[Rondec]

I, too, found the article a little odd. Complaining that the 645z is too easy to use compared to your "standard" digital medium format camera doesn't seem like much of a problem. I do think that the D800 is "good enough" that there are plenty of folks who would be satisfied with it compared with a medium format camera, but assuming you are willing to go down the medium format road, I don't see why you would turn up your nose at a camera that is easier to use and has better ergonomics.

[halfspin]

"It's a world-class image-maker in every regard, and the fullest realization of the dream of a 35mm quality MF camera. "

Yeah they hated it! Bahstids!

[EssJayEff]

I put my K-5 on a tripod yesterday . . . and it slowed down my work. Same thing happens when I put my pinhole camera on a tripod. Aha . . . it's the tripod's fault!!!! ;-)

[panoguy]

What's this? A schizophrenic review of a non-luxury brand on Luminous Landscape? Not really even a review, per se, but an opinion piece? Written by two authors with divergent opinions?

This is just par for the course with LuLa these days. Personally, I think the site's relevance is fading faster than the market value of a Canon kit lens.

[normhead]

I'm reading this review and looking at their photos

But we have to put these relatively minor critiques in context: the 645Z is light-years ahead of any other MF-class camera, and frankly better than just about all of the FF 35mm machines in user interface. Using a Phase or Hassy body is pure agony after handling a "Z". Many of the controls are blessedly well done, such as the pop-up menu that appears when one hits "INFO" during image review, which displays thumbnails of the four review options (eg: with or with histo, 3-colour histo, etc), between which one can quickly scroll.

The "Z" is still a great user's camera.

I'm not seeing this a a negative review, it's good capable photographers discussing a camera, you seriously can't be thinking the negatives on this review are anything but the "well there's not anything that's absolutely perfect." When you talk to good photographers, you get a different perspective than you do at the fluff sites, but you also need to understand when they are criticizing stuff that may not be relevant to you, that even though it may not be all positive, that may not be personally relevant.

The text and images are causing me to reconsider whether I want to sell some stuff and go for a Z rather than getting a second hand D. Those landscapes are to die for.

The real problem with this camera, ironically, is that it is so usable that it invites the sort of run-'n-gun work that will inevitably degrade IQ, despite its enjoyability and convenience. So you can very quickly find yourself with a file that has little advantage over one from an A7r....

I think I can live with that problem.

[Kenntak]

I, too, found the article a little odd. Complaining that the 645z is too easy to use compared to your "standard" digital medium format camera doesn't seem like much of a problem. I do think that the D800 is "good enough" that there are plenty of folks who would be satisfied with it compared with a medium format camera, but assuming you are willing to go down the medium format road, I don't see why you would turn up your nose at a camera that is easier to use and has better ergonomics.

That was my impression too. I found that part of the review confusing and strained. Ease of use is a bad thing? Otherwise, it was fairly positive, although I thought more comparisons with another medium format camera should have been made.

[monochrome]

I've read the LL article twice now and I'm having a difficult time convincing myself - as any true masochistic Pentaxian must - this is a , "Yeah, but . . . ." review. As in, "Yeah, Pentax has made a great camera, but . . . . . ".

I do think it's a bit conflicted to state

1. wedding photographers will want to imagine the jpeg output
2. the D810 / A7s is a better value for IQ and
3. the 645z is too easy to use.

Bit of cognitive dissonance there, i think.

All in all, though, this is clearly a strongly positive first impression.

[normhead]

the D810 / A7s is a better value for IQ and

Ya, but if you're thinking "best available IQ " instead of best value IQ. I'd argue my K-3 is better value IQ than a D800, 63% of the resolution at 1/3 the price. Once you start talking "value", well value isn't an absolute term, and one person's "value" is another's wasted money.

[Rondec]

Ya, but if you're thinking "best available IQ " instead of best value IQ. I'd argue my K-3 is better value IQ than a D800, 63% of the resolution at 1/3 the price. Once you start talking "value", well value isn't an absolute term, and one person's "value" is another's wasted money.

I always find a discussion of "value" to be difficult. If you have 15,000 dollars to spend on a camera and glass (most of us don't), how would you best spend it? Tough question and depends on how you prioritize different things (resolution, high iso, auto focus speed). There is no perfect camera, or lens, is there? Certainly not in my price range.

[philbaum]

I always find a discussion of "value" to be difficult. If you have 15,000 dollars to spend on a camera and glass (most of us don't), how would you best spend it? Tough question and depends on how you prioritize different things (resolution, high iso, auto focus speed). There is no perfect camera, or lens, is there? Certainly not in my price range.

I agree with you but would delete that last short sentence - there is not a perfect camera-period-(at any price) :-) I used to think that the D800 was on top of the heap as a "gold standard". Until a week ago when i shot a play dress rehearsal with a friend who has one. I couldn't believe the loud shutter on the D800. Its not an objectionable sound, but its loud. Doing a lot of shooting for a live play organization, i try not to make my presence the center of attention. I could hear that camera from 25 feet away.

The resolution is great on the K3 at 8X. The only thing missing on the K3 is a tilting LCD screen, but am confident that will be corrected in the next iteration

[normhead]

The ISO comparison on LL for that article is amazing. For once, the author knows how to light his subjects and you aren't getting artifacts from under-exposure....

ISO 100 – Totally clean at 100%

ISO 200 – Totally clean at 100%

ISO 400 – Almost totally clean at 100%

ISO 800 – Almost totally clean at 100%

ISO 1600 – Very clean

ISO 3200 – Very clean

ISO 6400 – Slight luminance texture. Only slight NR needed

ISO 12800 – Visible noise, but no NR needed for printing

ISO 25600 – Noise visible, but cleans uop nicely

ISO 51200 – Noisy. Usable with some NR

ISO 102400 – Very noisy. Loss of black density. Usable in an emergency

ISO 204800 – Very noise. Not really of use practical use.

Again as in the last few things Ive looked at, I'd use 6400, ISO on that camera the way I use 400 ISO on my K-3 or 800 on my K-5.. I'd use 12800 the way I'd use 640, on my K-3 or 1600 on my K-5 It's amazing, you can see the colour interpretation changes as you lose dynamic range, but the noise values just don't change much until after 6400.

[bcroslin]

The LL review is a joke but I expected it to be. The site is supported by ads from Phase One and resellers like Capture Integration who are in the business of selling high-dollar gear with value-added back-end support programs. They would never compare an H5D or Phase camera to an A7r or a Nikon D800 and talk about how close in image quality they are. IMO the emperor has no clothes over there and not comparing the Z to the H5D or the IQ 180 just proves it.

[jva59]

I'm reading this review and looking at their photos



I'm not seeing this a a negative review, it's good capable photographers discussing a camera, you seriously can't be thinking the negatives on this review are anything but the "well there's not anything that's absolutely perfect." When you talk to good photographers, you get a different perspective than you do at the fluff sites, but you also need to understand when they are criticizing stuff that may not be relevant to you, that even though it may not be all positive, that may not be personally relevant.

The text and images are causing me to reconsider whether I want to sell some stuff and go for a Z rather than getting a second hand D. Those landscapes are to die for.



I think I can live with that problem.

I agree with Norm. I admit the LL piece is odd, but one reason is that it's not really a review, though it has elements of one. A piece that followed a more strictly review-like approach would have restricted itself to judging how well the Z does by certain criteria compared to other cameras in its class. If you isolate those parts of the piece that satisfy this description, it seems to be saying the Z is terrific even before you take its price into account. Someone seriously interested in MF without a deep commitment to another system is likely to go away from this piece thinking 'I want a Pentax 645 Z yesterday'. But the writers mix in reflections about their own attachments to other systems and whether they would want to give them up in favor of the Z, whether its advantages might encourage a more casual approach to photography, whether their aren't hidden benefits to defects of the other systems, whether MF is all that important anyway and so on. All of which is perfectly fine, if you keep in mind that they are not writing a straight thumbs up/thumbs down review.

[TCSJordan]

It was a shame that they chose to not investigate the video a little deeper, but video is not their focus, and they had the camera for a limited time.


Steve

I'm in the process of working on my 645Z review, (a video review that looks like it will clock in at over 20 minutes), and the video functions and image quality will get a very thorough analysis. Medium format video has an interesting aesthetic, that's for sure.

[bibz]

Been waiting patiently for a thorough TCS review, can't wait to see what you guys can do with it. Thanks for the good work Jordan!