[2351HD]

Lenses

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

Not missing much if you choose carefully.

The FA lenses are just as sharp, but CA and Flare will usually be better on the newer lenses.

I would suggest the following:

DFA 35mm - better than the A lens because it has AF. Sharp.

FA 80-160mm. As sharp as the DFA 90mm at 90mm, usable out to around 140-150mm at f8 its sharp.

FA 120mm - excellent

FA 150mm - excellent

DFA 55 - a good lens and small

I travel with the 28-45mm and 80-160 and it's a good combo. If I had the 45-85 I could probably just go with that and the lightweight FA150, but I am holding out for the new 45-90 on the roadmap.

As a 2 or 3 lens kit, I could suggest a 35mm, 55mm and maybe a 120mm, or a 35mm and 80-160.

[texandrews]

FA 80-160mm. As sharp as the DFA 90mm at 90mm, usable out to around 140-150mm at f8 its sharp.

Really? I have not heard this before. I am very happy to hear it. Because the DFA 90 was supposed to be the best prime for the Z available today, used or new..... I must check this, it would be wonderful.

[2351HD]

I had both and sold the 90. The 90 is a technically better lens but I found for the landscape work that I do, the results I am getting with the 80-160 at the 80-100mm focal lengths are super sharp at pixel level and can't be complained about.

The FA150 however is a better lens at 150 than the zoom is.

[texandrews]

I had both and sold the 90. The 90 is a technically better lens but I found for the landscape work that I do, the results I am getting with the 80-160 at the 80-100mm focal lengths are super sharp at pixel level and can't be complained about.

The FA150 however is a better lens at 150 than the zoom is.

Thanks for that input!

[mattb123]

I love my D but for those practical features already listed I'm sure I'd like the Z even more. The D is what I could afford and it's a great camera. The Z will eventually come down more too once a replacement is released.
I like the 80-160 too. I haven't done any formal tests but it seems more than adequately sharp.

[D1N0]

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.

Fixed it now. I tried whether I was able to use google photo's as a image hoster and failed... It's on dropbox now, so when it's march 17 2017 or later. You won't be seeing it any more.

[mikeSF]

am i late to the party?

I did not see what subject matter you shoot, but I do landscape/scenic and shot with the 645D a couple years before switching to the Z about a year and a half ago. For my kind of work, the better high ISO performance is a non-issue, as are the additional megapixels (the practical difference is marginal). Faster processing is not a big deal when i don't shoot bursts nor chimp my shots.

The color rendering of the D is indeed superior to the Z, IMO, and though it can easily be approximated with tweaking, there is something to be said for SOOC 645D colors.

The biggest feature for me has been the live view for focus peaking, which has improved my manual focusing significantly. Also, not having to wait for a compulsory dark frame subtraction for exposures longer than 30sec was a win!

Beyond that, it is business as usual and if you shoot low ISO landscape, I would whole heartedly recommend the 645D for the tremendous value and quality IQ.

Good luck!!

[texandrews]

am i late to the party?

Yes, but very glad you joined in, yours is an important POV, imo. You should have linked to your website for reference! And I still have to buy those images from you! Forgive me, but other decision makers intruded, not helpfully. So, this February and this coming July, I promise (for the third time, Ay yi yi...).

I did not see what subject matter you shoot, but I do landscape/scenic and shot with the 645D a couple years before switching to the Z about a year and a half ago. For my kind of work, the better high ISO performance is a non-issue, as are the additional megapixels (the practical difference is marginal). Faster processing is not a big deal when i don't shoot bursts nor chimp my shots.

Not surprised about bursts, am surprised about the last 4 words....But also, I do think you are giving the extremely better high iso performance short shrift. I was always a base iso shooter as well, but the Z's high iso performance has been a real blessing to me in my shooting. Just gives flexibility and adaptability in my shooting and especially helps with breeze/wind. I think it also gives alternatives in lighting when not using flash but rather constant lighting---and I'm doing this with my landscapes, not portraits. The additional MP help if you're going very large or cropping a ton (doing a project now for work with orchids were this is necessary)

The color rendering of the D is indeed superior to the Z, IMO, and though it can easily be approximated with tweaking, there is something to be said for SOOC 645D colors.

Can't argue with that, except to say some of that is taste. Working under an extremely seasoned pro at work doing fine arts repro, basically no film or camera accurately renders color, period. No matter what. For that work adjustments must be made in post. But this translates into my own landscape work as an insight: I either like the rendering or I don't and must adjust it. And that is taste.

The biggest feature for me has been the live view for focus peaking, which has improved my manual focusing significantly.

To me, live view = "pre-chimping". ;-}

Also, not having to wait for a compulsory dark frame subtraction for exposures longer than 30sec was a win!

I'm glad I haven't had to deal with that problem.

Beyond that, it is business as usual and if you shoot low ISO landscape, I would whole heartedly recommend the 645D for the tremendous value and quality IQ.

If a used one could be had under $3K, then maybe so. Otherwise, I say endure the pain as I did and go for the Z. That pain receded pretty quickly. Best photographic purchase I ever made, since 1978. But I re-iterate: check out Mike SF's website for yourself to see what he does with a D. And that goes for mattb 123's work as well....

[mikeSF]

Not surprised about bursts, am surprised about the last 4 words....But also, I do think you are giving the extremely better high iso performance short shrift. I was always a base iso shooter as well, but the Z's high iso performance has been a real blessing to me in my shooting. Just gives flexibility and adaptability in my shooting and especially helps with breeze/wind. I think it also gives alternatives in lighting when not using flash but rather constant lighting---and I'm doing this with my landscapes, not portraits. The additional MP help if you're going very large or cropping a ton (doing a project now for work with orchids were this is necessary)

Can't argue with that, except to say some of that is taste. Working under an extremely seasoned pro at work doing fine arts repro, basically no film or camera accurately renders color, period. No matter what. For that work adjustments must be made in post. But this translates into my own landscape work as an insight: I either like the rendering or I don't and must adjust it. And that is taste.

To me, live view = "pre-chimping". ;-} I'm glad I haven't had to deal with that problem.

If a used one could be had under $3K, then maybe so. Otherwise, I say endure the pain as I did and go for the Z. That pain receded pretty quickly. Best photographic purchase I ever made, since 1978. But I re-iterate: check out Mike SF's website for yourself to see what he does with a D. And that goes for mattb 123's work as well....

On the chimping, I just mean that I disengaged the image display and as a result never have to wait for the camera to show it. I know the behavior of the camera, lens DOF and am confident with the 645 metering, etc, so rarely need to look at what i just shot. Once you get used to it, it is pretty easy to just wait til you get home to see what you shot...like the film days, lol!

I absolutely agree that CCD vs CMOS color rendering is a matter of taste. It is close enough to not be a deal killer either way, but I do sometimes miss the D for this reason.

I sold my D for $2388 and feel it was worth every dollar. Under $3K positions it as a modest entree to medium format, and the IQ (at base ISO) is superior to the 810D for similar money.

oh yeah, the high ISO performance of the Z is really cool - here is an ISO 4,000 test image taken in the dark and pushed a few stops in post. It is as usable as ISO 400 on the 645D:



Thanks for the plug on my website (in my signature). Here is an album of just the 645D images if anyone is interested: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeoria/albums/72157634024430057

[Fontan]

I am one of those people that Adam suggested that prefer D over Z on color rendition. I thought about moving on to Z, but when I saw the prints I decided not to, as I wasn't concerned too much about dynamic range. The color rendition is warmer with D. Z files felt too harsh for my work. Interesting that this was exactly what happened when I thought about going from K10D to K20D.
Now to make the matters more difficult, now we have K-1, which I think is almost superior than 645D.

[sugus]

I absolutely agree that CCD vs CMOS color rendering is a matter of taste. It is close enough to not be a deal killer either way, but I do sometimes miss the D for this reason.

Do you speak about "out of camera" Pictures??

[mikeSF]

I am one of those people that Adam suggested that prefer D over Z on color rendition. I thought about moving on to Z, but when I saw the prints I decided not to, as I wasn't concerned too much about dynamic range. The color rendition is warmer with D. Z files felt too harsh for my work. Interesting that this was exactly what happened when I thought about going from K10D to K20D.

agree completely here. And I also noticed when switching from K10D to K20D that colors were "washed out looking" compared to the K10D but I did know then what I was seeing.

Now to make the matters more difficult, now we have K-1, which I think is almost superior than 645D.

if you mean features, overall processing speed, high ISO performance, yes of course. If you mean pure image quality, I really doubt it.

---------- Post added 01-05-2017 at 08:55 AM ----------

Do you speak about "out of camera" Pictures??

yes, before processing.

[sugus]

@ mikeSF

Thanks for the info. BTW are you shooting RAW and JPG with the P-645 or RAW ore JPG only?

Daniel

[mikeSF]

@ mikeSF

Thanks for the info. BTW are you shooting RAW and JPG with the P-645 or RAW ore JPG only?

Daniel

only RAW.

[Fontan]

Of course Mike that if we were to take both cameras and sensors to their absolute limits, Z will go much further in terms of image qualify that we often speak of. Sure, there is no comparison. When I look at your work I think this is probably even more true. I can see that you take it to the edge, and you do a fantastic job with that. I can see if you printing large, and this will really show, even more I bet. This is precisely why MF format exists because there is an area of photography where MF can make a huge difference in the end product. Landscaping is it.

In some ways I am going through a phase. When I was younger I unknowingly put too much emphasis on what cameras can do - and I used to marvel at the extent of its sharpness. Now I am beginning to think that it can actually take some things away from the the work itself. The sharpness is just one aspect of many that make up a set of anesthetics. There is more to it, as you know. The balance is what I look at.

K-1 is definitely a bridge between APS-C and MF. The way this camera is designed - it fills that gap better than any FF cameras I have ever handled. While there are areas that K-1 can never match when put up against Z. But if your work is willing to live with D, I think K-1 comes pretty damn close.