[Thomas]

This post prompted me a take a look. I'm considering selling my 645D and replacing with a K-1. I am somewhat surprised to see that (to my eye) then 645D still has the edge over the K-1 at least without pixel shift. No contest with the 645Z.

Tom

Attached Images

 

[richmondthefish]

As a side note, I don't find the A7rii to be any better than the K1 or D810. Actually I don't find it as good. Look closely at the stitching near the models pendant and it isn't resolving as much detail. This is funny because in this situation the A7rii has been mated with the Zeiss 55mm 1.8 which is effectively like a mini Otus with very high perceptive MP resolving potential as per DXO.

I'm not seeing that. To my eyes or at least on my monitor(retina iMac) the A7rii is superior in that photo. Maybe it's just me though.

[normhead]

Wow Mike, huge difference.

When I had the K1, I found that the difference in landscape fine detail was quite significant between it and the 645z and also the top results were much easier to achieve with the 645 handheld over the K-1 handheld, enough so that I sold the K1. On tripod the K1 was closer but still not as good.

---------- Post added 07-14-16 at 06:54 PM ----------



That difference is not all just resolution either, there is a ton of detail rendered in the Z image that would be there even if it were say 40mp like the 645D. A much better image.

The difference visually is in the apparent depth of the larger format. The larger format just appears to be more 3D.

[mikeSF]

This post prompted me a take a look. I'm considering selling my 645D and replacing with a K-1. I am somewhat surprised to see that (to my eye) then 645D still has the edge over the K-1 at least without pixel shift. No contest with the 645Z.

Tom

Having spent a great deal of time with the 645D before switching fairly recently to the Z, I concluded that aside from the obvious high ISO benefits of the CMOS sensor, for my typical low ISO landscape images and long exposure work (under 2 minutes), the 645D is as competent a player as the Z and produces punchier colors. The 40MP images and 33x44 sensor still beat the D810 in IQ all day long. It is a great time to buy a new or used 645D, IMO.


---------- Post added 07-14-2016 at 08:55 AM ----------

Hi, that was me that made that comment originally - ...
In both cases I feel the glass is the severe limiting factor in making a good comparison and quite probably the K1 is more crippled in this regard relative to what the D810 comparometer shows.....

...)

thx and i certainly agree with you there. If Zeiss would just make the same lens for every mount, we could compare every platform and also have some high end glass for the Pentax shooters.

[Thomas]

Having spent a great deal of time with the 645D before switching fairly recently to the Z, I concluded that aside from the obvious high ISO benefits of the CMOS sensor, for my typical low ISO landscape images and long exposure work (under 2 minutes), the 645D is as competent a player as the Z and produces punchier colors. The 40MP images and 33x44 sensor still beat the D810 in IQ all day long. It is a great time to buy a new or used 645D, IMO.

I have a D and Z as well and agree entirely with your thoughts. Yes, the ISO of the Z is a real advantage when need. I like to use TAv mode when handholding and don't worry about the ISO the 645Z uses. Since the D seems a bit redundant for me so I'm considering selling to fund a K-1. Here's a shot I took yesterday with the Z and a 400mm FA. Handheld, heavy crop, 1/800s, ISO 3200; can't do that with the D.

Tom

[Richard Longseth]

Tom,

Your dilemma is a nice one to have. For me, I have the 645D and lust for the Z. Never-the-less, I love my D. When the K-1 became available, I decided to go that route as a back-up and compliment to the D as apposed to getting a Z. I went with the D FA 15-30, D FA 70-200, the new weather sealed 100 macro, and two M42 old timey bokeh lenses - a Pentacon something 135, and a night vision 85mm single aperture 1.5? Cyclops (needs extension tube for clearance).

Unfortunately, I have not shot enough with the K-1 to give a full evaluation. My impression so far is that the K-1 is great. Some nice files coming from a smaller package. I'm able to do some night high ISO shots, and can push the ISO up if needed for other shots. The thing is, you have that capability with the Z already, just not the in camera stabilization.

I've used the Pixel Shift mode a few times, but am perplexed with the process. There are discussions about using Digital Camera Utility to get the best results, but it outputs as a TIFF. That's just a deal breaker for me. The TIFFs cannot withstand even slightly aggressive processing if finished up in Lightroom. For some of the night shots I've done, I've purposely under-exposed two stops or so to preserve the highlights with the intention of recovering that in processing. That works great with a RAW file, not so much with a TIFF. I shoot DNG's and will continue with Pixel Shift and just settle with the in camera processed files. What I wish, is that I could use one - say the first - Pixel Shift image and layer that in Photoshop with the completed camera generated PS image and simply mask out any movement artifacts. I'm sure there is a lot that I don't understand about Pixel Shift. As it is, I don't think a K-1, even with Pixel Shift, can come close to the quality of your Z. The files I'm getting with my D at base ISO are better than the K-1, although the K-1 is very close.

If you get a K-1, you will have more of a dilemma of what stays home when you go off shooting. With me, I've made some dementia style mistakes of not having a lens, or filters, or other essentials, and only finding out after hiking in to a spot, and not having the right gear with me.

I just got it and like the 15-30 a lot. It enables a wider coverage than than the 25mm on the D. There has been a lot made of its size and weight, but I actually think its quite reasonable. It's a bit bigger but less weighty than the 645 25mm I think.

I've picked up both the K to 67 and K to 645 adapters. I haven't used them yet, so don't know how well or practical they will be.

Good luck with your decision. Having the Z already is great. You will need to define the things you can't do as well with the Z that a K-1 would be better for. I think the K-1 would be a great compliment for doing your flower shots. It would also work well with a longer lens for your birding, but something from Canon or Nikon would probably be better for the wildlife if it was dedicated mostly for that.

This got a bit long.

Rick

I had some images from the D and K-1, but for some reason they looked like cr…p, so deleted them.

[Pioneer]

When the 645Z came out I rented one and tested it against my D. Still own the D. For me the D and the 645 35mm lens is an awesome landscape kit. I could probably weld the two together for my purposes but that may not help any resale value in the future.

Once things get sorted out I may have to rent a K-1 and see how it stands up against the D in my style of photography.

[PhilRich]

Richard Longseth said - but it outputs as a TIFF. That's just a deal breaker for me. The TIFFs cannot withstand even slightly aggressive processing if finished up in Lightroom.

I've never heard this before and I'd like to know more about this problem as I typically save anything I process to a TIFF. What is better?

[niceshot]

You can try this Comparometer. Just pick up the right camera from the list
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" â„¢ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

nice tool for comps

[normhead]

According to everything I've read 16 bit TIFFs are as close as you can get to raw.... I'm a little confused by some of the above, especially since I have at times exported my Aperture files as TIFFs as a way of speeding up the amount of work Aperture has to do when refreshing the screen, and then continuing to work on the exported/imported TIFF. SO the above comments certainly don't make any sense to me, unless your using 8 bit Lossy TIFFs.

[Richard Longseth]

Richard Longseth said - but it outputs as a TIFF. That's just a deal breaker for me. The TIFFs cannot withstand even slightly aggressive processing if finished up in Lightroom.

I've never heard this before and I'd like to know more about this problem as I typically save anything I process to a TIFF. What is better?

Phil,
I could be doing things wrong, especially in DCU. I stumbled around in the program and haven't spent time to learn it. What I did do though is to do my (aggressive) edits in Lightroom on the RAW DNG that was pixel shifted. The file looked pretty good and ready to go into Photoshop. I took that same file, unprocessed, and used DCU to output a TIFF with no DCU processing other than the Pixel Shift blend. I imported that into Lightroom and then synced that to the Lightroom edited file to get a duplicate. It did not look good. I could have done a number of things wrong to get to the bad result so………..I could very well be wrong in my conclusions.

[Thomas]

Thanks for the detailed reply Rick. I value your observations. I like to have a camera with me all the time and the 645 Z system is sometimes bigger than is practical for some applications. The lack of true ultra wides in the 645 system is a problem too. I tried a Sigma DP2, great files but just too limiting for an everywhere camera. I'd like to think I could carry a K-1 and feel it is almost the quality of the Z.
Before I switched to digital, I worked with TIFF files from 67 scans and yes they certainly are less malleable than the amazing current RAW files. Can you process RAW files before applying pixel shift, much as you can do in Bridge before a stitch etc.? Can you open a single exposure in the pixel shift set and place it underneath a pixel shift processed file and then mask the moving portions of the pixel shift image? I'd like to hear any further thoughts you have and some images.

Tom

NB didn't see above response before posting

[Richard Longseth]

According to everything I've read 16 bit TIFFs are as close as you can get to raw.... I'm a little confused by some of the above, especially since I have at times exported my Aperture files as TIFFs as a way of speeding up the amount of work Aperture has to do when refreshing the screen, and then continuing to work on the exported/imported TIFF. SO the above comments certainly don't make any sense to me, unless your using 8 bit Lossy TIFFs.

Normhead,
I will have to give it a try again. I could have inadvertently saved as an 8bit file and didn't realize it. I trashed what I had because it wasn't worth keeping so I can't check it.

[mee]

Every time I see one of these comparisons, the Nikon looks very obviously better than the Pentax.. and it has to be due to the lenses used... it can't be a sensor issue. Which makes me wonder if Pentax really does have an issue with limited sharp glass compared to Nikon (and Canon and maybe even Sony)..

[Richard Longseth]

Thanks for the detailed reply Rick. I value your observations. I like to have a camera with me all the time and the 645 Z system is sometimes bigger than is practical for some applications. The lack of true ultra wides in the 645 system is a problem too. I tried a Sigma DP2, great files but just too limiting for an everywhere camera. I'd like to think I could carry a K-1 and feel it is almost the quality of the Z.
Before I switched to digital, I worked with TIFF files from 67 scans and yes they certainly are less malleable than the amazing current RAW files. Can you process RAW files before applying pixel shift, much as you can do in Bridge before a stitch etc.? Can you open a single exposure in the pixel shift set and place it underneath a pixel shift processed file and then mask the moving portions of the pixel shift image? I'd like to hear any further thoughts you have and some images.

Tom

NB didn't see above response before posting

Tom,

I think you would really enjoy the K-1. Its a great camera and I think Pentax did a very good job with it. I think you are right in thinking the K-1 is ALMOST the equivalent of the Z. You could put together a kit that is quite a bit smaller and easier to carry around. The 100 macro for instance if a fine lens and very tiny for what I am used to. The 70-200 is a monster though, but also a good lens. Should you sell your D? Probably, since you have the Z, but then you wouldn't have the redundancy if your Z needs to go in for a lengthy repair. I'm not the one to ask about Pixel Shift because I haven't used it enough. Digital Camera Utility may indeed be the best way to process the files. I had poor results with my limited attempts and gave up on it. Should try again.

I have some images up on my Facebook page. I'm not differentiating between the different cameras and gear used. Most are with the 645d and some of the recent ones are with the K-1. There are also a few with either a Pentax 67 or 67II, and I've got a couple of the old 4x5's posted as well. Come take a look, almost no one else has. https://www.facebook.com/richard.longseth.photography/

Rick