[Colorado CJ]

Hey everyone, I posted this over in the full format section, but thought I should post it here as well as it has to do with how a medium format camera compares to the K-1.

I've had a 645D as my main landscape camera for about a year now and a K-1 for about 6 months. I only had Takumar lenses to use on the K-1 so far since i mainly been using it for Astrophotography

Last week I bought two lenses, a Pentax A 645 35mm F3.5 for the 645D and a Sigma Art 35mm F1.4 for the K-1. Yesterday I decided to do some testing with each camera and their respective lenses. As for most of my camera testing, I headed up to Rocky Mountain National Park to do a side by side comparison.

It was a bright sunny day with almost no clouds, so it wasn't the perfect time for getting great photos, but it did vary enough to have some high contrast, high dynamic range shooting.

Here is what I found out. Both lenses and cameras made EXTREMELY sharp images. Putting the images together and viewing them at 100%, it was hard to say which one was the sharpest. They both obtained extremely high detail images. One thing I noticed right away was the rendering was pretty different for each camera. The 645D images "popped" more right out of the camera. There seemed to be more micro-contrast and the colors were much more vibrant, where the colors on the K-1 were more muted.

Interestingly, the 35mm lenses for each camera, one a medium format sensor, and the other a full frame sensor, had nearly the same coverage. This has to do with the different sensor aspect ratios, where the 645 has a 4:3 aspect ratio where the K-1 has a 3:2 aspect ratio.

These images were all taken with the same settings on each camera. I shot in Aperture Priority mode on each camera. In Light Room, I edited each image using the exact same preset so the images from capturing to editing were treated exactly the same way. I didn't use a tripod as I was hiking above timberline and ~30 lbs. of cameras and lenses was heavy enough.

My personal conclusion is this, though the K-1 files were very nice, I really preferred the 645D files. The 645D treat colors differently. There is a "pop" to the images, especially the highlights, that just isn't there with the K-1. And the micro contrast and small details, making a more 3D effect is more apparent in the 645D files. Saying this, the K-1 is actually much more pleasing to use. The build quality, shutter actuation and speed is a hard thing to look past. Both cameras with their respective lenses weigh just about the same, and take up about the same room in the camera bag, so it will be pretty hard for me to make my mind up when picking one camera for the days hike. The CCD sensor in the 645D will probably win out for most of my landscape shooting though.

Here are the images. You can tell which image is from what camera from their aspect ratio. I wish I could display the full size images as the differences between cameras is much more noticeable when you zoom in.

*

*


*

*


*

*


*

*


*

*


*

*


*

*


*

*

[DavidDwight]

Interesting test and coincidentally enough I was in RMNP at the same time (even though I live in Indiana) hiking with my 82 year old mother (so we didn’t get as far off Trail Ridge Rd as you). There was a lot of haze which I heard was due to a forest fire in western CO which I think you can see some impact of in your photos as well.

3 questions
1) I assume you shoot RAW? Could some of the difference in results be how LR processes the RAW file? So, if you tried to RAW process the K1 file to look more like the 645D is it possible?

2) could the lenses (lens coatings primarily) account for the difference?

3) you are using 645D and not 645Z. Do you think results would be same or even better or more extreme with the newer “Z”? (Maybe someone else knows who has compared the 2?)

Thanks

[Colorado CJ]

Interesting test and coincidentally enough I was in RMNP at the same time (even though I live in Indiana) hiking with my 82 year old mother (so we didn’t get as far off Trail Ridge Rd as you). There was a lot of haze which I heard was due to a forest fire in western CO which I think you can see some impact of in your photos as well.

3 questions
1) I assume you shoot RAW? Could some of the difference in results be how LR processes the RAW file? So, if you tried to RAW process the K1 file to look more like the 645D is it possible?

2) could the lenses (lens coatings primarily) account for the difference?

3) you are using 645D and not 645Z. Do you think results would be same or even better or more extreme with the newer “Z”? (Maybe someone else knows who has compared the 2?)

Thanks

1) I am sure you could get the images to look closer to eachother, though the highlight detail in the 645D images will be harder to duplicate I think.

2) The lens coatings and design could definitely make a difference on how the images are rendered. I meant to put that in my post, but I forgot. The surprising thing to me is how SHARP the A 645 35mm lens was compared to the modern Sigma Art 35mm. I didn't think that old lens would compare well to the modern, computer designed and highly rated lens.

3) Yes, I am using the 645D. I don't think the 645Z images would look much different than the K-1 images. I think the real difference here is in the 645D's CCD sensor. CCD sensors just have a different "look" compared to CMOS. CCD colors are usually always more vibrant, or "colorful" compared to CMOS, it is just the way the architecture works.

[Kozlok]

Thank you, nice work all around. One thing to note is that BigMackCam has a Lightroom preset that mimics CCD colors for a CMOS camera. You can download that HERE. I have that preset and use it frequently. It will close a lot of the difference in those images. The K-1 images also look like if you used Lightroom's dehaze function by just a tiny bit, it would add some of that same pop. But I agree with you, the CCD images have a wonderful look to them. The advantages of CMOS really only show up at higher ISO settings.

...I wish I could display the full size images as the differences between cameras is much more noticeable when you zoom in.
*

You could start a free Flickr account, post the full-sized shots on Flickr, and then use the BBCode paste function to display them here, then we could just click on the photos to be taken to the full sized versions on Flickr.

PM me if you want to do that and need some help. It's actually quite easy.

I've pasted one of my Flickr photos here so you can see how it works, just click on the image, and you'll be taken to my Flickr page.



---------- Post added 09-15-19 at 11:59 AM ----------

As an example, I took the last shot on the bottom (the K-1 version), and applied BigMackCam's CCD profile, and added about +7 dehaze. It would be even closer if I'd added about +5 or so to Saturation. Here's what it looks like:

---

Last edited by Kozlok; 09-15-2019 at 11:02 AM.

[biz-engineer]

The shadows are more open on images from the 645D. Not sure if this comes from the response of the CCD sensor itself or if this comes from the shadow contrast apply to the raw conversion.

[sbh]

Thanks for doing the test. The 645 images do indeed show color that the K1 images don't have. Afaik CCD sensors are known for having better color capabilities.

[Rondec]

Interesting comparison. They are really close and you feel like under the circumstances you'd have a hard time picking between them.

(By the way, looks like the 645 needs some sensor cleaning)...

[Belnan]

Nice comparison, I like the 4/3 aspect ratio of the 645D, feels more immersive.

[texandrews]

The larger sensor ought to give you better tonalities because of the larger physical size of the D's sensor. I think that makes for better tonalities, based on my experience looking at nearly identical files from my Z and my former A7R, and now my upgraded K1. I haven't yet checked a K1 PS file against my Z's files, so I can't speak to that. I would think it would narrow the difference, but I think the difference might still be there.

Then on top of that there is the feeling among many that the CCD sensor was special with regards to color rendering.


Something I would love to see in any future Z is PS capabilities. In another forum thread someone pointed out that currently Sony is not making a "FF" medium format sensor, even though they are making a 100mp "crop frame" one (which Fuji is using). Although I would love to see a "FF" 645 sensor in a Pentax Z model, if they have to use the one from wherever Phase is getting theirs, then the price will be too high for me. So, the current 100mp sensor with PS would be a great alternative. Throw in IBIS/SR, composition shift, & etc. and I might even prefer the "crop frame" version. It could be overall more useful.

[texandrews]

Nice comparison, I like the 4/3 aspect ratio of the 645D, feels more immersive.

I find that I shoot less wide shots with my Z than with my FF cameras. On the Z they look "too wide" somehow. On my Z I shoot many more "normal" FL shots. They look less blah, more interesting than on FF.

[Dartmoor Dave]

This is the best and clearest illustration I've ever seen of the very real differences between the CCD and CMOS architectures. As others have said, CMOS raw files can be improved dramatically in post-processing, but CCD raw files tend to look much better straight out of the camera.

[SylvainB]

(...) In another forum thread someone pointed out that currently Sony is not making a "FF" medium format sensor, even though they are making a 100mp "crop frame" one (which Fuji is using). Although I would love to see a "FF" 645 sensor in a Pentax Z model, if they have to use the one from wherever Phase is getting theirs, then the price will be too high for me. So, the current 100mp sensor with PS would be a great alternative. Throw in IBIS/SR, composition shift, & etc. and I might even prefer the "crop frame" version. It could be overall more useful.

I don't know where you read that, but actually Sony is selling a 54x40mm 100MP sensor since 2016 I think, used by Hasselblad and PhaseOne, and they have just released this year a 150MP sensor of the same size used by PhaseOne only so far. So Sony definitely is selling FF medium format for quite some time now. And there are probably not cheap, but it depends too on the quantity you buy.

[texandrews]

I don't know where you read that, but actually Sony is selling a 54x40mm 100MP sensor since 2016 I think, used by Hasselblad and PhaseOne, and they have just released this year a 150MP sensor of the same size used by PhaseOne only so far. So Sony definitely is selling FF medium format for quite some time now. And there are probably not cheap, but it depends too on the quantity you buy.

Well, that's great news! It was on a forum here that I read that, so If I can find that thread again I will be sure to correct it, and point it back here.

[SylvainB]

Well, that's great news! It was on a forum here that I read that, so If I can find that thread again I will be sure to correct it, and point it back here.

In case some are interested, I believe these big sensors are called IMX211 and IMX411 for 100MP and 150MP versions respectively.

[house]

I find that I shoot less wide shots with my Z than with my FF cameras. On the Z they look "too wide" somehow. On my Z I shoot many more "normal" FL shots. They look less blah, more interesting than on FF.

That's interesting! I've found that larger formats can do wider fov wilst still not looking to wide. This is from observation not usage.