[rfkiii]

Canon listens to its professional customers. Their base customers are not landscape shooters. They are PJ & sports shooters one of the main reasons for the existence of the 35mm format to start with. I won't pretend to know what these fellows need in a camera but it appears from public evidence as though Canon continues to be their choice. Like the vast majority of my fellow 35mm format users, amateur or professional, I tried to make those cameras into landscape cameras. With the 645z, I feel like I am most of the way home. Just waiting on Pentax to release a FF 645 sensor for $8500.

[Kolor-Pikker]

Canon listens to its professional customers. Their base customers are not landscape shooters. They are PJ & sports shooters one of the main reasons for the existence of the 35mm format to start with.

I'm not sure that peanut butter and jelly is the reason that Canon just came out with a $3000 11-24mm full-frame lens, why they felt compelled to make top-class 17 & 24mm tilt-shift lenses, why only they have a 5x macro lens, or why they are releasing an ISO-limited, but high megapickle camera right now. Canon makes everything for everyone. They also make calculators, stepper motors, printers, scanners and medical equipment.

In any case, I just went and shot the view from across my street with both my 5D2 + 24-70II and 645Z + 55mm off the same tripod, framed the same way on the horizontal axis, shot with mirror lockup + 2sec timer... and I rather surprised at how well the Canon combo held up. If I sampled/cropped the 645Z image down to the same size as the 5D, they both look fairly similar with fine repeating detail being crisper on the 645 image, but blowing the 5D image up to the Z's resolution really shows how much more resolution it has. Here are the links to the images if someone wants to take a look:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/Canon%205D2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/Pentax%20645Z.jpg

What I see is that if you're happy with the detail you're getting at a given output size, a new camera with more of everything won't automatically equal better image quality. If I were to push ISO, the 5D2 would pretty much explode by ISO3200, or adding more than 50 points in shadow recovery will show noise at ISO100, and that's where Canon's weakness is. If care is taken in exposing images so you don't have to push ISO or shadows, the 5DSR wouldn't be a significant downgrade compared to the Z, with the 5D2 I was comfortable with printing up to 13x19" or sometimes a bit more, so if one isn't doing at least twice that size, either camera would probably be overkill. In fact I'm probably really conservative with print sizes, I'm sure the 645Z can easily push out 40x60" prints.

[Rondec]

Canon listens to its professional customers. Their base customers are not landscape shooters. They are PJ & sports shooters one of the main reasons for the existence of the 35mm format to start with. I won't pretend to know what these fellows need in a camera but it appears from public evidence as though Canon continues to be their choice. Like the vast majority of my fellow 35mm format users, amateur or professional, I tried to make those cameras into landscape cameras. With the 645z, I feel like I am most of the way home. Just waiting on Pentax to release a FF 645 sensor for $8500.

I guess I just don't understand the point of 50 megapixels. Sports shooters don't want 50 megapixels. Nor do portrait shooters. The photogs (I think) who would want the most megapixels would be landscape shooters, where it wouldn't be unusual to want to print really big.

[texandrews]

I guess I just don't understand the point of 50 megapixels.

OK.

Sports shooters don't want 50 megapixels.

probably true.

Nor do portrait shooters.

??? Richard Avedon full-lengths? Most of the portrait photographers I knew from film days were using medium format or even large format. The wedding photographers all medium format, mostly 6x6 and 6x7, some 645. Translated forward that's 50mp and much more....

[aeros]

Pentax will need to get their act together with service before they shake anything up!!!

[rfkiii]

I'm not sure that peanut butter and jelly is the reason that Canon just came out with a $3000 11-24mm full-frame lens, why they felt compelled to make top-class 17 & 24mm tilt-shift lenses, why only they have a 5x macro lens, or why they are releasing an ISO-limited, but high megapickle camera right now. Canon makes everything for everyone. They also make calculators, stepper motors, printers, scanners and medical equipment.

In any case, I just went and shot the view from across my street with both my 5D2 + 24-70II and 645Z + 55mm off the same tripod, framed the same way on the horizontal axis, shot with mirror lockup + 2sec timer... and I rather surprised at how well the Canon combo held up. If I sampled/cropped the 645Z image down to the same size as the 5D, they both look fairly similar with fine repeating detail being crisper on the 645 image, but blowing the 5D image up to the Z's resolution really shows how much more resolution it has. Here are the links to the images if someone wants to take a look:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/Canon%205D2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41183616/Pentax%20645Z.jpg

What I see is that if you're happy with the detail you're getting at a given output size, a new camera with more of everything won't automatically equal better image quality. If I were to push ISO, the 5D2 would pretty much explode by ISO3200, or adding more than 50 points in shadow recovery will show noise at ISO100, and that's where Canon's weakness is. If care is taken in exposing images so you don't have to push ISO or shadows, the 5DSR wouldn't be a significant downgrade compared to the Z, with the 5D2 I was comfortable with printing up to 13x19" or sometimes a bit more, so if one isn't doing at least twice that size, either camera would probably be overkill. In fact I'm probably really conservative with print sizes, I'm sure the 645Z can easily push out 40x60" prints.

You said Canon is being outclassed by the competition and I am agreeing with you and provided one theory as to the cause based on some insight I have gathered along the way. It is not my only theory. I also agree with you that careful exposure can equalize the DR differences in terms of results in many cases. In fact, I've said that often enough in other forums that is almost like you copy/pasted my thoughts into your thread (which I know you didn't).


Going back to my original theme, Canon has been absent from the MP/DR party for a while because their core professional shooters said they didn't need it, particularly the MPs. That attitude has changed over time, maybe seeing now the value of MPs and the capture of fine detail is good for all types of photography. I was speaking in general as there are many Canon shooters, not me, who are still dissatisfied with the 5Ds R as being too little too late. They'd give up 15 MPs of that 50 for better DR. Canon says they lowered the noise floor on the 5Ds R so I will let you know how that impacts images when I take delivery of my 5Ds R on June 29th. I expect the Pentax to still be the better landscape camera.

Listen, I am a big 24-70 II fanboy. I also own, have owned or will own nearly every Canon item you've mentioned plus some but that doesn't stop me from being objective about that system's limitations. We all saw the samples from Imaging Resource from earlier in this thread. From that comparison, I immediately made the decision to buy the Pentax 645z.

Regarding your samples, I've cropped a few pixels from each. I am not an equivalence specialist by any means so I do not know how many Equivaence Laws I have broken, but to my eye, the Pentax image is clearly superior. To be honest, I am not sure what you are getting at regarding the samples. Are you saying, in theory, its just pixels right? 50 MP = 50 MP? Is that the gist? I dunno what I am supposed to be seeing. I'd post my crops but I do not know how to embed images in a way that folks can click on them and see the full size image. Attachments do not seem to be actively resizable and they appear to be limited to a smallish size.

---------- Post added 04-30-15 at 06:41 AM ----------

I guess I just don't understand the point of 50 megapixels. Sports shooters don't want 50 megapixels. Nor do portrait shooters. The photogs (I think) who would want the most megapixels would be landscape shooters, where it wouldn't be unusual to want to print really big.

First of all, please see the following quotes from the Canon Press Release for the 5Ds & 5Ds R. These are direct statements as to the markets Canon believes their high MP camera addresses.


"Delivering unparalleled quality, the cameras [5Ds & 5Ds R] provide an exceptional combination of resolution, responsiveness and durability, whether shooting landscapes, architecture, high fashion or portraiture, either personally or professionally."


" [5Ds R] Great for landscape photographers, where patterns are organic, the camera’s low pass cancellation filter produces the stunning level of detail required to turn a great shot into an incredible shot."


That's Canon's view. That is not mine - entirely. I think high MP/high resolution sensors improve all photography. More detail creates more realism IMO (can we assume that the rest of the statements in this post are my opinion only?). The problem comes operationally. Moving 50 MPs to the buffer and on to storage, high fps rates do not seem possible at this time making these cameras less desirable for some purposes. Herein lies the principle of compromise inherent in all camera systems.


More MPs, more resolution, whatever we are calling it is not just for printing really big. It should also be thought of as capture resolution. Finer detail is being captured with more clarity. Cropping an image is essentially increasing the size of the image within a smaller dimension. When you capture detail, the actual detail doesn't disappear from the image when downsizing is employed. Unless we are talking 4x6s, this additional/improved detail manifests itself in smaller images as better clarity, perhaps even makes the image appear sharper, crisper [pick an adjective].

[Rondec]

OK. probably true. ??? Richard Avedon full-lengths? Most of the portrait photographers I knew from film days were using medium format or even large format. The wedding photographers all medium format, mostly 6x6 and 6x7, some 645. Translated forward that's 50mp and much more....

Sure. I have nothing against 50 megapixels. I just didn't hear a whole lot of clamoring for more megapixels.

I am sure 70 and 80 megapixel full frames will be a thing in the future, but that is not the number one improvement (or even number five or six) that I am concerned with.

[Kolor-Pikker]

Regarding your samples, I've cropped a few pixels from each. I am not an equivalence specialist by any means so I do not know how many Equivaence Laws I have broken, but to my eye, the Pentax image is clearly superior. To be honest, I am not sure what you are getting at regarding the samples. Are you saying, in theory, its just pixels right? 50 MP = 50 MP? Is that the gist? I dunno what I am supposed to be seeing.

Maybe I didn't word it clearly... yes, the 645Z image is superior, and even resampled down to the same resolution as the 5D2 it's still a tad crisper on the brickwork, but not enough for it to be a massive difference if you were to view the images as prints smaller than 20~24" on the long side. Resolution is not the front Canon needs to compete on, although having a bit more couldn't hurt.

I think that the 24-70II has a lot of juice left to squeeze out, if it easily resolves up to the limit of 21mp, any discrepancy in image quality is a lack of pixels and AA filtering more than anything. It also has very impressive contrast in backlit situations, it's a shame it doesn't have a sensor behind it that can handle it.

[rfkiii]

Maybe I didn't word it clearly... yes, the 645Z image is superior, and even resampled down to the same resolution as the 5D2 it's still a tad crisper on the brickwork, but not enough for it to be a massive difference if you were to view the images as prints smaller than 20~24" on the long side. Resolution is not the front Canon needs to compete on, although having a bit more couldn't hurt.

I think that the 24-70II has a lot of juice left to squeeze out, if it easily resolves up to the limit of 21mp, any discrepancy in image quality is a lack of pixels and AA filtering more than anything. It also has very impressive contrast in backlit situations, it's a shame it doesn't have a sensor behind it that can handle it.

Agree entirely.

[batmobile]

Absolutely, they are completely different tools. The 645Z with 28-45 is a tank, but its nice to know that tis not just relying on more pixels and over priced lenses that barely surpass 35mm/FF: instead, the lens is spectacular with all the pixels the Z has to offer. I was not expecting it to be as good as it is.

I am in love with my little GR and its good to see the 645Z and GR files are clearly from the same stable. I find these cameras and my Sony A7R and A7 superior to the Canons from a file quality perspective and may well dump Canon entirely (aside from TS-E lenses which I can use on my Sony cams), switching to Pentax's future FF or Nikon. Canon has some great glass, but they are taking the Mickey when it comes to sensor performance. Its not even funny how far behind they are now.

On my last trip to Iceland my Sony A7 and A7R did an amazing job and on the next (May) the 645Z will be with me. Can't wait.

It's amazing how long Canon has been able to milk the 500nm process, Sony has been at 180nm since the D800, so Canon are getting slowly but surely outclassed on most fronts. Canon failed to make a compelling mirrorless camera, they failed to break into the large-sensor video camera market they themselves created, they continue to release new cameras that are basically the same model as before and before that and so on. It's just painful.

Canon has the advantage of not being solely a camera company, and they still command huge market share today, but that's also what makes them so smug and slow to respond to change.


Hmm it's not going to get me to get rid of my 24-70II just yet though, Canon cameras are still better for reportage, and I'd much rather take a 5D3, 24-70 and a flash with me for those purposes.

[shuttles12000]

I get the impression Canon made the camera because Canon people had no where to go except to Nikon if they wanted more MegaPixels than their current offerings allowed.
Enthusiasts and Pro's might have been jumping ship. Now they can claim their bragging rights back.
But of course, the 645z is Medium Format, and people buy Medium Format for the qualities that Medium Format provides. I can get a camera with an APS-C sensor at 28MP, but no one will think it superior to a Full Frame Sensor at 24MP or 36MP, why should we expect anything less going up to Medium Format?
Medium Format provides larger circles of confusion and shallower depths of field, plus larger pixel sizes for the sensors, which leads to more light gathering capability at each pixel point and therefore better noise control.
Canon have achieved what they wanted - Bragging Rights. Their bleed off of Canon users now have a top end choice that will delay their jumping brand.
For everyone else though, the 645Z remains an aspirational camera - one that we can dream of owning, the equivalent of a Lamorghini Car poster on a boy's bedroom wall.
Pro's will buy it because they need it, the rest of us will buy it because we want it.

[batmobile]

You are right about bragging rights, but I'd without question be staying with Canon were they to have introduced a superb new-tech 36MP sensor, like the one in the D810. As it stands, the one in the 5DS is still a 12 stopper and I have yet to be convinced that pattern noise will be under control to anywhere near the extent of the Sony sensors. The flexibility these things give me in PP is far more valuable than the extra pixels from 36 to 50MP, at least as one considers the limited ability for FF lenses below 35mm to handle this resolution off centre.

I shoot B&W and come from a darkroom background and its amazing how hard one sometimes has to torture file to make it look like a top-quality hand print! So.... in short, the 5DS does not impress at all. Its like stuffing an oversized engine into an old model car and saying, "look, here is the latest and greatest". It doesn't remotely convince. You can brag horsepower all you like, but I'm not interested if it won't go around corners!

[Kolor-Pikker]

Since the 5DS has the letter S in it, like the 1DS cameras used to, I'm guessing it stands for "studio", and in the studio even 12 stops is good enough since you control the dynamic range of the scene with your lighting. The high DR of cameras equipped with Sony sensors shines when used in situations where you have no control over the lighting, but people who take time to light their scenes will be well served with the 5DS.

The less ideal the lighting situation, the greater the difference between cameras that hold technological advantages over one another, to me it's pretty clear that the 645Z was made to live in the great outdoors.

[gavincato]

I guess I just don't understand the point of 50 megapixels. Sports shooters don't want 50 megapixels. Nor do portrait shooters. The photogs (I think) who would want the most megapixels would be landscape shooters, where it wouldn't be unusual to want to print really big.

As a wedding/portrait shooter I like having 50mp.

Why ;

a) Because I can crop the photo to a panoramic aspect ratio and not end up with a 8-10mp file. I can do beautiful narrow aspect ratio prints and still have a 30-35mp file to print from.

b) When I do a big album, say a 14x14" - the prints are surprisingly big - if a customer elects to put 1 photo over both pages it is a 28x14" print. Given the close viewing distance of a album, more pixels is welcomed.

c) Sometimes at a wedding you just aren't in the exact right spot. With 50mp I can always crop later. I'd prefer not to, but if I have a 55mm lens on when I see a shot that a 100mm might have done a better job on, I can always crop it later and still have decent rez.

Having said that, the 50mp is not my main reason for getting a 645z. I was after a look a bit different to what my canon gear gives me, and thats the MF look. If the camera was 20mp I'd have still considered it.