[marco_gea]

...with the Pentax 645Z, FA 45/2.8 and FA 150-300/5.6 ED. Tripod and filters (ND, GND, Pol).

The camera performed really well overall, and it was a pleasure to use in the field.

The FA 45 prime did not disappoint, even though I found that it is really much better suited to "reportage" than "landscape" (i.e., it excels in the central part of the frame, between f/4 and f/5.6 at medium distances, but it never gets 100% critically sharp in the corners even stopped down to f/11 or f/16). I think for this kind of trip, next time I'll bring the 45-85mm zoom instead.

The FA 150-300 zoom produced some superb results, but it is prone to vibration, and it really wants to be used on a tripod all the time, and with mirror lock-up.

All in all, I'm pretty satisfied about how the photos turned out.

A few samples below:

[RICHARD L.]

[texandrews]

...with the Pentax 645Z, FA 45/2.8 and FA 150-300/5.6 ED. Tripod and filters (ND, GND, Pol).

The camera performed really well overall, and it was a pleasure to use in the field.

The FA 45 prime did not disappoint, even though I found that it is really much better suited to "reportage" than "landscape" (i.e., it excels in the central part of the frame, between f/4 and f/5.6 at medium distances, but it never gets 100% critically sharp in the corners even stopped down to f/11 or f/16). I think for this kind of trip, next time I'll bring the 45-85mm zoom instead.

The FA 150-300 zoom produced some superb results, but it is prone to vibration, and it really wants to be used on a tripod all the time, and with mirror lock-up.

All in all, I'm pretty satisfied about how the photos turned out.

A few samples below:

No surprise the Z worked well for you! Nice results. No surprise about the 45---I soooooo wish Pentax would refresh that lens. And I have reached the same conclusion about the 150-300.
If you don't have one, try to get the 55 f2.8. Most of us think it's great. The A or DFA 35's are also great.

[RICHARD L.]

[mattb123]

It was too stormy to be swapping lenses most of the time so I just kept the 32-64 on the 50r for these. Sadly I forgot the lightning trigger was in another bag or there might have been some lightning in these shots too. Still a pretty good haul and a beautiful evening out.
Weather resistance seems to work well on this combo.

[texandrews]

It was too stormy to be swapping lenses most of the time so I just kept the 32-64 on the 50r for these. Sadly I forgot the lightning trigger was in another bag or there might have been some lightning in these shots too. Still a pretty good haul and a beautiful evening out.
Weather resistance seems to work well on this combo.

Hey! The pot 'o gold was right there at your feet!

[mattb123]

Hey! The pot 'o gold was right there at your feet!

All I saw was a cow pie!

[biz-engineer]

I'm trying to decide what could be next here with the 45-100 and 100-200 being strong contenders. I just need to decide if I'm more comfortable with significant overlap or a gap. Both seem to be well regarded lenses

I've tried a demo GF 100-200 on a GFX100S, as I was almost decided to break the bank and buy a Fuji GFX kit. The GF100-200 size is decent for a medium format lens, but it felt so light weight in the hands that I decided to postpone my purchase. I went back home and I looked at a cross section of the GF100-200, and I was shock to discover that there is a lot of empty space between the glass and the lens barrel, such that the amount of glass approximately the amount of glass there is in my DFA 70-210 f4 (itself a copy of Tamron 70-210 that can be bought for under $500). Sorry but what came to my mind was that the GF100-200 is a rip-off, so far no Fuji GF in my home. Fortunately, Fuji seems to have understood that, they dropped its price ~25% this summer, more reasonably priced now.

[mattb123]

I've tried a demo GF 100-200 on a GFX100S, as I was almost decided to break the bank and buy a Fuji GFX kit. The GF100-200 size is decent for a medium format lens, but it felt so light weight in the hands that I decided to postpone my purchase. I went back home and I looked at a cross section of the GF100-200, and I was shock to discover that there is a lot of empty space between the glass and the lens barrel, such that the amount of glass approximately the amount of glass there is in my DFA 70-210 f4 (itself a copy of Tamron 70-210 that can be bought for under $500). Sorry but what came to my mind was that the GF100-200 is a rip-off, so far no Fuji GF in my home. Fortunately, Fuji seems to have understood that, they dropped its price ~25% this summer, more reasonably priced now.

I've been eyeing one at KEH for around $1700 (which I see is now gone but another will come along I bet). That doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a good performing lens with OIS. The weight isn't much of a concern in terms of being too light. I like to hike and carry gear all kinds of places so to me that is a positive trait as long as the images look good. My 645D and lenses will bring in some money that I'll probably put toward this lens in the next few weeks.

[cdd29]

I've tried a demo GF 100-200 on a GFX100S, as I was almost decided to break the bank and buy a Fuji GFX kit. The GF100-200 size is decent for a medium format lens, but it felt so light weight in the hands that I decided to postpone my purchase. I went back home and I looked at a cross section of the GF100-200, and I was shock to discover that there is a lot of empty space between the glass and the lens barrel, such that the amount of glass approximately the amount of glass there is in my DFA 70-210 f4 (itself a copy of Tamron 70-210 that can be bought for under $500). Sorry but what came to my mind was that the GF100-200 is a rip-off, so far no Fuji GF in my home. Fortunately, Fuji seems to have understood that, they dropped its price ~25% this summer, more reasonably priced now.

I admit, this is an apples to oranges comparison but about a month ago when we were in Michigan, I set up & did the same shot with a Fuji 100s w/ GF100-200 & Sony A7R3 w/ 70-200/2.8 GM. Aside from the obvious difference in resolution one thing I noticed with the Fuji were much cleaner starburst when shooting at a narrow aperture over the Sony. I've noticed very similar results between that same Sony setup & my K-1ii & D FA* 70-200. Would have loved to have had the Pentax setup when we were in Michigan but space in the car was at a premium and I technically was only allowed one camera, but violated domestic management's orders and packed what I could hide. Leaving a kid home wasn't an option. Back to point, I'd suspect doing the same shots with the Fuji & Pentax would have yielded similar results as the Sony/Fuji. In the near future I plan to set up all three and compare, probably using the Fuji in 35mm mode to try to even the playing field a little.

[mattb123]

I admit, this is an apples to oranges comparison but about a month ago when we were in Michigan, I set up & did the same shot with a Fuji 100s w/ GF100-200 & Sony A7R3 w/ 70-200/2.8 GM. Aside from the obvious difference in resolution one thing I noticed with the Fuji were much cleaner starburst when shooting at a narrow aperture over the Sony. I've noticed very similar results between that same Sony setup & my K-1ii & D FA* 70-200. Would have loved to have had the Pentax setup when we were in Michigan but space in the car was at a premium and I technically was only allowed one camera, but violated domestic management's orders and packed what I could hide. Leaving a kid home wasn't an option. Back to point, I'd suspect doing the same shots with the Fuji & Pentax would have yielded similar results as the Sony/Fuji. In the near future I plan to set up all three and compare, probably using the Fuji in 35mm mode to try to even the playing field a little.

Interesting, I was in Michigan (Ann Arbor) last month too! I just brought my K-3iii and a couple of lenses because I was flying and needed to keep it fairly minimal. Worked out fine and that trip was more about seeing my mom than photography although I managed a few lush forest landscapes and firefly shots since I was there.

For travel, the 50r seems pretty well suited in comparison with the Pentax MF offerings so I hope I'll be able to bring the big sensor on more trips now.

[cdd29]

our Michigan trip wasn't exactly a vacation (spreading ashes in Lake Superior) but did have a couple of local things I planned on shooting. Like most family trips, there were several times had to resist the urge to pull over or turn around when I saw something cool I wanted to shoot.

[TDvN57]

Sunrise at Canal Rocks, on the Western Cape, Western Australia. Shot with Leaf Credo and Pentax 28-45mm at the wide end. Focus stacked and blended for dynamic range. Three individual exposures for each photo.

I find the colours on your Leaf Credo very different from other cameras. The Pentax and Fuji cameras are more saturated and does not have that surreal look that your images have, which is very nice. Is that part of the camera's character or the way you edit the colours?

[TDvN57]

Had some spare time in Hamburg yesterday and took some pond life and tried my hand at ICM (not so good) and trying to portray the dynamics of a high speed train zipping past.

645z + FA 80-160. Handheld - did not have a tripod with me as I was travelling light. The train shots were at 1/4 second to capture the movement. I didn't think I still had it in me to hold the camera still for 1/4 second. Yet there it is.

-

[Focusrite]

I find the colours on your Leaf Credo very different from other cameras. The Pentax and Fuji cameras are more saturated and does not have that surreal look that your images have, which is very nice. Is that part of the camera's character or the way you edit the colours?

The short answer is that I'm not entirely sure, and there could be many factors!

I did ponder whether it was my computer screen calibration, but there is a definite difference between my K-1 output and that of the Leaf - where the colours usually have more punch with the K-1, but look more arty ( for lack of a better term ) or dare-I-say-it filmic ( even though I've only maybe ever shot three rolls of film total ) with the Leaf.

I've always just taken it as the output from the digital back itself, as I have seen others describing Leaf as having a "secret sauce" when it comes to landscape colours, notwithstanding the sensor being CCD rather than CMOS. Alongside that is perhaps the greater control over local colour that I have using Capture One instead of Lightroom 5. Once the shadows are brought up and the wonky White Balance is dialled in the pictures have a really nice low-contrast look that I have absolutely fallen for. I have now found myself often trying to emulate that look with my K-1 shots by dropping the contrast and steering well clear of using the Clarity slider ( for global adjusments ) to get that "smooth yet sharp" look! I will probably go in the other direction at some point as my tastes change, however for now the Leaf give me the look that I didn't even know I wanted before I started shooting with it.

Other than that I'm still learning and trying to train my eye, however I approach it with a certain amount of naivety. I see the colour-graded images with muted tones on social media and have little to no idea how to achieve that look. I don't even know how to make and save my own colour presets on Lightroom. I guess I just tweak the photo until it looks right to me.