it's an overweight brick. Some 100% crops would have immediately revealed the significant superiority of the Pentax images, which is likely why they were not provided. And so it goes.

03-03-2011, 03:52 AM	#6
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Good points rparmar, there is a fair amount of confirmation bias present in their review. To address the camera weight point I would say the Pentax 645 is very light for a medium format, but that can also be interpreted as saying the canon camera is a frigging brick for a 35mm camera(IMO that is exactly what it is considering it is just a 35mm camera, but I still use mine) Canon 1Ds series cameras on their default settings don't sharpen their output or boost the saturation in camera. So I'm thinking that the reviewer has altered these settings to support his conclusion. For professionals the fact that the 645D doesn't go overboard in it's in camera sharpening, contrast or saturation speaks more of it's intended market - people who already know how to do this on their computers. I agree that the wording of this review doesn't particularly cast the 645D in a favourable light especially considering the lack of any direct comparisons in image quality and resolution.

03-03-2011, 11:10 AM	#7
gurtch Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Beach Haven, NJ Posts: 176	Digitalis said "For professionals the fact that the 645D doesn't go overboard in it's in camera sharpening, contrast or saturation speaks more of it's intended market - people who already know how to do this on their computers." I was under the impression that if you shot RAW, which I do, that all in camera settings, such as saturation, "portrait", "scenic", etc, etc, were by-passed. These in camera settings only apply to jpgs. RAW is RAW is RAW....am I not correct? Or maybe I am mssing something. I shoot RAW files with a 1DS III, Alpha A900 (both are full frame DSLRs), and 645D. All the files need post tweaking, regardless of camera. None are "tweaked" in camera. Best Dave in NJ

03-03-2011, 11:17 AM	#8
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Gurtch I think you will find the default display in Lightroom for example is using what would have been the jpeg parameter if you had shot jpeg as the raw has that info with it. i set my k7 to natural for that reason seems to be the least processed look then i can take that as a start point.

03-03-2011, 01:39 PM	#9
gurtch Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Beach Haven, NJ Posts: 176	Originally posted by eddie1960 Gurtch I think you will find the default display in Lightroom for example is using what would have been the jpeg parameter if you had shot jpeg as the raw has that info with it. i set my k7 to natural for that reason seems to be the least processed look then i can take that as a start point. You may be correct. I use Photoshop and my files usually need tweaking using all the sliders during conversion in ACR. Best.... Dave

03-03-2011, 01:49 PM	#10
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	mine do to but that's my poor technique

03-03-2011, 02:10 PM	#11
gurtch Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Beach Haven, NJ Posts: 176	Originally posted by eddie1960 mine do to but that's my poor technique I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! Best.... Dave

03-03-2011, 05:04 PM	#12
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by gurtch I was under the impression that if you shot RAW, which I do, that all in camera settings, such as saturation, "portrait", "scenic", etc, etc, were by-passed. they are, but the small preview jpeg file embedded in the raw header still uses these parameters, and when you review files on your cameras LCD this jpeg file is what you are looking at - it would take too long for a camera to provide real time review of the actual raw data, I haven't seen a single camera that possesses that kind of processing power. Though when you load the files into any raw converter these image settings are promptly ignored.

03-03-2011, 06:34 PM	#13
Warped Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 351	Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here - but I thought the review was either incorrect or glossed over a few things. It states SDXC cards aren't supported - but I thought a firmware updte came out recently allowing the use of the XC cards? It also states "When using flash with either camera, again the Canon is more flexible, having a maximum flash sync speed of 1/250sec, which is one stop faster than the 1/125sec of the Pentax" which technically is correct - but doesn't metnion that if you use a Pentax dedicated flash that High Speed sync is available and shooting at 1/500th with a flash isn't a problem (confirmed on my 645D with a Metz flash). Most strobes or other flash/strobe systems have optical sensors, so use a flash to trigger a studio set-up isn't an issue either, so there is an easy work around to the 1/125th sync speed issue. Exposure is already covered above and I agree - would much rather properly exposed (in this case what they call under exposure) and the ability to brighten the image if desired easily in post, than blown highlights that are hard to recover. I thought they missed one of the main reasons people go big with Medium Format - prints! Comparing an 18x24 or 24x32 inch print from the Canon and the 645D would show much more of a difference between the two systems and I feel missing that side of things is a major error when comparing any Medium or Large Format system to a 35mm DSLR system.

03-03-2011, 10:13 PM	#14
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Warped It also states "When using flash with either camera, again the Canon is more flexible, having a maximum flash sync speed of 1/250sec, which is one stop faster than the 1/125sec of the Pentax" An unintentional oversight from the reviewer? The 645D is able to make use of leaf shutter lenses which enable a maximum of 1/500th synch speed. Originally posted by Warped SDXC cards aren't supported - but I thought a firmware update came out recently allowing the use of the SDXC cards? Pentax did release a firmware update for that, another unintentional oversight i'm sure.

03-04-2011, 06:51 AM	#15
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Is SDXC faster than SDHC? Here we go again. I am into beating a dead horse. I know I know.