Originally posted by Paul the Sunman I am (sadly) very dubious about the future of Pentax 645. If they deliberately say nothing over such an extended period, it is not a good sign.
As long as the Pentax 645Z does its job as good as competitors for the next three odd years, it should be OK with him. And truly, as long as it works, which could be many many years to come, it doesn't matter if Ricoh continues with the model or not.
---------- Post added 11-29-21 at 01:54 AM ----------
Originally posted by Edmunds Well, there are advantages to Fuji - lens choices, size, weight, stabilization.
There aren't really any advantages to Pentax, maybe only compatibility with film era lenses and price.
That said, if you are shooting at infinity using fast shutter speeds while sitting in a chopper or airplane... I can't really think of any advantage for the Fuji system.
Also, one thing to keep in mind. I haven't used Fuji mini-MF, but I did use Fuji APS-C for a couple of years, and I would say, there is no other company so good at marketing and its users so full of hot air as Fuji. The Fuji APS-C system is barely able to out-do an Olympus m4/3 system, despite the sensor size difference, and yet if you go on Fuji forums its users will profess it is as good as FF.
If you are buying into a new system, I also agree with the above poster who says FF cameras should be considered. If you are cropping to 3:2, its a sensor difference of 44x29 vs 36x24. that's a crop factor of just 1.22x
Also, I'd say post-processing skill is far more important than the minute differences between these cameras.
Thank you.
Pentax 645 lenses 55mm and 90mm f2.8 are as good as any. Only the Fujifilm GF 80mm f1.7 will have more advantages due to the 1.5 stop large aperture advantage. That is perhaps only useful in low light photography, which in my case would be minimum. However, the GF f1.7 lens would be fantastic in night aerial photography along with the IBIS of Fujifilm.
As you said, I am unable to decipher any specific advantage other than IBIS on the Fujifilm, which I can get simply by buying the Kenyon Gyro. And this Gyro can be used on any camera in future, perhaps in tandem with the IBIS. The quality of mechanical stabilisation with the Kenyon gyro is supposed to be an order of magnitude higher than the the best of the IBIS in any camera.
MF gives me more leeway in cropping compared to FF. It is important because you can't get a perfect composition from the air and you may need to crop in PP to get the composition in balance. The 24x36 print size might increase in future. So the larger the sensor, the better. And beyond cropping, the MF gives better tonality... the so called 3D effect, which is true in my experience and not a myth.
I post processing skills are absolutely most important. I guess that is where I must concentrate more, once the camera system gets finalised.
---------- Post added 11-29-21 at 02:02 AM ----------
Originally posted by whwang Use both Pentax 645z and GFX-50R for astro. Can't comment on aerial photography. But if you need corner sharpness at large aperture, go to Fuji. The few Pentax lenses that I had used are all very sharp in the center, but quite lousy in the corners. They are miles behind Fuji lenses. They have to be stopped down by at least two more stops to get close to (not matching) a Fuji counterpart in corner sharpness.
Thank you. Don't you find Pentax 645 55mm f2.8 and 90mm f2.8 adequate for what you do? My experience is that they are stellar on the 645Z. And both are All Weather (AW) lenses. I think they are excellent at f2.8, and exceptional by f4.
That said, any views on what is better for these two lenses - f2.8 at ISO 200 or f4 at ISO 400? Given these options, what would be a better option of the two - a stopped down lens at higher ISO or a wide open lens at lower ISO?
---------- Post added 11-29-21 at 02:16 AM ----------
Originally posted by TDvN57 Keep in mind your task load in the air. If you have a helicopter available that will wait for you to compose, adjust settings and then take your shot before they want to move on, then you can shoot with anything you like. If the helicopter won't wait for you, and they expect you to take your shot and move on, because it takes money to keep those blades turning, then you will be better off with a camera that suits your style and ergonomics.
When your task load is high then you want to have a camera with button controls like the 645z. If you want to go for the Fuji, then I suggest rather consider the 100 instead of the "s" models. From what I understand it has more button control options than the "s" models. You may also consider shooting a bit wider to leave yourself some composition crop elbow room.
Re the sensors. My info is also that the 645z and the 50mpx sensors in PhaseOne, Hasselblad and Fuji are the same. According to Sony's website(s) this sensor is no longer on their list for future sensors. They are obviously still making it for the current demand. I don't quite understand how a sensor can be outdated if it is still the same sensor, just because there are new algorithms in the newer cameras (debatable but possible). In RAW files there cannot be that much processing past the de-mosaicing stage where the raw data is read and the Bayer filter data parsed. Which leaves you at the mercy of your post processing skills.
If you decide on the Pentax I would recommend to shoot in DNG. I have found it has more dynamic range than PEF. Others may disagree but it is just my experience.
Some Fuji and Hasselblad models offer 16bit RAW files, based on a 12 bit data from the sensor. (Not sure about PO). Pentax offers 14bit from the same 12 bit data. All that gives you is more decimals when calculating the pixel values. Perhaps there is value in that, perhaps not, I can't judge. I do know once you get into post processing you are better off in 16 bit, but having that precision at the de-mosaic level, I am not sure if it adds that much practical value. From my testing very little noise reduction is done in camera when shooting raw files.
A benefit of the Pentax system is its ability to accurately set the white balance, especially when compared to Nikon and Canon. Most of the times I can leave my pictures on white balance "As Shot".
None of the MF options will give you a fast shutter speed. This is limited by the sensor, not the camera.
Printing 24x36 inch is not very large these days and you can easily achieve that with a 35mm FF camera, as others have mentioned. I regularly print panoramas 100x40 inch @ 300dpi and I have no problem with any of my lenses and 645z to live up to it. Added value has also arrived with Super Resolution in ACR/Lightroom which makes large printing even easier. Or you can scale up in Photoshop with their new algorithms for resampling "Preserve Details 2.0" and the results are similar to Super Resolution, perhaps a tad better. Both methods overtook Topaz Gigapixel. As a final touch I also test if Topaz Sharpening adds any value, sometimes it does, most times it does not.
Good luck with your choice and your project. Sans any restrictions and copyright issues, please post a couple of pictures on the forum.
'
EDIT:
If possible you may want to ask the printer at which dpi they print. I just checked a 51mpx files @ 300 dpi is already 27.5 x 20.6 which would require a small bump in size to enlarge to 36 inch.
However at +/- 230 dpi the print image is already 36 x 27 inch. That means no enlargement is required and you just need to crop off the short dimension by 3 inches to fit 24 x 36.
The print quality between 230 and 300 will not be visible. However even at 300 dpi, upscaling the image is not much to get to your print size and you should also not see any image degradation.
For a camera sensor guide I would suggest a sensor with no less than 8256 pixels on the long side, since that will get you to your print size without much manipulation.
Thank you Theuns. Your post has do many important points which will help me a lot.
Indeed I don't know how the sensor of 645Z becomes "not good enough" with a new sensor-algorithm combination in another camera. I am hoping to hear from a photographer who uses or has used both Pentax and Fujifilm.
My task load will be high. And I am used to the Pentax for seven years now. I can use its external controls quickly and blindly. You develop that sort of familiarity when you use a camera regularly. Such quick manipulation of controls does help at times in the air. In that sense, continuing with Pentax makes sense. I will only consider the Fujifilm if it adds some great value which the Pentax simply cannot.
I just bought the Topaz suite
Will check on the printer and the DPI used to print. This is a very relevant point.
---------- Post added 11-29-21 at 02:26 AM ----------
Originally posted by surfar The GFX100s is 6000u$d and will shoot in the 3:2 aspect ratios theres enough money to get an appropriate lens for the job.
Yes. That is the dilemma. A used Pentax 645Z with a Kenyon Gyro KS 6X6 is going to cost approx USD 7000 whereas a Fujifilm GFX 100s with GF 80mm f1.7 is USD 8300. It is a tough choice to make. The former gives me far more flexibility of a system I already own and am very comfortable with. The latter gives a new generation camera and lens, but I don't know how much edge this new camera-lens combo has.
I cannot imagine how much better the GFX 100S with GF 80mm lens could be in comparison to the 645Z with 90mm f2.8 which i already own.
These are precisely the kinds of answers I am seeking.