[Sandy Hancock]

My DFA 25 arrived last week. It is amazing. I'm already addicted to the 40.5 mm drop in filters. Every ultrawide should have this feature. The reduction in glare with dark IR and 10 stop ND filters is a wonderful thing. I'm spoilt.

Thanks,
barondla (Going out to play with the Z and DFA25)

You're triggering some serious seller's remorse, but I'm delighted it has gone to a good home

[TDvN57]

The whole debate on which lenses is very interesting. So I'll add my little bit.

Going on a local hike I prefer to not take the 28-45 because of the weight and sometimes take the dfa25 instead, then my 'main'lens is the 45-85 and my comfort lens the 80-160.

The irony is that from all my hiking pictures the ones that I regard as publish/print quality are taken with the 28-45.

A few years ago we went to Finland and the northern part of Norway in December. The publish/print pictures were all taken with dfa55 2.8.

In both locations the other pics with other lenses were great technically, but either the light was bad for any photography, or my composition was bad or something.

So in conclusion, I think that if I had taken only those two lenses, the 28-45 and 55, I would have had the same number of great pictures.

Go figure that.....

I agree with a previous comment that a wide angle lens can be too wide and stitched panos are a better solution for some landscapes. On the 28-45 I rarely go wider than the mid 30's, which implies the 35mm lenswould cover the focal length I often use, not considering the iq of the 28-45 for a moment.

The only time I wished I had a super wide fish eye was with the northern lights, when the whole sky was filled with a spectacular display of dancing lights. For my next trip there I bought a 12mm Samyang fish eye which I'll use on my KP for those rare super wide shots.

.

[texandrews]

I thought my ears were burning

The amount of sharpening for the Fuji files are way way way less than for the Pentax. i started processing in the same way as I did with the Z and now sharpening is way below what I did with the Z. So there must be an element of precooking on the Fuji raws. AWB is also more prone to magenta, and greens can be a bit on the extreme side.

Was not trying to single you out for criticism---because I'm not criticising. And I wasn't speaking to the sharpening issue---I don't post here (yet) because the one time I did years ago was a disaster. Image looked radically different here than on my monitor.

What I was addressing was the specific situation of comparing the Fuji images posted here---and I think you are the only one posting Fuji images---with ones from the Z---which are obviously all over the map in terms of how they look here at the PF. I think it's not a reliable comparison. The images you are posting now differ from those you previously posted, and although I'm not a betting man I'll bet it's a PP situation, or else Fuji has interpreted a similar sensor very differently raw-wise---which would not surprise me from my familiarity with their old transparency films.


Also, I think I agree with you about the need to push the sharpening in the Z files---they seem very forgiving of that.

But yeah, your ears must have been hot.

[itshimitis]

Was not trying to single you out for criticism---because I'm not criticising. And I wasn't speaking to the sharpening issue---I don't post here (yet) because the one time I did years ago was a disaster. Image looked radically different here than on my monitor.

What I was addressing was the specific situation of comparing the Fuji images posted here---and I think you are the only one posting Fuji images---with ones from the Z---which are obviously all over the map in terms of how they look here at the PF. I think it's not a reliable comparison. The images you are posting now differ from those you previously posted, and although I'm not a betting man I'll bet it's a PP situation, or else Fuji has interpreted a similar sensor very differently raw-wise---which would not surprise me from my familiarity with their old transparency films.


Also, I think I agree with you about the need to push the sharpening in the Z files---they seem very forgiving of that.

But yeah, your ears must have been hot.

I usually have thick skin, so generally quite difficult to offend unless rudeness is involved. It took me a little while to settle into the Z from the D, and I found that with the Z, the reds dominated - it was very easy to get a red sky at sunset. Huelight's profiles helped to bring this out more. The AWB is the main difference, and I'll keep using AWB, but play with the sliders post. Quite frequently the greens in reality are very velvia because of the amount of rain we have been getting, so often the full on greens are accurate.

[mikeSF]

To the OP, I will say hell yes the 645Z is still as superb an option today as it ever was.
If it suits your shooting style, and you can appreciate superior image quality, look no further, the 645Z and available array of lenses are high performers.

If you need rapid burst shooting or moving target focus tracking, this is not your tool, but for scenic, macro, portrait, product work, and high ISO work, it is as good as it gets in this price range.

Good luck shopping.

[texandrews]

To the OP, I will say hell yes the 645Z is still as superb an option today as it ever was.
If it suits your shooting style, and you can appreciate superior image quality, look no further, the 645Z and available array of lenses are high performers.

If you need rapid burst shooting or moving target focus tracking, this is not your tool, but for scenic, macro, portrait, product work, and high ISO work, it is as good as it gets in this price range.

Good luck shopping.

Glad you chimed in.

[TDvN57]

To the OP, I will say hell yes the 645Z is still as superb an option today as it ever was.
If it suits your shooting style, and you can appreciate superior image quality, look no further, the 645Z and available array of lenses are high performers.

If you need rapid burst shooting or moving target focus tracking, this is not your tool, but for scenic, macro, portrait, product work, and high ISO work, it is as good as it gets in this price range.

Good luck shopping.

Agree with you Mike.

My wife asked me the other day what I would do if Pentax either stops to exist, or stop making the 645 series. I answered I would buy a couple of 645z bodies and use them all up.

So far, I'm not interested in a camera that reminds me of a mobile phone in order to use it (eg. Mirrorless). I like the size of the 645z as it balances very well with all of the 645 lenses.

Do I want improvements in the z? Yes of course, that is a never ending 'want'.

Is the technology in the 'z' getting old? Yes, BUT not obsolete. We are so accustomed to our mobile devices that literally expire once the technology gets old, because the applications drive it into obsolescence. That is not the case in the camera cosmos.

Does the 'z' cover all my requirements? Yes it does, from online to printing as large as my 40inch printer can do and more. My largest print ever: 12 meters long x 3.6m high in four strips of 0.9m high each.

[mikeSF]

I look at it this way. I am still not worthy of my camera's capabilities. It does more than I need it to do. Should that change, I'll start shopping again.

[Ed Hurst]

Couldn't agree more with your last two posts, Mike. Though I might get tempted by a 100MP camera soon if Pentax doesn't step up. I don't want the existing 100MP options though... The Phase One options are too expensive for me and the Fuji ones are mirrorless, which I really don't want. But I will probably end up jumping at some stage if there isn't a 100MP Pentax on the way. I don't want to say that, but it's true.

[SylvainB]

I look at it this way. I am still not worthy of my camera's capabilities. It does more than I need it to do. Should that change, I'll start shopping again.

Then what should we, amateur photographers, feel by owning a Z ?
You are totally worthy of the 645Z, as Ed, as a few others. You are so humble !

[zjacreman]

I bought a 645Z in 2021. If you wait for the right deals on ebay (or here) you can get a comprehensive kit for prices that would be impossible in the Fuji system.

I got a Z with about 7k clicks, FA 35, D-FA 55, FA 75, D-FA 90, FA 120, FA 150, FA 45-85, FA 80-160, and FA 150-300 (not all from the same seller) and imported the whole pile into Colombia for the price of a new GFX 50s and a 110mm. Of those lenses the only one that didn't completely blow me away was the 150-300, and it's fine, just not staggering like the others.

I've used it in the studio (my main use case) and in the field and it has been a joy, I can't imagine needing to upgrade it for years. So the fact that it looks like a dead system means little to me. When I wear out this body and there's no more used market I'll worry about changing again. It's actually nice to get off the GAS train.

If ultrawide is important to you (28mm equiv is plenty wide enough for me) then you'll probably have better bang for your buck with full frame. But for landscape, there's no reason to go mirrorless (and good reasons not to, like battery life). D850? Or the 5DSR is on crazy sale right now.

If I need a wider view I'll probably stitch, using a more normal focal length like the 55 or 75 (for a more regular image). For my field tripod I picked up an Artcise AS80C with built-in leveling base (critically important), and a Leofoto VH-30R 2-way head. Chinese knock-off version of Thomas Heaton's landscape tripod setup. Perfect for panning, no matter what you're putting on top of it.

[texandrews]

I bought a 645Z in 2021. If you wait for the right deals on ebay (or here) you can get a comprehensive kit for prices that would be impossible in the Fuji system.

***This***

I got a Z with about 7k clicks, FA 35, D-FA 55, FA 75, D-FA 90, FA 120, FA 150, FA 45-85, FA 80-160, and FA 150-300 (not all from the same seller) and imported the whole pile into Colombia for the price of a new GFX 50s and a 110mm. Of those lenses the only one that didn't completely blow me away was the 150-300, and it's fine, just not staggering like the others.

I've used it in the studio (my main use case) and in the field and it has been a joy, I can't imagine needing to upgrade it for years.

***And this***

It's actually nice to get off the GAS train.

***And this too!***

I agree about UWA---FF is the way to go, lot's of very good options, if you really need to dip below a 20/21-ish equiv FL. I very occasionally need to but really it's not a landscape thing, but a tight quarters issue. I have both the 25 and the 28-45, and it's a rare situation I need to move to FF and a 15-ish FL.

If I need a wider view I'll probably stitch, using a more normal focal length like the 55 or 75 (for a more regular image).

And there's the big problem, stretching distortion on UWA even if the lens is rectilinear.

For my field tripod I picked up an Artcise AS80C with built-in leveling base (critically important), and a Leofoto VH-30R 2-way head. Chinese knock-off version of Thomas Heaton's landscape tripod setup. Perfect for panning, no matter what you're putting on top of it.

Very nice. I went with a Leofoto LN-404C for studio and near-the-car landscape-ish work, already had a Feisol 3224 travel tripod. Acratech heads and a Benro geared head for those.

[rdenney]

The stretching distortion is worse on a rectilinear lens. We think of it being without distortion, but it is as much a distortion compared to three-dimensional perception as is fisheye distortion, and we only notice the latter because it curves objects we know are straight. But roundish objects are more realistically presented in a fisheye.

I own lenses for 24x36 down to 12mm, and every time I try to do landscape stuff that short, the dramatic background I'm seeking to contrast with an exaggerated foreground shrinks into a few bumps on the horizon, and the contrast loses its bite. And avoiding unwanted perspective convergence with lenses that short is dang-nigh impossible. But with the Pentax, images have enough detail that correcting perspective in software doesn't meaningfully limit print size.

I populated a whole book on Alaska using no lens shorter than 35mm on my 645Z, except for maybe two shots using a 30mm Arsat, neither of which the book would have missed. I didn't have the 28-45 then. Now, I do, and I think I could have done that whole book with the 28-45, the 55, and the 200/4. (Well, there was that photo of the eagle using a 400 on a 1.4x teleconverter.) The 45-85 has been critically sharp for me for things like group photos. It's impressive to have a photo of 100 people and be able to zoom in and read their name tags. Just that bit of Pentax glass would have cost many thousands more in Fuji glass, 23mm availability notwithstanding.

I don't need 100 megapixels--I already consume horrific amounts of hard disk space. And I can't print large enough for it to matter, even assuming I could afford the lenses that would take advantage of the smaller pixels. But IBIS? That would be a boon. Or longer lenses that provide shake reduction and weather sealing. Pentax exists because of the SLR concept, and I've grown up with it. I still just get annoyed when having to use an LCD screen as a viewfinder. I don't expect Pentax to move away from SLR's--that would be a violation of their key history. But there are other features that wouldn't be bad to have, and the market would be reinforced by evidence of product commitment.


Rick "mostly absent for many months but seeing the conversations haven't really changed much" Denney

[texandrews]

Rick "mostly absent for many months but seeing the conversations haven't really changed much" Denney

Nope, not so much. Welcome back, although having popped in and seen not much new, maybe you'll pop out again. All your other comments rang true, as usual. Yeah, try "square" paintings on the sides of a wide angle gallery shot....

[itshimitis]

Compare the price of the Pentax 28 - 45 and the 32 - 64 Fuji. Massive difference even when there aren't offers on - which there are at the moment. I paid £1800 for mine in an open box deal right now it is £1719 brand new. The 28-45 is £4400. The 32 - 64 is lighter and every bit as sharp. It's also slightly faster at f/4. Pentax will have to compete on lens prices also. What I am also seeing is that new Pentax 645 lenses are harder to find. Only second hand available at most dealers. So, with respect, R Denney, Fuji lenses are being sold new at the same price as reasonably well used Pentax. Yes there are more lenses available for Pentax, but more lenses can be adapted to the Fuji. The FA 75 adapts very well indeed.