[Ash]

OK. I think we're done here on this. Please return to the discussion at hand to avoid getting issued breaks from participating in the thread. Thanks all.

[phonoline]

Ok, so let's take parts of Ken's review and talk straight:

The great news is the low four-digit price, undercutting Hasselblad, Mamiya and Leica by tens of thousands of dollars.
The bad news is that it's designed to appeal to hobbyists, meaning garbage features like 77-segment metering, wimpy, slow SD card media, stupid picture modes, live view, electronic level, 11-point AF — and gag me — multiple exposures and in-camera HDR, which have replaced the intelligent usability of simpler cameras designed for pros who know what they're doing.
Do you know how many AF sensors the $43,000 Hasselblad CF-39 has? One.
Do you know how many metering zones it has? One at a time, and it also has fewer pixels (39MP vs. 40).
Pros must know something Pentax doesn't.

Well, tough reading, I agree. He's right about slow SD and stupid picture modes, though, live view isn't correct (I have no idea where he got this from). 11-point-AF isn't neccessary, I agree. Multiple exposures are totally fine with me, HDR is for hobbyists. 77-segment metering could be fine for landscape photography but I too agree that pros don't need it.

This is the first amateur medium-format digital camera. Medium-format digital cameras were one of the few remaining kinds of digital camera that still hadn't been screwed up with stupid features designed to sell cameras instead of designed to help you make better pictures more easily.

I partly agree. I always knew this would not be a Mamiya, Hasselblad, Phase One. The (for MF) unusual high resolution of the display and no possibilities for tethered shooting (2010/11), 1/125s only flash sync - not exactly signs for a professional MF cam, don't you agree? At least not for the studio.

With this Pentax, I see a long list of garbage features which will only serve to distract, instead of focus, any photographer's attention. I see no aperture or shutter speed dials. All I see is another confusing array of meaningless buttons that aren't going to help.

I did not buy the 55mm lens - does it really have no aperture ring? A shutter speed dial is missing completely, instead there's a dial for different metering modes which I find very stupid. I never need them. I sometimes use AV but I mostly shoot in M mode. I also think most features aren't neccessary for street, landscape or portrait photography and can be quite distracting.

On the Pentax 645D, it looks like everything you actually need to do is only available via menus and stupid multi-function scroll wheels.

I have not gone much into the menu system of the 645D. I like the Nikon menu system, I am not neccessarily a fan of the Pentax way.

If I have to lose photos because the Pentax 645D won't fire because the pointless 11-zone AF system is set incorrectly, as can happen on Canon and Nikon DSLRs, I can do without this Pentax.

That is correct as far as I can see it. I have not figured out, yet, how to switch off focus priority and just shoot, not matter if the picture (or a part of it) is sharp or not. I can switch this off on my Nikon D700.

When I get over complaining about how Pentax screwed-up the opportunity to make a great camera, I'm sure that I'll love it.

He's stuck for an answer.

[Ash]

He talks about the 645D deficiencies and nuances in his review, making comparisons with a Hasselblad dMF that doesn't have features the 645D has. Venture to FF cameras, and all of a sudden a number of other 'superfluous' features arise - the very many AF points on the 1D, the live view on just about all the FF dSLRs, multi-segment metering being on all of them, etc... Lots of criticism, but not enough logic - if you don't need the features, don't use them. It seems as if he'd rather the features weren't there to save on cost or something. I couldn't imagine the 645D would be as desirable a dMF camera without the features he criticises.

Multiple AF points are nothing more than a little extra flexibility - set the camera to centre point focus only and there you have it, a camera that focuses in the centre of the frame only. There are no stupid picture modes, not even any of the 'scene' modes on the entry-level cameras. He'd have probably said the same thing about a movie mode if it were made available on the 645D. I don't mind it being there on the K-5, even though I don't use it often at all - and again, I don't see the K-5 doing well against its opposition if it were not there.

Sure, the 55 has no aperture ring, but we're going digital now - settings are easily adjusted using the e-dials.



No shutter speed dial? Don't understand that critique. Two e-dials that are customisable take care of that. A dial for metering modes reduces the extra steps you'd need to access them. I for one find it useful, even if I don't use it every day. If there were menus items I accessed every day, I'd be more unhappy that they were not accessible via a dial or button on the console. But there is no specific aspect Ken criticises about the Pentax menu system. I much prefer the K-5 menu system to the Canikons - though I'm sure I'd get used to it if I had another camera...

That is correct as far as I can see it. I have not figured out, yet, how to switch off focus priority and just shoot, not matter if the picture (or a part of it) is sharp or not. I can switch this off on my Nikon D700.

There is release priority AF as well. Select continuous AF, and all of a sudden this issue disappears...

I don't think the SD performance is too slow; from a review by Image Resource, with data here:

We did a nearly full test suite on the Pentax 645D, including timing. It starts up quickly, about 0.7 second, and shuts down a little faster. The buffer fills after 19 large fine JPEGs, taking 27 seconds to clear with a SanDisk Extreme III SDHC card. 16 large RAW files take 53 seconds to clear, and 15 large RAW + JPEG images take 71 seconds to clear. Those are fairly long times, but thankfully you can continue to adjust the camera while the buffers are clearing, which is not true of some cameras.

Miles Hecker reviewed the 645D and was more level-headed:
The 645D has Pentax's' latest 11-Point SAFOX IX+ auto focus system. It has been one of the most accurate auto focus systems I've used, at least on static objects. I won't be using the 645D to shoot running pronghorns in the near future.

And on metering:
The 645D has a 77 segment multi mode metering system. It has matrix, center weighted, and spot metering modes. I tend to use matrix in most settings and spot metering in tricky light, especially snow scenes. In good light, the 645D's matrix metering is all but infallible.

Then on weather sealing:
Almost 100% of my photography is done outdoors. I spend a great of time in the mountains of Wyoming, my home state. Any photo gear I use must be capable of commonly functioning in inclement weather and at temperatures down to 10°F. I have shot in temps as low as -20°F. Conventional digital MF gear just won't do this.

The Hasselblad H3 and H4 series are rated down to 32°F and have no weather sealing. I have a friend in Utah who sold his H3D because it just didn't function at 18°F. Hasselblads response was basically it's not supposed to, end of story.

[phonoline]

lly posted by phonoline* That is correct as far as I can see it. I have not figured out, yet, how to switch off focus priority and just shoot, not matter if the picture (or a part of it) is sharp or not. I can switch this off on my Nikon D700. There is release priority AF as well. It's there in the menus. Select it, and all of a sudden this issue disappears...

uhu, show me where. I can't find it or the English menu was very badly translated into German language.

[Ash]

Unfortunately I don't have a 645d to vouch for release priority shutter release on the camera, but I see it mentioned here in using the continuous AF mode: Pentax 645D Camera Performance - Initial Test

My apologies for misleading you with it being in the menus (sorry).

[phonoline]

No prob, Ash. If release priority is just possible in continuous mode, it might be helpful there but it still doesnt solve my prob in single mode. As far as technical performance tests are concerned I don't care much for them as they never really display reality. The best advisers are those who actually own the camera and use it regularly and on a professional level. That said, I don't care much for what Ken writes although he is right on some points and I don't care much for the opinion of those who don't own or regularly work with what they talk about.

[selar]

or regularly work with what they talk about.

Then what is the purpose of your frequenting this forum? Most of us don't work in the photography profession.

[phonoline]

what a strange question.

Let's put it this way. When you wanna buy a camera for 10.000 US Dollars, you wanna make sure you buy the right thing. Because it's a great deal of money. You then do not wish to read reviews of people who actually don't own and/or regularly use or work with the thing because all they do is just guessing and displaying features they've heard about. Very unhelpful in making a decision worth 10.000 US Dollars.

One of the reasons I am here is that there are a lot of good photographers on here with lots of experience knowing what they talk about, and it doesn't matter to me if they are pros or hobbyists.

[Peter Heinemann]

As far as I have understood, Ken Rockwell´s article on the 645D is 2 years old.

Maybe he forgot about the camera he only knew from data sheets and did not test it later because he just moved on? What about politely asking him for an update on his old review rather than raising a storm in the water glass? Do not get me wrong - I also think that he was completely wrong with everything he wrote, most likely without having having hands on it at all (like me who does not have the spare money to buy one), but as the article is 2 years old, the critics seem a bit funny to me.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Let's put it this way. When you wanna buy a camera for 10.000 US Dollars, you wanna make sure you buy the right thing. Because it's a great deal of money.

Are you kidding? Some people will spend that money on crippled crap just because it makes them hip. In comparison, the 645D is at excellent value.

Ken's reasoning that it has too many features to be serious can only be laughed at. We should have settled on folding cameras then.

[selar]

Are you kidding? Some people will spend that money on crippled crap just because it makes them hip. In comparison, the 645D is at excellent value..

Hehe, “If you have to ask, then you probably can’t afford it” (J. P. Morgan?)

[lordofthestrings]

Ismael has it right. Rockwell is a genius. He's also a troll, and he's also hilarious, and occasionally he even posts good information. But if you don't know what you're getting into when you go to his site, there's a reasonable chance you'll become upset, or possibly misinformed. So, basically, he's a pretty good sample of the internet.

I totally agree.
Anyway, he (as a nikonist) said one time, here SMC Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8

"Heck, if I had tried these Pentax SMC Lenses back in the 1980s when I switched to Nikon, I just might have gone to Pentax. These are much nicer than Canon's FD lenses"

He says a lot of things, he is critical, he says "everything and nothing" (as we say here in Italy) but he has shown great respect for Pentax many times.
I myself "wondered" a lot of times (because he is a nikonist) how good he often writes good things about Pentax.
Don't worry about Ken Rockwell, take the good and leave the bad, there are other people to worry about, people that don't know what Asahi/Pentax is...

[grhazelton]

Funny thing is that he gave the 645n a stellar review and raved about the 35mm wide angle and the 150mm. Go figure.

[Giklab]

Ken Rockwell. Says he loves portability...
... Goes to Disneyland with a D3.

[vanyagor]

I was reluctant to revive this thread considering the inflammatory nature of the topic even though I believe any thread discussing Ken Rockwell is 1) entertaining 2) very important. However since it was revived anyway, here is my take on the topic.

I simply do not get it, how is it possible so many people understand Ken Rockwell literally despite he does a pretty good job with his "disclaimers"? Personally I have no troubles getting his message(s) (automatically "filtering" or "translating" his writing into my "language"). Even though I value factual and precise information as someone with a technical background.

I think Ken Rockwell is enlightening and thought provoking especially for all the beginner photographers visiting dpreview-like websites. His "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" article alone deserves IMHO all the money he might be getting from his website.

Some people have the approach of don't ever hurt anybodies feelings; lets all keep everybody happy and let the idiots eventually shoot themselves with their shortcomings because everybody kept calling them great. Others just say it how they see it, no lies, no talking behind their back...

It is good that you like criticism. If I were still 10 years old I would have assumed that anyone taking Ken literally is either an idiot or a liar (trying to be in the spirit-of-the-OP). However having grown up since then, I know better than that. I do know people have different opinions and see same things differently. Of course in the spirit of the OP, calling someone an idiot tells more about the one who does it rather than about the person being called names.

I rarely read Ken's reviews and if I do - I read reviews of the gear he was indeed using + I "filter" it for intended BS and mocking. I'm puzzled why someone could be compelled to go and read his thoughts on the gear he has not used especially if one doesn't like him at all. We all have opinions of the newly released cameras. This is his personal website, he is posting his opinions and he goes an extra step further - he does warn the reader about the "thoroughness" of his "reviews".

No really! It is hilarious when someone disagrees with Ken and then makes a post titled in a true Rockwellian spirit! And then goes on to denounce every single bit of an opinionated review accompanied with this disclaimer It has been quoted multiple times before, and some still don't want to get it, so I will take the liberty and quote it again:

"

This site is my personal opinion based on what gear works well for me and my particular style of photography. ... this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

I do this website for laughs and to help people out. I also do all this alone - no one proof reads or checks facts, so there can be mistakes.

I'm also a big kidder. I never said any of this is true and I like to fool arond now and then and simply make stuff up.

Don't take anything here as seriously as something you read scribbled on a bathroom wall. In fact, it's easier to put things on websites than it is for a vandal to write on a restroom wall.

Sure, I'm biased: I'm reporting on what works well for me what I'm trying to do personally. ... I'm more concerned with portability and speed and ease of use for real photography in the field than I am with laboratory performance. I'm not doing this in a vacuum. I do this site for fun and don't charge anybody for anything. ...

I do this site for fun and kid around a lot because I can. I never said that anything you read here is true, in fact, some of it is just plain fooling around because that's my personality. Every month or so someone takes me too seriously and takes offense. Lighten up. If you knew me personally you'd know I don't take anything seriously. Maybe I should code all the things about which I'm kidding in green text so those people can figure it out. Feel free to ask if something's unclear. Don't believe anything you read on the internet just because it's on the internet. Most people find my attitude, honesty and to-the-point directness hilarious and helpful, and no one can please everyone."