[JinDesu]

To be fair, Phase 1 and Hasselblad are going to use that same sensor in their "MF" backs also. While in comparison to the film format the sensor is smaller, between the three big MF companies no one is going to disparage the 645Z.

[Hakusan]

Well, if you like ultra wide lenses, the 645D is going to be handicapped or at least expensive. I have the A 35mm, DFA 55mm, A 120mm, and FA 300mm f/5.6 with 1.4X TC. I don't feel limited, but I did come from medium-format film rather than 35mm so the lens selection seems fine and I don't mind the lens speed.

Whatever, format you want to call it, I think the aspect ratio is a more important choice. At least it is to me. I don't really like the 3:2. I find it hard to work with, especially vertically.

[Nuff]

A two stop push is over developing. That's what produces the poor tonal scale and crushed blacks. The uneven development, if intentional, then whatever floats a persons boat. And, it appears, he is just goes with whatever his meter says.

That style has been around for a very long time. It is not unique. Perhaps even a cliché. Having spent a life time trying to get more tonal scale in my negatives I can say, IMHO, it is harder to get more tonal scale than to get less. I'm not knocking that style but it's not that hard to do.

And a lot of great photos have this look. I can't really think of any great photos with all the detail and sharpness showing everywhere. I'm into minimalist photos, ones that emphasis composition, lines and geometry etc. This style does it perfectly. I find the current obsession with cluttering the photos with every single worthless detail to take away from photos than actually making them better. I think it only gives them technical bragging rights. Most busy photos are quickly forgotten IMHO. Good example is 500px, I can't remember a single photo that had impact on me and I can recall right now.

Also since he has a good eye for strong compositions and what matters and doesn't, it's why he's well known and we are instead arguing on a forum.

Let me ask you one thing. Who are the photographers with biggest influence on your photography? Unfortunately I have many, but one thing I know is that none of them had access to photoshop or latest digital cameras. I actually have a pinterest board where I track of the photographs which had impact on me. But I guess that's getting very off-topic now and if you want to discuss this more just PM me or start another thread.

PS: As someone who works in IT and spends whole day in front of PC, the last thing I ever want to do when I get home is be in front of computer and edit 100s of photos on it. But I know not everyone feels the same way.

[Hakusan]

And a lot of great photos have this look. I can't really think of any great photos with all the detail and sharpness showing everywhere. I'm into minimalist photos, ones that emphasis composition, lines and geometry etc. This style does it perfectly. I find the current obsession with cluttering the photos with every single worthless detail to take away from photos than actually making them better. I think it only gives them technical bragging rights. Most busy photos are quickly forgotten IMHO. Good example is 500px, I can't remember a single photo that had impact on me and I can recall right now.

Also since he has a good eye for strong compositions and what matters and doesn't, it's why he's well known and we are instead arguing on a forum.

Let me ask you one thing. Who are the photographers with biggest influence on your photography? Unfortunately I have many, but one thing I know is that none of them had access to photoshop or latest digital cameras. I actually have a pinterest board where I track of the photographs which had impact on me. But I guess that's getting very off-topic now and if you want to discuss this more just PM me or start another thread.

PS: As someone who works in IT and spends whole day in front of PC, the last thing I ever want to do when I get home is be in front of computer and edit 100s of photos on it. But I know not everyone feels the same way.

Really, you can't think of great photos that have lots of detail? Sabastio Salgado does not do anything for you? His photographs are really detailed.

BTW, if you pin something to Pinterest, they assume you have copyright to the image and that you can transfer that copyright. You are giving them unlimited use to those images.

[tuco]

And a lot of great photos have this look.

I'm not knocking the look. If you admire it and want to shoot like that ( which you indicated) shoot small format, push your film and make as many mistakes developing the film as you can. You too can have the grunge look without out a bunch of fancy software plugins.

But you still have to sit in front of a computer if you want to convert it to a digital file and post on forums. So you might as well tweak the contrast curve a little more in the image editor to your liking because not all will turn out exactly like you may want, no doubt.

[Nuff]

Really, you can't think of great photos that have lots of detail? Sabastio Salgado does not do anything for you? His photographs are really detailed.

BTW, if you pin something to Pinterest, they assume you have copyright to the image and that you can transfer that copyright. You are giving them unlimited use to those images.

I think pretty much uploading your images to internet you are stuffed... that's why I only every show low res copies of my photos. Rarely above 1000pixels wide, most often 800px.

Yes, I do like Salgado's work, but I think other photographers are much bigger influences on me.
I will not list them, but if you want you can check this out, and it is always work in progress. Jarek Miszkinis on Pinterest

[MJSfoto1956]

Photographers interested in bokeh should be drawn to such a camera, assuming a good selection of f/2.8 lenses become available. For portraiture and even events, I can see the 645Z being quite desirable -- the amount of cropping available will be extreme. For great bokeh, the current prime choice appears to be a full-frame camera with 85mm f/1.4 lens. A medium format camera with a decent f/2.8 lens would match the bokeh and likely provide a better overall "look". In particular, I used to shoot a lot with Mamiya RB67 and I found that looking down was the ideal way to do portraiture -- for some reason, looking down made the models more comfortable (compared to DSLRs where you are basically "pointing" at the model). Additionally, if Pentax were to provide some pro-level T/S and/or bellows gear for product photography, then I could see studios adopting this platform. For landscape the 645Z is more of a mixed bag: lens choice doesn't match DSLRs, weight is higher, and panoramic stitching is well established and viable.

M

[tuco]

[quote=MJSfoto1956;2848619]

...A medium format camera with a decent f/2.8 lens would match the bokeh and likely provide a better overall "look".
...

Perhaps there is some confusion with shallow DOF and how a lens renders its out of focus. Bokeh is an attribute of a lens not the format of a camera's sensor. So to "match the bokeh" it would mean different lenses rendering their out of focus about the same (eg creamy, smooth, harsh, nervous and not how "shallow" the DOF is) , no?

[Pål Jensen]

DOF is depth of field.
Bokeh is how the out-of-focus areas are rendered....

[MJSfoto1956]

DOF is depth of field.
Bokeh is how the out-of-focus areas are rendered....

fair enough. Fortunately pretty much all MF lenses are "old style" and never exhibit modern "onion ring" behaviors -- at least those MF lenses I have tested since 1976.

Or put another way: MF shooters take good "bokeh" for granted. Seems to be that rare DSLR lens that delivers the goods.

M

[Nuff]

fair enough. Fortunately pretty much all MF lenses are "old style" and never exhibit modern "onion ring" behaviors -- at least those MF lenses I have tested since 1976.



Or put another way: MF shooters take good "bokeh" for granted. Seems to be that rare DSLR lens that delivers the goods.



M

Lots of MF lenses have ugly bokeh. Especially the ones with leaf shutters, since they have 5 aperture blades.

Pentax 67 is pretty good here. Leica RF are not MF. But since lots of their old lenses have between 15-12 blades, they have very interesting bokeh rendering.

With MF, film ones, not crop digital, usually the background gets blasted into oblivion, at which point the rendering doesn't matter all that much.

[tuco]

Lots of MF lenses have ugly bokeh. Especially the ones with leaf shutters, since they have 5 aperture blades.

I second that. Some of my Zeiss lenses on my 500C/M don't render OOF complex structure very well at all.

[Nuff]

I second that. Some of my Zeiss lenses on my 500C/M don't render OOF complex structure very well at all.

It can be a hit and miss. I just have to be careful of any specular highlights. Since the show as pentagons when the lens is stopped down. Although rarely when the planets align it can add very vintage classic look to the photo.

[MJSfoto1956]

Well, I guess I was spoiled -- my Mamiya 7 lenses were all excellent performers wrt sharpness and bokeh. Ditto for my Mamiya RB 67 lenses. Ditto for my Schneider lenses on my Linhof. Guess you get what you pay for.

That being said, I'm not unhappy with the limited lenses on my K-3 -- a bitt "fussy" compared to MF but generally acceptable.

M

[tuco]

Well, I guess I was spoiled -- my Mamiya 7 lenses were all excellent performers wrt sharpness and bokeh.

M

I have a Mamiya 7II camera too with a 43/65/150 lenses. A lot of 35mm format lenses have 9 rounded aperture blades.