[sugus]

Hi folks

I have a Pentax 645D and thinking (just thinking) upgrade to a Pentax 645Z. What are the Pro's and Con's between this 2 Cameras?

Daniel

---

Last edited by sugus; 12-24-2016 at 02:56 AM.

[Adam]

Apart from price the 645Z is an upgrade in just about all areas. Some people like the old CCD color rendition, but the 645Z does deliver better dynamic range and lower noise in image tests. Plus, it can shoot in much lower light and at a higher framerate

You'll find all the details in our in depth review of the 645Z on the homepage.

[sugus]

Hello Adam

Thanks for your reply. I would like to know more practical (in the field) experiences over a longer period from a forum user. And.......... so many people talkomh about the "old CCD color rendition". What that means exactly? Perhaps with some pictures documented.

Daniel

[pathdoc]

The CCD colour rendition thing is all about the older CCD sensors rendering colours differently from the newer CMOS; a similar correlation occurs between (e.g.) the *istD series and early K digital bodies, and later K's. The CCD rendering is supposed to be closer to film, which is why some Pentaxians dedicate an older CCD body to work with Takumars and other older lenses.

Which reminds me... seeing as I actually have both an *istDS and a K-5, I should take that shot if I get a spare moment today and see what (if anything) the difference is.

[D1N0]

Colour rendition is not dependent on ccd or cmos but the colour filter array: Color filter array - Wikipedia It is largely very subjective anyway.

Dxo mark scored both camera's (and removed the 645z again because it broke their scoring mold).

645d
Overall Score 82

Portrait (Color Depth) 24.6 bits

Landscape (Dynamic Range) 12.6 Evs

Sports (Low-Light ISO) 1262 ISO

645z
Overall Score 101

Portrait (Color Depth) 26 bits

Landscape (Dynamic Range) 14.7 Evs

Sports (Low-Light ISO) 4505 ISO

As you can see colour depth is deeper on the 645z so potentially more accurate. Dynamic range is much better and noise performance is much better. Meaning cleaner more usable images. People mainly like ccd because they say it looks more like film. Not because it is more accurate. Film wasn't accurate. You can make any picture look like film. There is a ton of software for that.

Also the Z has the AF sensor of the K-3. Though limited to the centre of the image, it is much faster than the one in de D. It's like going from a Pentax K10D to the K-3. A world of difference.

---------- Post added 24-12-16 at 14:36 ----------

This is the same shot both with the Pentax SMC-M 40mm F2.8 one with the K10D (ccd), one with the K-5 (cmos). I've adjusted exposure to match and eye dropped white balance from the same point.

Can you tell which is which?

[RuiC]

Colour rendition is not dependent on ccd or cmos but the colour filter array: Color filter array - Wikipedia It is largely very subjective anyway.

Dxo mark scored both camera's (and removed the 645z again because it broke their scoring mold).
. . . . . . .

Can you tell which is which?

At this time none is which !!!

[MJKoski]

So they removed 645Z because it broke their system (Or it was too good...) Well I always wondered were did the results go because I saw them online some ages ago. K-1 with properly executed PS file kicks even the 645Z to the balls (in color rendition if nothing else).

[D1N0]

At this time none is which !!!

Google photo's url editing grmbl! Fixed

[sugus]

I see nothing at all

[2351HD]

My D images have more apparent bite, just like my old Leica M9 images did, purely because there was less dynamic range in the raw file and the CCD naturally clipped a little earlier making the images appear more contrasty.

My Z though has amazing dynamic range, but I find the biggest difference is the ability to handhold the Z at times when I could not with the D. Same goes compared to the K1, I got better results handheld on my holidays with the Z than the K1. The Zs focusing is accurate and mirror is smooth.

Also, any night work, the Z gives a better cleaner image every time.

[texandrews]

Hi, Sugus. I didn't realize you had a D, as I have followed your lovely film shots on the Medium Format Post Your Photos forum.

I haven't had a D, I went straight from an NII. But what I can say is that the Z's dynamic range and ability to shoot cleanly at what I used to think were ridiculously high iso's is.....mind expanding, is the real way I'd describe it. No photographic tool I've ever had has done this to the same extent, and I've shot almost every format from sub 35mm film through 4x5, and of course in digital everything from tiny sensors in the first 2001 camera I had up through the Z. Even the A7R I had just before the Z did not expand my horizons to the same degree. And I have always been a base iso sort of guy, but this camera is very, very different. I can't really emphasize that enough. And it's mind-expanding because you will wind up attempting shots you might not have before, or find that instead of it being a slight or not so slight ordeal to get a shot, with the Z you can shoot it much more spontaneously. There is a danger here though: because you will be encouraged to shoot more hand-held, you will also get caught up short on occasion as your discipline shifts or slips. For me, it's the total combination of weather resistance, ruggedness, ease of use (in the cold, btw, very cold...), legacy lens availability, dynamic range and higher iso flexibility, and file size and quality that make this camera great. Only a bit of that did you experience with your D.

The control layout will be familiar, with an improvement or two. The slow sync speed and awkward (generously) tethering will also be familiar. The kludgy video will seem like a terrible wasted opportunity (and I'm not even a big video shooter, although I'm doing some at work)

[sugus]

Thanks TexMexandrews......

There are some things that I'm missing on the P645D:

1. Live View
2. Tilt Display
3. Faster pictures saving
4. Higher ISO

Lenses

Are the newer D Lenses a must? What do I^m missing with normal Fa or A lenses with the 645Z?

[texandrews]

Thanks TexMexandrews......

There are some things that I'm missing on the P645D:

1. Live View
2. Tilt Display
3. Faster pictures saving
4. Higher ISO

Lenses

Are the newer D Lenses a must? What do I^m missing with normal Fa or A lenses with the 645Z?

Well, you'll get live view, higher iso's and a tilt display for sure! :-) I don't have much problem with saving, but I'm not a continuous shooter, so I can't really comment much on buffer performance, & etc. The most I ever do is bracketing. My biggest wait problems are with flash recycle times, and that has nothing to do with the camera.

I do not believe the latest lenses are a must, and I'm pretty critical, but take my pixel peeping with a grain of salt. The A 35 and the A 120 are excellent performers, and so are the 75 and 135 LS lenses. The FA 75 is a fine performer. The DFA 55 is worth getting because it's a nice FL for the Z, it's reasonably priced new, and can be gotten used very reasonably, and it is weatherproof. The FA 45-85 is a fine lens, a workhorse and also can be gotten very reasonably. The 80-160 is convenient, not as good as the 45 to 85, but fine if carefully used. The FA 150 is a good lens to have, and has nice bokeh. I have the 200 as well, it's handy stopped down, although not as good as the other lenses. I got rid of my 45, because the zoom worked better! The only "new" lens (and I bought it used) I have is the 55, although my 75 is recent.

The newest lenses like the 90 and the 28-45 are great, but are very pricey even used. Hope this helps, and others will certainly chime in.

[sugus]

Well, you'll get Live view, higher iso's and a tilt display for sure! :-) It is NOT a must, just nice to have. I don't have much problem with saving, but I'm not a continuous shooter, so I can't really comment much on buffer performance, & etc. Until the picture is saved it takes a few seconds and that is NOT state of the art. The most I ever do is bracketing. My biggest wait problems are with flash recycle times, and that has nothing to do with the camera. Also HDR takes a longer time

I do not believe the latest lenses are a must, and I'm pretty critical, but take my pixel peeping with a grain of salt. The A 35 and the A 120 are excellent performers, and so are the 75 and 135 LS lenses. The FA 75 is a fine performer. The DFA 55 is worth getting because it's a nice FL for the Z, it's reasonably priced new, and can be gotten used very reasonably, and it is weatherproof. The FA 45-85 is a fine lens, a workhorse and also can be gotten very reasonably. The 80-160 is convenient, not as good as the 45 to 85, but fine if carefully used. The FA 150 is a good lens to have, and has nice bokeh. I have the 200 as well, it's handy stopped down, although not as good as the other lenses. I got rid of my 45, because the zoom worked better! The only "new" lens (and I bought it used) I have is the 55, although my 75 is recent.

The newest lenses like the 90 and the 28-45 are great, but are very pricey even used. Hope this helps, and others will certainly chime in.

Thanks for that explanation. I think I keep the 645D at the moment and waiting for the 645Z MK II

---

BTW: What is the max. of the SDcard that the 645D understand?

SDHC, SDXC, UHS-I, UHS-II or UHS-III?

[pathdoc]

I see someone else has beaten me to it, but there seem still to be problems with their image files so here is my contribution.

I shot the first pic with my *istDS at ISO 200 (as low as it goes), with the aperture ring of my FA 28/2.8 manually set to f/2.8 and then "green-buttoned" (for the *istDS's value thereof) to get the shutter speed of 1/30. I then set the same parameters on my K-5 when I moved the lens over, without changing the aperture, and shot from as close as I could get to the same position, within a minute.

I used highest-quality JPEGs at full megapixels for both. (I realised after that I have the saturation turned down a little on the *istDS from when I was shooting a radioactively yellowed Takumar on it.)

*istDS:



K-5: