Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-30-2014, 07:00 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 508
QuoteOriginally posted by LaurenOE Quote
The Canikony folks present a huge bias in the professional work place. Justified or not, it's the way it is.
Canikony! Wow, we Sony shooters seem to have come up in the world....But I guess with a Z and an A7R this makes me a Pentony (eeee, sounds too much like Brony...), or a Sonax (sounds like Lorax!)? Actually, as a Sony shooter I take exception to being associated with those other two (but not as much exception as they take to being lumped together with each other, lol).

BTW, people should check this out: Cambo Actus, here and here (check out the size!). I'm getting set up to get one shortly I think. With the Z and this Cambo-A7R combo (and my Rhinocam, almost forgot), I'll be set for a long long time---dreams finally can come true. Amazing times we live in, in many ways.

07-30-2014, 08:53 AM   #32
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 88
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Did you contact Pentax about your experience?

It seems very odd to me that you could see shadow detail on set that did not make it to the card.

It wouldn't beyond Pentax -- as others have posted video seems to be a neglected stepchild for them -- but still it seems silly that they don't seem to be able to record the detail they can show during the preview.

It is very sad that Pentax got worse with video IQ. The K-5 (II) still used the mechanical sensor stabilisation instead of that horrid software solution they are using for the K-3. The K-5 (II) also used Motion JPG as a recording format which was very bad in terms of space efficiency (file size) but excellent in terms of avoiding compression artefacts.

It is nice that the K-3 (and 645Z?) can record using H.264 and that software image stabilisation is there in case noise from the sensor movement would be bothering, but why don't they make these alternatives optional, allowing people to opt for mechanical stabilisation and space-inefficient but very detailed Motion JPG recordings?

I'm not a video shooter myself and actually wouldn't mind a CCD sensor in a camera for still photography, but it seems tragic that Pentax could have created another Canon 5D Mk II for MF video with very little effort but did not manage to.

BTW, I was puzzled by a few comments from the DDG experts:
  1. "Native ISO 200 is too low": The lower the native ISO, the better. A higher native ISO just means that there is less dynamic range and that you need neutral density filters earlier. The term "native ISO" just refers to the lowest ISO possible without using intentional overexposure combined with pulling down exposure in post. The K-5 (II) has a native ISO of 80 which made the K-5 the king of the APS-C sensor performance chart at DxOMark for a long time.
  2. "It tops out at ISO 3200 already.": I'm not sure they realise that ISO numbers need to be converted between sensor formats (just like focal length and f-stops) in order to allow numerical comparisons. An ISO of 3200 on (crop) MF equates to ~ISO 5320 on FF and ~ISO 11972 on APS-C. If a dedicated video camera uses an even smaller chip than APS-C then its ISO numbers will be even less comparable.
1: Native ISO is the ISO setting with the most dynamic range. Generally, a higher native ISO is more desirable, since an ND filter outside is much less expensive than a bunch of lighting gear shooting indoors. For reference, the native ISO of thePanasonic GH4 is 400 ISO, Canon Cinema cameras is 850 ISO, Sony's new Cinema cameras shoot natively at 2000 ISO, and the Sony A7S has a whopping 3200 Native ISO! If the sensor is designed optimized for that ISO, image noise is not present, or extremely well controlled. I'd hate to light a large interior shoot with a native ISO of 64, I'd need a proper lighting truck and film crew!

2: I'm not sure where you got the impression that ISO sensitivities are not consistent between formats. This is the case with depth of field control, but not ISO sensitivity. If a location requires 3200 ISO at a set aperture and shutter speed, having a larger sensor will make no difference to the ISO chosen. The amount of noise might be reduced, but ISO 3200 is no brighter on a medium format sensor. Even with 3 1K LED lights, 3200 ISO was not enough light for some of the wide shots at night. Since we know that the sensor is incredible in low light, this issue must come down to poor processing of the signal.
07-30-2014, 10:44 AM   #33
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,051
QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
1: Native ISO is the ISO setting with the most dynamic range.
Agreed.

That's why "ISO 400" (the net says "ISO 800") for the GH4 and "ISO 3200" for the SONY A7s cannot be the native ISOs for these cameras.

Have a look at the dynamic range plotted against ISO for the A7s, GH4, and K-5 II (select the "Measurements" tab and then the "Dynamic range" tab).

You'll notice that all three cameras have their highest dynamic range at their lowest ISO setting (K-5 at ISO 68, A7S at ISO 80, GH4 at ISO 80; all measured ISO values as opposed to manufacturer figures).

This makes sense because increasing ISO does not increase the full well capacity, it only raises the signal (in the analogue domain up to a certain ISO value, then digitally), meaning that the difference between the lowest possible (amplified) signal and the (constant) full well capacity becomes smaller, hence the decrease in dynamic range.

As you can see from the plot, all three cameras lose dynamic range as ISO is raised (with the A7s and GH4 having lost many stops of dynamic range at the figures you quoted).

QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
Generally, a higher native ISO is more desirable,
That's not true, because if you can lower the native ISO (say from 200 to 100) this means you gain more dynamic range (here, doubling it), not affecting the dynamic range for the previous ISO figure (here 200).

A higher native ISO does not necessarily imply that the sensor is more sensitive while having the same dynamic range as other sensors with a lower native ISO. The native ISO mainly indicates the lack of lower ISO settings with more dynamic range.

Perhaps there is a confusion between "base ISO" and the so-called "native ISO range" with the latter often spanning a wide range including ISO settings with digital amplification that just excludes very exotic settings?

Or the quoted figures are meant to indicate the highest ISO values that still imply analogue amplification? The respective value for the K-5 II is ISO 1600. Higher settings can be emulated in post-processing without loss of quality, as they are just realised by digital amplification anyhow.

I hope it becomes clear that whatever is going on, the "native ISO" figure for the 645Z you mentioned in the video appears to be defined using a different approach than the figures you are quoting for the other cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
I'm not sure where you got the impression that ISO sensitivities are not consistent between formats.
That's not an impression, but a consequence from properly converting shooting parameters between different formats.

Please look at Falk Lumo's "Camera Equivalence" article (in particular the table below Fig. 3 which shows that you need to convert ISO settings with the square of the crop factor).

Intuitively, you'll agree that downsizing an image reduces noise. When you view an image captured with (digital crop-)medium format sensor at the same output size as an image captured with an APS-C sensor, the former is scaled down by a factor of ~3.75 (which is the crop factor (~1.93) between these two formats squared). This will make the image shot with the larger sensor appear to have much less noise, as if it had been shot with a lower ISO setting on the smaller format.

QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
If a location requires 3200 ISO at a set aperture and shutter speed, having a larger sensor will make no difference to the ISO chosen.
This is correct, if you want to achieve the same exposure.

Exposure, however, is defined in terms of lumen per square inch, i.e., it is independent of the format size. In order to properly compare images (so that they have the same noise level), however, one needs to make sure that the total amount of light is the same, not that the exposure is the same. With total amount of light, the format size matters again.

I hope you'll find that Falk's article explains it to your satisfaction. There is also the "Equivalence" essay by Joseph James in case you'll find Falk's article too technical (he is a Physicist). Please rest assured that the conversion of ISO numbers is based on Physics with the goal of fair comparisons, not an impression of mine.
07-31-2014, 02:26 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,051
On the topic of "native ISO" again:

I just watched the interview with Matt Frazer from Panasonic and he explained that "ISO 800" is mapped to "0 dB" and that this could be construed to imply that "ISO 800" is the GH4's native ISO.

However, he also said that this mapping choice may not have much technical relevance. Perhaps "ISO 800" is where the digital amplification starts with that camera. The "0 dB <-> ISO 800" mapping could have that relevance, but perhaps it is much more arbitrary than this.

In any event, as per my previous post it is clear that the camera's dynamic range is higher at lower ISO settings.

BTW, given the sensor size differences between the 645Z and the GH4, you could shoot the 645Z at ISO 20645 for the same noise as the GH4 would have at ISO 3200.

That's making two assumptions (one of them being most likely unrealistic):
  1. The two sensors a compariable in their noise levels. Given that the 645Z uses a modern Sony sensor, one can assume that it is very good and comparable to the GH4's sensor.
  2. All of the sensor is used to form the image. While this is true for stills, the 645Z probably uses subsampling which will diminish its noise advantage potential. If the 645Z used all of its sensor for video and then downsampled it to produce the desired output format (say 1080p) then the calculation would be right. But the more line skipping, etc. it performs, the more the advantage will be diminished.
It would be good to hearing from you again, once you had a chance to discuss "native ISO", etc. with others.


Last edited by Class A; 07-31-2014 at 06:07 AM.
07-31-2014, 08:36 PM   #35
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 88
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
On the topic of "native ISO" again:

I just watched the interview with Matt Frazer from Panasonic and he explained that "ISO 800" is mapped to "0 dB" and that this could be construed to imply that "ISO 800" is the GH4's native ISO.

However, he also said that this mapping choice may not have much technical relevance. Perhaps "ISO 800" is where the digital amplification starts with that camera. The "0 dB <-> ISO 800" mapping could have that relevance, but perhaps it is much more arbitrary than this.

In any event, as per my previous post it is clear that the camera's dynamic range is higher at lower ISO settings.

BTW, given the sensor size differences between the 645Z and the GH4, you could shoot the 645Z at ISO 20645 for the same noise as the GH4 would have at ISO 3200.

That's making two assumptions (one of them being most likely unrealistic):
  1. The two sensors a compariable in their noise levels. Given that the 645Z uses a modern Sony sensor, one can assume that it is very good and comparable to the GH4's sensor.
  2. All of the sensor is used to form the image. While this is true for stills, the 645Z probably uses subsampling which will diminish its noise advantage potential. If the 645Z used all of its sensor for video and then downsampled it to produce the desired output format (say 1080p) then the calculation would be right. But the more line skipping, etc. it performs, the more the advantage will be diminished.
It would be good to hearing from you again, once you had a chance to discuss "native ISO", etc. with others.
I've seen the Panasonic GH4 video with Matt Frazer, which was released before the GH4 was released. Since then Panasonic has mapped the native ISO to be 400 at 0db gain. It's important to understand that processing is different for still and video capture. The GH4 shoots stills with the most dynamic range at 160 ISO, video at 400. How do you test this? Just look at the histogram or waveform while ramping the ISO up, and maintain the overall exposure. You will see the room at the shadow and highlight regions expand, stop, and decrease. The area with the most room in the shadows and highlights is the ideal ISO setting for video. No complicated understanding of pixel pitch or math required (which is good, because I'm awful at math).

The Sony A7S shows the most dynamic range in stills at 100 ISO, and in video with S-Log 2 at 3200 ISO, a whopping 5 stops difference. How do I know that the best dynamic range is at 3200? I have more shadow and highlight headroom in my waveform than at any other ISO setting.

Your impressions on the stills quality regarding the 645Z sensor and GH4 sensor are close to what I have seen. In video terms however, the noise from the 645Z at 3200 is comparable to the GH4 at 12800 (though the GH4 still has better dynamic range at this setting). This is not a limitation of the sensor, but rather Pentax's lousy video processing. You can mathematically tell me what noise levels should be like, I make my videos to let you know what they ARE like.

On to your assumptions, the first is absolutely true: the Sony sensor is spectacular! However the poor processing makes the video signal vastly inferior to the GH4's image.
Secondly, line skipping is indeed used for the video capture. This is part of why the image is lacklustre, and just one more variable that makes talking about ISO 'equivalence' absolutely meaningless in the real world. We could talk about sensor size giving the 645Z an equivalent of 20645 ISO to the GH4's 3200 ISO, but the truth is, the 645Z's video looks awful in comparison. The Sony RX10 with a 1" sensor shoots a much stronger video signal at 3200 ISO than the Pentax 645Z with an enormously larger sensor. I can't say how much larger, as I'm bad at math.

I have had a chance to discuss native ISO with many excellent filmmakers through the years, including the award winning crew at DDG. While I recognize that what you are arguing may be true in theoretical, technical terms, I'll keep trusting what my histogram, waveform, and most importantly, my eyes tell me about video quality. The Pentax 645Z's stills rock. The video doesn't. I tested it extensively, and the results aren't what your equations would anticipate.

Tomorrow, I'll post a video from the gorgeous Sony F5 shot entirely at that camera's native ISO, 2000. It has an APS-C size sensor and the image quality blows away what the 645Z can do at 200 ISO (which, my reference monitor tells me, is that camera's native ISO).
07-31-2014, 09:31 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,265
Good discussion..
If Pentax don't lift their game with regards to video, (no matter what some internal opinion might be) then they are going to lose any ground they have recently made up and perhaps risk becoming an embarrassment to many DSLR shooters who have to explain to their Canikony friends why Pentax sux in the video dept.
It's simply good business sense to make it so.
07-31-2014, 10:18 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,354
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
perhaps risk becoming an embarrassment to many DSLR shooters who have to explain to their Canikony friends why Pentax sux in the video dept.
There's no risk of their becoming an embarrassment...they've been one for years, in this department. This is simply continuing the trend.
07-31-2014, 10:37 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,051
Hi Jordan,

thanks for your response.

QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
Since then Panasonic has mapped the native ISO to be 400 at 0db gain.
Which seems to indicate that there is a degree of arbitrariness in what gets mapped to "0db".

QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
While I recognize that what you are arguing may be true in theoretical, technical terms, I'll keep trusting what my histogram, waveform, and most importantly, my eyes tell me about video quality.
Please note that I said that I'm making an assumption that is probably unrealistic.

In other words, I did not mathematically predict that the 645Z has to have better video IQ than the GH4. I clearly said that my calculations apply to stills (i.e., full use of the sensor) and that video is another matter due to the likely use of subsampling in the case of the 645Z.

It is not that case that "talking about ISO 'equivalence' absolutely meaningless in the real world". One only has to take into account different sensor performances and subsampling. As I don't know what the 645Z does in terms of subsampling, I cannot predict what its noise performance should be.

I'm still not convinced that you are comparing apples to apples.

QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
How do you test this? Just look at the histogram or waveform while ramping the ISO up, and maintain the overall exposure. You will see the room at the shadow and highlight regions expand, stop, and decrease. The area with the most room in the shadows and highlights is the ideal ISO setting for video.
How do you see "room" in a histogram?

If you are talking about the distance of a spread of tones to the leftmost and rightmost ends of the histogram then I'm not sure you are making a correct evaluation.

I'm not saying I know you are doing something wrong, but I don't quite see how you can evaluate real dynamic range without evaluating noise levels for the darker tones.

I would change ISO and adjust exposure such that the brightest tone in the scene is mapped to the highest value (ETTR). I would then evaluate (for each ISO setting respectively) at which lower value the noise level becomes unacceptable. The lower that value is, the higher the dynamic range.

It could very well be the case that I don't understand your method, but it seems impossible to me to evaluate dynamic range by just using a histogram (or waveform) without looking at noise levels.

08-02-2014, 09:00 AM   #39
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,617
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
perhaps risk becoming an embarrassment to many DSLR shooters who have to explain to their Canikony friends why Pentax sux in the video dept.
That is a small risk, IMHO. I don't know that I have ever had a discussion with my non-Pentax-owner photo friends regarding Pentax video. Most are not into videography.


Steve
08-02-2014, 12:29 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,265
'Many' does not imply 'all'.
08-02-2014, 09:05 PM   #41
Pentaxian
richandfleur's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,102
My take on this is that if you're going to include a feature, then that feature should be implemented to a level that makes it competitive in the market place.
Reason being, if you're going to include it then you are going to be compared on it, and failing miserably in a field doesn't help you image.
Given how sub par the implementation is on the 645Z I personally feel Pentax would have been better off not including it at all, as it only detracts from the stellar stills performance of this device.
08-03-2014, 12:22 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 608
QuoteOriginally posted by richandfleur Quote
My take on this is that if you're going to include a feature, then that feature should be implemented to a level that makes it competitive in the market place.
Reason being, if you're going to include it then you are going to be compared on it, and failing miserably in a field doesn't help you image.
Given how sub par the implementation is on the 645Z I personally feel Pentax would have been better off not including it at all, as it only detracts from the stellar stills performance of this device.

My thoughts exactly, and not only that, but the additional R&D could have gone into possibly fixing a few other issues with it.

There is no point being a groundbreaker if the ground has barely been broken, you have to hit a home run for it to have impact in the marketplace.
08-03-2014, 02:57 AM   #43
Pentaxian
PiDicus Rex's Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,056
QuoteOriginally posted by TCSJordan Quote
1: Native ISO is the ISO setting with the most dynamic range.
Still reading this discussion, but,.. isn't 'native ISO' simply the sensitivity of the sensor with 0dB gain applied to the output ?
08-03-2014, 06:29 AM   #44
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,051
QuoteOriginally posted by PiDicus Rex Quote
Still reading this discussion, but,.. isn't 'native ISO' simply the sensitivity of the sensor with 0dB gain applied to the output ?
The simple answer is "yes".

It holds true when "0dB" actually means "no amplification".

The real answer is more complicated, because for instance Panasonic maps "0dB" on the GH4 to "ISO 400". The fact that they initially mapped "0dB" to "ISO 800" is already a hint that their rationale for this mapping is arbitrary and most likely involves marketing considerations. A higher native (0dB) ISO apparently makes the camera look more sensitive to videographers.

However, if "ISO 400" were actually equivalent to "0dB" then "ISO 200" and "ISO 100" would need to be realised by negative gain, i.e., attenuation. The GH4 has no built-in neutral density filter so the only way to achieve actual attenuation would be by scaling down the signal. The latter would affect dynamic range, though.

There are indeed cameras that offer ISO settings that are not real in the sense that digital attenuation is used. The Canon 5D Mk III, for instance, offers ISO 50 but with the same dynamic range as ISO 100. This means that ISO 50 exposures are essentially over exposed and just scaled down in post.

See how ISO Standard 12232 defines how to measure ISO sensitivity and you'll see that one approach depends on the light level required to saturate the sensor. In other words, the lower the ISO, the higher the overall full-well capacity (or saturation resistance) of the sensor. This, in turn, means that a decrease in ISO will normally imply an increase in dynamic range (the saturation point is reached at higher light levels, while the low light level at which the sensor shows a signal-to-noise ratio of 1 stays the same).

The "ISO 80" of a K-5 (II) are "real" in the sense that the sensor actually shows more tolerance against high light levels compared to ISO 100 (the saturation point is reach at a higher level). This is not the case for the "ISO 50" of the Canon 5D Mk III, that do not come with a higher dynamic range (compared to "ISO 100").

So, you could argue that a good "0dB" ISO value for the 5D Mk III would be "ISO 160" because that's where its dynamic range is the largest (see the respective chart by selecting "EOS 5D Mark III" on the right). BTW, you can also select the Nikon D300 and then you'll see that the old Sony sensors had a native ISO closer to "ISO 200". Select the D7000 (which uses the same sensor as the K-5) and be amazed.

N.B., by looking at the curve for the 5D Mark III, you'll also notice that Canon uses both digital and analogue gain for increasing ISO. The wavy pattern shows that the analogue gain only rises in full stop increments and that intermediate ISO values are faked by digital gain (the more digital gain, the lower the dynamic range, that's why you can see these premature decreases in dynamic range).

Measuring dynamic range necessitates to determine
  1. for which (high) light level the sensor is saturated, and
  2. for which (low) light level the sensor's signal-to-noise ratio hits "1".
So you can use a photon transfer curve to determine dynamic range for various ISO settings. If you follow the link, you'll again notice that the curves associated to ISO 200 and higher are evenly spaced from each other, but that the ISO 100 curve is much closer to the ISO 200 curve. This is a clear give away, that the sensor does not truly achieve ISO 100; it does not truly have the dynamic range required to withstand the high light level that is associated with true ISO 100.

Long story, short conclusion: If every manufacturer associated "0dB" with the ISO setting that corresponds to the highest dynamic range then we would know the native ISO of a sensor by looking up which ISO value "0dB" is mapped to.

However, in the case of the GH4, for instance, I cannot believe that it reaches its highest dynamic range at "ISO 400". That would indicate poor tolerance against bright light. As the graphs for the still photography performance of the camera show, indeed the dynamic range increases towards "ISO 200" and "ISO 100". Associating the latter ISO values with negative attenuation does therefore make little sense (except for marketing purposes to impress people with high "native" ISO values).

This is assuming that just because the GH4's sensor is used in video mode, it does not suddenly lose dynamic range potential for ISO settings "100" and "200". While subsampling has implications on calculating equivalent ISO values, it does not change the relative performance of ISO settings against each other and furthermore the GH4 does not employ any subsampling.

Summarising, I highly suspect that the high "native ISO" claims for the GH4 and other cameras are more marketing vehicle than anything else. I also challenge any home-made procedure that attempts to determine dynamic range, that does not involve measuring for which light levels the sensor reaches saturation and SNR=1. I'm not saying that Jordan's procedure does this, but I could not recognise these necessary ingredients from his description.
08-03-2014, 07:11 AM   #45
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,051
Further to my previous post that suggested that "native ISO" as specified by manufacturers is often not what we might think it means (the ISO setting with the highest dynamic range), here's another example for an arbitrary "native ISO" definition":

RED states
"With RED, the native ISO speed describes the recommended starting point for balancing the competing trade-offs of noise in the shadows and clipping in the highlights.

This does not necessarily reflect anything intrinsic to a camera sensor itself or the performance of cameras by different companies.
"
RED cameras are "ISO less" in that there is no change to analogue (or digital) gain when you change the ISO setting on the camera.

The ISO setting is simply recorded along with the (unchanged) RAW data and is then used to apply a fitting tone curve. Higher ISO values simply mean that shadows get pushed more.

As a result, the true dynamic range of the sensor does not vary at all. The brightest and the lowest light levels it can record are independent of the chosen ISO value.

As a result, it does make zero sense to stick a "native ISO" label to any of the ISO settings and any process that actually measures different dynamic ranges for different ISO settings, actually measures tone curves and not the sensor performance.

DPReview is a prominent offender in this regard. They report various dynamic range performances based on tone curves used in in-camera JPG conversion. This is complete nonsense, of course. True dynamic range performance must be measured at the level of RAW data.

One can of course evaluate the compression characteristics of tone curves, but then one must know that this has nothing to do with the scene-referred dynamic range that the camera can capture.

P.S.: RED advertises their "ISO less" sensor principle as maintaining full dynamic range at all ISO settings ("... retains the full dynamic range of the camera sensor.". This is not wrong, but of course the advantage of using ISO values to actually affect analogue gain is that signal-to-noise ratios are better in low light. As long as the readout process for a sensor is not noise-less yet (Sony comes pretty close already), analogue amplification still makes sense.

The only real advantage of an "ISO less" approach is that you maintain resistance against bright levels at all times, whereas with an increased ISO setting, you may blow out highlights that the sensor otherwise could have captured.

Last edited by Class A; 08-03-2014 at 07:25 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
5d, 645z, 645z field test, camera, ddg, design, field, filmmakers, filmmaking, format, hands-on, ii, jordan drake, medium format, mk, opportunity, pentax, review, shoot, steve, tcstv 645z field, test, the camera store, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ricoh produced 645Z video - model shoot rawr Pentax Medium Format 4 07-09-2014 09:22 AM
645Z with HD video? derekkite Pentax News and Rumors 20 04-12-2014 05:03 AM
TCSTV K-3 Field Test TCSJordan Pentax K-3 28 11-07-2013 03:09 PM
MX-1 Field Test Video TCSJordan Pentax Compact Cameras 21 04-07-2013 11:06 AM
Hands-On K-30 Field Test Video TCSJordan Pentax K-30 & K-50 23 07-30-2012 07:30 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top