Pentax 645D vs 645Z

ndevlin · 02-18-2015, 08:50 AM - **1 Like**

Somewhere in this thread someone seemed to be basing these comparisons on Jpegs from the camera. This is meaningless. It's the same as taking two rolls of different films to two different one-hour photo labs and pronouncing one camera better than the other because of the result.

More 'pop' in the "D" files likely speaks to a lower DR in the file, if we're talking about native files. The "Z" files will appear flatter because the white and black clipping points are further out, causing the data between to look compressed when initially displayed. An unprocessed file is again very meaningless.

I know a number of serious people who really like the look of CCD images at their base ISO over most CMOS cameras under similar conditions. That's fine. That's also a matter of taste. And, when professional post-processing is applied, it usually is not a thing at all.

- N.

Chris Giles · 02-18-2015, 03:37 PM

The looks of many sensors are based around the SOOC result. Put a Hasselblad CCD file into Lightroom and it immediately has more pop than a 645z.

But process that file and the CMOS is better because you can do more with it. The same is true of Foveon sensors which IMHO have stunning colour and micro contrast to them.

The flatter the file the better it will be to grade, 645z files look absolutely terrible without a proper colour profile but I get 5 stops of push in exchange for that.

bull drinkwater · 02-18-2015, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

wha? really?
You just convinced me to keep my D.

my only wish is that it was possible to send my 645d camera back to the factory and up the iso, to 6400 and cut the noise to zero at 3200 iso.. io can do without live view and mirrorless.

Sperdynamite · 02-19-2015, 07:14 AM - **1 Like**

"the d at base iso produce files that are natural and resemble film, the 645z not.
simply go and compare them. then you can spend hour to process the z to obtain the look you want, everybody do that[...]"

The first thing I said was that when people complain about CMOS sensors all I hear is "I don't know how to process my files." Just the fact that you think it would take and hour to process a Z file tells me a lot. How about a one one click profile in LR and maybe 2 minutes max of tweaking. That's what I did with my D files and that's what I do with my Z files.

Film makers don't have these conversations because camera producers like Arri, Sony, Black Magic etc work with experienced professionals who know what an output file should look like. Look at Sony's log footage or SooC Black Magic video, it's super super flat. It looks terrible, but there is a TON of information in the image. You are expected to grade your footage to get the look you want. Unfortunately photography is filled with wealthy weekend warriors who expect the camera to do all the work. Nikon actually surprised me recently by leaving the 'Flat' picture style in the D750. This is how I shoot now, with highlight weight metering.

My profile is then applied automatically and I use a combination of Vsco or Mastin Labs as a starting point. Images are usually done in 30 seconds, if more work is needed maybe 2 minutes.

donesteban · 03-08-2015, 11:34 AM

In my Opinion, CMOS vs CCD is not a that big difference. The RAW converter used has more influence. But: There is one more difference: The 645D does not have gap less miicro lenses, the 645Z has. Gapless micro lenses somehow act like a AA filter, reducing artifacts, but also reducing Micro contrasts. I treid a 645Z for a short time. To shapren correctly, I Need 50 to 80% bigger radius, but lower strength in the RAW converter, like when using an ordinary up to date DSLR. The 645Z didn't show more details than my 645D, but those it showed, were cleaner.

bull drinkwater · 03-18-2015, 02:52 AM

looking at the stats,the Z is heads above the D. I would love to have the hi-iso of the Z, but in four years the D has served all my needs. it's a mediun format camera, so it's speed all around will be slower than a dslr .

2351HD · 03-18-2015, 04:04 AM

I am not a strong post processor and my skills are basically limited to Lightroom and I have only now after 9 months with the Z got my workflow to the point I am happy with.

I use the huelight profiles and the results to me are stunning. I had the D as well and I feel that my processing now matches that of the D but with more DR, lower noise, more detail and less jaggies.

Add in the fact you can live view focus, well that alone makes the Z better, at least for me.

Tailwagger · 03-18-2015, 04:06 PM

Just received my lightly used D today. Havent had a lot of time to play with it yet, but given the few frames I've shot, I'm mightily impressed. I would have loved to have gone with the Z for the expanded ISO, DR and live view, but I simply couldn't justify the extra $5G. The Z is likely the better camera, but the D is certainly one heck of a value, particularly for those of us just rediscovering MF in the digital age.

**The Madshutter** · 03-18-2015, 05:32 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by SeattleDucks

... the Z files are pretty flat upon import. But they seem to take processing extremely well. ...[COLOR="Silver"]

Originally posted by Sperdynamite

Every time I hear someone defending CCDs I only hear "I don't know how to process my files." If you can't get it down with a CMOS sensor, you won't get it down with a CCD. ...

I am exhausted by this debate. Seriously. Go make pictures! No one will ever ask about your sensor.

Originally posted by ndevlin

...

More 'pop' in the "D" files likely speaks to a lower DR in the file, if we're talking about native files. The "Z" files will appear flatter because the white and black clipping points are further out, causing the data between to look compressed when initially displayed. An unprocessed file is again very meaningless.
...

- N.

Originally posted by Chris Giles

The looks of many sensors are based around the SOOC result. Put a Hasselblad CCD file into Lightroom and it immediately has more pop than a 645z.

But process that file and the CMOS is better because you can do more with it. The same is true of Foveon sensors which IMHO have stunning colour and micro contrast to them.

The flatter the file the better it will be to grade, 645z files look absolutely terrible without a proper colour profile but I get 5 stops of push in exchange for that.

Totally agree with the above - compared to the 645D's, the 645Z's files have much more latitude for post processing, more DR, are flatter upon opening but exactly because of that they give you more room for you to make them look the way you like, if you know what you are doing with your post-processing - they are very flexible, pliable and adding to that the ridiculously low noise floor they can take almost anything you throw at them. The 645D's files on the other hand have more pop out of the box (less DR = more contrast), but they are more limited in what you can do with them.

In a way, the 645Z reminds me of my Leica Monochrom: VERY flat files out of the box, but VERY large room to do with them whatever you please.

I guess it all boils down to what you want to do with your files, and how much time you want to dedicate to your post-processing. However, in this day and age, thinking that one can use files out of a MF digital camera out of the box without post-processing is - IMHO - quite impracticable, or even straight out impossible - therefore, looking for such quality in a camera such as both the 645s (or any MF cameras for that matter) is a very misplaced quest if you aim to squeeze the last once of image quality out of these beasts. And if ultimate IQ is not your goal, probably some other system would suit you better than digital MF to begin with...

Best,

Vieri

Kolor-Pikker · 03-19-2015, 01:27 AM

I regularly have to give myself reality checks about the information I have to work with on the Z by first really pushing things like saturation and contrast before going back to something neutral. Staring too long at the images might give you the impression that they look normal when they are really quite dull.

I really love the use of Alien Skin Exposure with this camera, it takes very little effort to give your pics a real kick. One of my favorite presets to start with is Technicolor Process 4, which may look garish with certain subjects, but is extremely nice on flatter images.

Pioneer · 03-24-2015, 08:43 PM - **1 Like**

I am thrilled the Z is out there. It will give me a camera to aspire to once I wear my D out.

The way I look at it is this. There is always something better out there. If I spend my life chasing the better camera I will never get the best out of the one I own.

robertchow999 · 03-24-2015, 09:54 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Pioneer

I am thrilled the Z is out there. It will give me a camera to aspire to once I wear my D out.

The way I look at it is this. There is always something better out there. If I spend my life chasing the better camera I will never get the best out of the one I own.

I think you have an excellent attitude. Unfortunately for me, I still have Z envy.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 645Z (and 645D) for rent !?	formercanuck	Pentax Medium Format	5	09-10-2014 11:54 AM
Pentax 645z vs Phase One IQ250 vs Hasselblad H5D-50c	fap	Pentax Medium Format	15	08-27-2014 03:25 PM
645D vs 645Z	jrpower10	Pentax Medium Format	6	08-15-2014 10:58 AM
645D vs 645Z size	hjoseph7	Pentax Medium Format	2	08-14-2014 12:11 PM
Pentax SMC 67 35mm F4.5 Fish-eye Lens on 645D, 645Z	uintaangler	Pentax Medium Format	2	08-06-2014 10:47 AM

02-18-2015, 08:50 AM - 1 Like	#31
ndevlin Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 132	Somewhere in this thread someone seemed to be basing these comparisons on Jpegs from the camera. This is meaningless. It's the same as taking two rolls of different films to two different one-hour photo labs and pronouncing one camera better than the other because of the result. More 'pop' in the "D" files likely speaks to a lower DR in the file, if we're talking about native files. The "Z" files will appear flatter because the white and black clipping points are further out, causing the data between to look compressed when initially displayed. An unprocessed file is again very meaningless. I know a number of serious people who really like the look of CCD images at their base ISO over most CMOS cameras under similar conditions. That's fine. That's also a matter of taste. And, when professional post-processing is applied, it usually is not a thing at all. - N.

02-18-2015, 03:37 PM	#32
Chris Giles Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 45	The looks of many sensors are based around the SOOC result. Put a Hasselblad CCD file into Lightroom and it immediately has more pop than a 645z. But process that file and the CMOS is better because you can do more with it. The same is true of Foveon sensors which IMHO have stunning colour and micro contrast to them. The flatter the file the better it will be to grade, 645z files look absolutely terrible without a proper colour profile but I get 5 stops of push in exchange for that.

02-18-2015, 08:07 PM	#33
bull drinkwater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: pontiac mi. Posts: 392	Originally posted by mikeSF wha? really? You just convinced me to keep my D. my only wish is that it was possible to send my 645d camera back to the factory and up the iso, to 6400 and cut the noise to zero at 3200 iso.. io can do without live view and mirrorless.

02-19-2015, 07:14 AM - 1 Like	#34
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271	"the d at base iso produce files that are natural and resemble film, the 645z not. simply go and compare them. then you can spend hour to process the z to obtain the look you want, everybody do that[...]" The first thing I said was that when people complain about CMOS sensors all I hear is "I don't know how to process my files." Just the fact that you think it would take and hour to process a Z file tells me a lot. How about a one one click profile in LR and maybe 2 minutes max of tweaking. That's what I did with my D files and that's what I do with my Z files. Film makers don't have these conversations because camera producers like Arri, Sony, Black Magic etc work with experienced professionals who know what an output file should look like. Look at Sony's log footage or SooC Black Magic video, it's super super flat. It looks terrible, but there is a TON of information in the image. You are expected to grade your footage to get the look you want. Unfortunately photography is filled with wealthy weekend warriors who expect the camera to do all the work. Nikon actually surprised me recently by leaving the 'Flat' picture style in the D750. This is how I shoot now, with highlight weight metering. My profile is then applied automatically and I use a combination of Vsco or Mastin Labs as a starting point. Images are usually done in 30 seconds, if more work is needed maybe 2 minutes.

03-08-2015, 11:34 AM	#35
donesteban Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 124	In my Opinion, CMOS vs CCD is not a that big difference. The RAW converter used has more influence. But: There is one more difference: The 645D does not have gap less miicro lenses, the 645Z has. Gapless micro lenses somehow act like a AA filter, reducing artifacts, but also reducing Micro contrasts. I treid a 645Z for a short time. To shapren correctly, I Need 50 to 80% bigger radius, but lower strength in the RAW converter, like when using an ordinary up to date DSLR. The 645Z didn't show more details than my 645D, but those it showed, were cleaner.

03-18-2015, 02:52 AM	#36
bull drinkwater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: pontiac mi. Posts: 392	looking at the stats,the Z is heads above the D. I would love to have the hi-iso of the Z, but in four years the D has served all my needs. it's a mediun format camera, so it's speed all around will be slower than a dslr .

03-18-2015, 04:04 AM	#37
2351HD Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 750	I am not a strong post processor and my skills are basically limited to Lightroom and I have only now after 9 months with the Z got my workflow to the point I am happy with. I use the huelight profiles and the results to me are stunning. I had the D as well and I feel that my processing now matches that of the D but with more DR, lower noise, more detail and less jaggies. Add in the fact you can live view focus, well that alone makes the Z better, at least for me.

03-18-2015, 04:06 PM	#38
Tailwagger New Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 17	Just received my lightly used D today. Havent had a lot of time to play with it yet, but given the few frames I've shot, I'm mightily impressed. I would have loved to have gone with the Z for the expanded ISO, DR and live view, but I simply couldn't justify the extra $5G. The Z is likely the better camera, but the D is certainly one heck of a value, particularly for those of us just rediscovering MF in the digital age.

03-18-2015, 05:32 PM - 1 Like	#39
The Madshutter Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Tuscany, Italy Posts: 1,255	Originally posted by SeattleDucks ... the Z files are pretty flat upon import. But they seem to take processing extremely well. ...[COLOR="Silver"] Originally posted by Sperdynamite Every time I hear someone defending CCDs I only hear "I don't know how to process my files." If you can't get it down with a CMOS sensor, you won't get it down with a CCD. ... I am exhausted by this debate. Seriously. Go make pictures! No one will ever ask about your sensor. Originally posted by ndevlin ... More 'pop' in the "D" files likely speaks to a lower DR in the file, if we're talking about native files. The "Z" files will appear flatter because the white and black clipping points are further out, causing the data between to look compressed when initially displayed. An unprocessed file is again very meaningless. ... - N. Originally posted by Chris Giles The looks of many sensors are based around the SOOC result. Put a Hasselblad CCD file into Lightroom and it immediately has more pop than a 645z. But process that file and the CMOS is better because you can do more with it. The same is true of Foveon sensors which IMHO have stunning colour and micro contrast to them. The flatter the file the better it will be to grade, 645z files look absolutely terrible without a proper colour profile but I get 5 stops of push in exchange for that. Totally agree with the above - compared to the 645D's, the 645Z's files have much more latitude for post processing, more DR, are flatter upon opening but exactly because of that they give you more room for you to make them look the way you like, if you know what you are doing with your post-processing - they are very flexible, pliable and adding to that the ridiculously low noise floor they can take almost anything you throw at them. The 645D's files on the other hand have more pop out of the box (less DR = more contrast), but they are more limited in what you can do with them. In a way, the 645Z reminds me of my Leica Monochrom: VERY flat files out of the box, but VERY large room to do with them whatever you please. I guess it all boils down to what you want to do with your files, and how much time you want to dedicate to your post-processing. However, in this day and age, thinking that one can use files out of a MF digital camera out of the box without post-processing is - IMHO - quite impracticable, or even straight out impossible - therefore, looking for such quality in a camera such as both the 645s (or any MF cameras for that matter) is a very misplaced quest if you aim to squeeze the last once of image quality out of these beasts. And if ultimate IQ is not your goal, probably some other system would suit you better than digital MF to begin with... Best, Vieri

03-19-2015, 01:27 AM	#40
Kolor-Pikker Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 344	I regularly have to give myself reality checks about the information I have to work with on the Z by first really pushing things like saturation and contrast before going back to something neutral. Staring too long at the images might give you the impression that they look normal when they are really quite dull. I really love the use of Alien Skin Exposure with this camera, it takes very little effort to give your pics a real kick. One of my favorite presets to start with is Technicolor Process 4, which may look garish with certain subjects, but is extremely nice on flatter images.

03-24-2015, 08:43 PM - 1 Like	#41
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	I am thrilled the Z is out there. It will give me a camera to aspire to once I wear my D out. The way I look at it is this. There is always something better out there. If I spend my life chasing the better camera I will never get the best out of the one I own.

03-24-2015, 09:54 PM - 1 Like	#42
robertchow999 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 117	Originally posted by Pioneer I am thrilled the Z is out there. It will give me a camera to aspire to once I wear my D out. The way I look at it is this. There is always something better out there. If I spend my life chasing the better camera I will never get the best out of the one I own. I think you have an excellent attitude. Unfortunately for me, I still have Z envy.