Originally posted by grantsarichev And a global issue; I want a universal medium format camera with full frame functions (fast phase detection autofocus, image stabilization, etc.), and I see trends for this, for example Fuji GFX 100.
Bear in mind that Fuji lenses have been developed for current sensor sizes. Pentax lenses are mostly designed for "FF" 645 sizes (only one true exception, I think---the other is not a "true" exception.) Only Pentax, Hassy, and Phase One are "ready" for true FF 645.
Quote: I'm willing to pay that kind of money,
For Phase and Hassy you certainly will! The Phase XT is $56K usd
Quote: but I would like to have such a Pentax and not a Fuji (although they say it's amazing not only because of megapixels, but has a divine color rendering, I would like to hear your opinion about this),
My
very strong opinion about this is that professionals and dedicated amateurs are either shooting raw, or are dialing in their cameras such that the ooc jpgs are to their taste. Everything else is simply a subjective evaluation and/or indicative of how that manufacturer has decided their ooc default jpgs will look. Pentax raws are neutral imo, and that is exactly how I want them! The last thing I need from a raw is something I have to fiddle with to get it to neutral. I'll make my own decisions about how my images should look, thank you very much.
Quote: and I want to understand when you can expect something like that? What advantages can you personally say for Fuji 50s and Pentax 645Z when you compare them. Thanks for the excellent answers
The Fuji advantages for the 50s are:
- that the camera is a bit more compact,
- it has an EVF(and the advantages that entails, like focus peaking through the viewfinder),
- IBIS I think,
- and all new lenses.
The disadvantages are:
- that it has an EVF (you need to check how you respond to this one---I like Sony EVF's , but really did not like the Fuji's...),
- that it's more compact (because ultimately, ergonomics are very personal),
- and that there is no real used market for its lenses (in that even the used ones are pricey)
- There is no FF 645 upgrade path with the lenses as they are today
- There is no FF backup camera available in the Fuji lineup---they have skipped FF. So, as a system I think it's worse.
The advantages of the Fuji 100 is all of the above but one, plus more mp. The disadvantages are all of the above plus that the camera looks to me like one of the more awkwardly bulky cameras on the market, although I haven't yet held one, so full judgement is reserved.
The advantages of the Z for me are:
- its fantastic OVF
- its terrific raw files with huge shadow recovery latitude---jaw dropping, in fact
- the deep and rich lens catalog, including used at incredibly low prices
- that it's part of a system whereby one can use lenses from the 6x7 lineup through a native adapter, and can use those and the 645 lenses with the FF and apsc cameras below it through native adapters---so the very capable K1/K1mkII cameras become excellent backups in the event you need one, but w/o necessitating another whole set of lenses.
- and that system includes other accessories as well, like the flashes.
- I can attest to the fact that the Z is bombproof.
- This is a small/simple but amazingly useful one in daily usage: the Z has tripod mounts on 2 sides. So, I have RRS Arca Swiss plates on each one, and can go from landscape to portrait so easily, w/o the extra bulk (and door or hatch obscurations!) of an L bracket. I use this all the time, it's the best arrangement I've ever had on any camera I've owned since the '70's. So smart!
The disadvantages are:
- no IBIS
- None of the advantages of an EVF, and there are some.
- focus peaking isn't as nicely implemented as in the Sony line---I prefer to be able to pick my peaking color---every time I use LV I am reminded of this and slap my head. So dumb!
As far as this whole "Pentax lenses aren't up to snuff" business, I'll believe that when I see some testing of Pentax lenses. Fuji lenses have been tested by someone I trust for his good methodologies, Jim Kasson. So, we know they are good! But because the Pentax lenses have not been tested that rigorously, we can't say they are worse---
because there is no evidence!
I know what I see in the images from my Z and the lenses I use, and I'm shooting targets and things that might as well be (like museum didactics) along with art objects, either in the studio, isolated in the galleries, or in installation shots of whole galleries, which is essentially architectural shooting. This is not romantic portrait shooting, soft focus stuff. It all has to be crisp and dead on. My Pentax system delivers in this exacting environment. The only thing better is the best of the Phase stuff. That stuff reaches
FADGI 4 in single shots. (
see also here for a quick overview) . I can stack focus and get to FADGI 4 pretty easily with 3D objects, though, and for the rest I'm at FADGI 3+ easily.