Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-01-2018, 03:13 AM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
Pentax K-1 vs 645z... What's the difference in IQ?

I know the 645z has more resolution and a slightly bigger sensor (not a proper medium format size though, but smaller).

My question comes about the images look: is there any difference between images from both cameras? Possibly those having both might post the same photos taken by each camera and equivalent focal lengths and therefore show the differences, if any.

Thanks mates!

03-01-2018, 05:37 AM - 4 Likes   #2
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
is there any difference between images from both cameras?
Do you think people pay $5000 extra to get exact same images?
You know how FF gives you a little wider angle and a little more bokeh than APSC? Same thing, just one step further.
Of course, with 645 you get fewer features. K-1 is great because it has lots of features, is easy to use, has high IQ, and its not massively big. The 645 is focused more on IQ, so it is less easy to use, has fewer features, and is much bigger.

And we had threads like this before, you can search for them as they have some sample photos. You can look at threads like "post your best K-1 photos" and "post your best 645 photos", as well. There is also this tool: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/samplesearch.php
There is a difference, but it is very difficult to describe. And it might not be worth it for everyone. Depends on your wishes.

Edit: One thing to keep in mind is that very few amateurs use 645, so the 645 photos are, on average, taken by more skilled and knowledgeable photographers and are therefore better than an average APSC photo (since buying a $500 camera is much more accessible). Photographers skill is part of the equation, not just gear.

Last edited by Na Horuk; 03-01-2018 at 05:45 AM.
03-01-2018, 06:12 AM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Do you think people pay $5000 extra to get exact same images?
You know how FF gives you a little wider angle and a little more bokeh than APSC? Same thing, just one step further.
Of course, with 645 you get fewer features. K-1 is great because it has lots of features, is easy to use, has high IQ, and its not massively big. The 645 is focused more on IQ, so it is less easy to use, has fewer features, and is much bigger.

And we had threads like this before, you can search for them as they have some sample photos. You can look at threads like "post your best K-1 photos" and "post your best 645 photos", as well. There is also this tool: Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
There is a difference, but it is very difficult to describe. And it might not be worth it for everyone. Depends on your wishes.

Edit: One thing to keep in mind is that very few amateurs use 645, so the 645 photos are, on average, taken by more skilled and knowledgeable photographers and are therefore better than an average APSC photo (since buying a $500 camera is much more accessible). Photographers skill is part of the equation, not just gear.
Yes, I knew all about what you are talking about. I just was wondering how the same picture will be shown by both cameras.

I know that APS-C cameras lose depth of field with respect of a compact sized sensor camera with equivalent apertures and a FF loses depth of field with respect of an APS-C too. So for landscapes it's possibly easier to get better results overall with an APS-C than with a FF due to that fact (more difficult to get sharpness at infinite with a FF, especially with fast lenses).

So possibly the bigger the sensor, the better for portraits, social life and macros. And the smaller, the better for landscapes (¿?). But not all is about that I know, there's resolution, ISO performance, etc...

Anyways, again, I wonder how the same picture will look taken with both cameras. I've read several comments and reviews saying that the upgrade is not worth it because, in general, the small increase in resolution and sensor size (the 645 like others -Hasselblad and Fuji- are not real medium format but smaller sized sensors than that, it looks like anything bigger than FF falls directly into the MF bin when not all these MF sensors are really MF) possibly gives only a 10% of improvement (and in certain circumstances only) comparing with current FF cameras, but costing not 10% more but between 300-400% the price of a good FF. Those reviews, however, don't provide samples of both to compare.

Ok, I'll give a look to that link and will search.

Thank you.
03-01-2018, 06:16 AM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,687
I'm only posting because I know of this article that compares (to a degree) the 645D (40Mp CCD sensor) and the K1 in this gentleman's product photography. It's an excellent write-up essentially directed towards Pentax's Pixel Shift technology (with the K1) with excellent examples of Pixel Shift.


03-01-2018, 07:32 AM   #5
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I'm only posting because I know of this article that compares (to a degree) the 645D (40Mp CCD sensor) and the K1 in this gentleman's product photography. It's an excellent write-up essentially directed towards Pentax's Pixel Shift technology (with the K1) with excellent examples of Pixel Shift.
Oh yes, I read time ago that review but forgot it.

I think that this new technology from different manufacturers (named "Pixel Shift" in Pentax), it has lots of potential in improving IQ (sharpness, color depth...) in all sort of cameras. I mean I'm sure it will develops even much more in time. If the future will be overlapping 4 transparent sensors to avoid taking 4 shots and getting artifacts with moving objects or whatever else improvement I don't know, but this improvement is like the turbos in cars engines, they allow increasing the power without the need of increasing the engine capacity and higher fuel consumption.

Possibly a new 645z with improved resolution and especially with Pixel Shift technology will clearly be the next step ahead in IQ. What a pity the prices of these cameras are not just 1.5 times or maximum twice the price of the K-1...

Whatever. Thanks for the link.
03-01-2018, 07:51 AM   #6
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Some of is a thread long ago guessed that 3d pop was one of the benefits to larger formats. We've just never been able to confirm it with real photographs. My guess is, you see a difference between APS-c and 645. APS-c and FF are just too similar. And FF and 645 are too similar, especially since Pentax 645 is a crop 645, and really, not so much different than the K-1.
03-01-2018, 09:17 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
I think MF does have some more of that 3D pop, at least from the photos Ive seen. But MF shooters are also more likely to spend money and time to go to a beautiful location and wait for hours to get the light just right.
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
So possibly the bigger the sensor, the better for portraits,
Definitely comes down to your wishes and needs. Sports photography or birding - APSC is great. If you want dreamy portraits that pull the audience right in - MF.

Oh, and the 645D and Z are basically "crop sensor" MF, like APSC is to FF.

Pixel shift is really interesting. Many brands wont be able to implement it, since they dont have Sensor based SR. Sony, Oly, and Pentax are brands that can do it (and Hasselblad now? Pentax 645 cannot do it yet and Im not sure it ever will). The K-1II will, according to announcements, already feature an improved PS system. This definitely bridges the gap to MF in terms of detail, noise, dynamic range, colours. But pure resolution and 3D pop is still on the side of MF.

Anyway, if you are a perfectionist and have the budget, go ahead and try MF. You can even rent it for a few days or try it in a shop to see how it handles. I cant justify the purchase for myself, not with my needs and budget. But Ive seen plenty of MF photos and handled the 645D and Z once or twice. Very attractive system. I just cant lug around something that heavy and that expensive. APSC is quite nice for my travels.

03-01-2018, 11:13 AM - 1 Like   #8
New Member




Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6
Not sure you would ever be able to really see the difference looking at a computer image. Web displays at 72dpi and color is subject to the quality and calibration of the monitor you are using. The depth and color difference between 35mm and 645 can only really be appreciated in print.
03-01-2018, 11:40 AM - 1 Like   #9
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
The deciding factor for me, between Medium Format and 35mm was the loss of SR. I tend to work quickly, change locations often and cover as many angles as I can. No SR would seriously affect my work flow. Others who prefer to be more methodical and always shoot from a tripod with a delay will find Medium Format right up their alley.

I suffered for years using film, where I couldn't change my ISO, had to keep my shutter speed up and stabilize my camera to avoid motion blur etc. I'm actually a much happier photographer than I was now than in my youth when technical considerations required much more thought and patience. I was born too soon.

Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2018 at 11:47 AM.
03-01-2018, 03:03 PM   #10
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,047
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
So for landscapes it's possibly easier to get better results overall with an APS-C than with a FF due to that fact (more difficult to get sharpness at infinite with a FF, especially with fast lenses)
That is too simplistic I am afraid. Many great landscape photographer would use medium or large format rather than 35mm. If you take a landscape picture and want a lot of depth of field, you stop the lens down, fast lens or not.

Why is a FF camera more difficult to get sharpness at infinity ?
03-01-2018, 03:42 PM   #11
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pschlute Quote
That is too simplistic I am afraid. Many great landscape photographer would use medium or large format rather than 35mm. If you take a landscape picture and want a lot of depth of field, you stop the lens down, fast lens or not.

Why is a FF camera more difficult to get sharpness at infinity ?
Because that is my experience. With a Fujifilm Finepix f100fd I used to get all the frame in focus. With my APS-C cameras I need to close the diafragm more to get all in focus. And with my K-1 the difference is even more evident.

I'm not saying I cannot get good landscape shots, but with similar apertures I get less DOF with a FF than with an APS-C and even less than with my Fujifilm Finepix. To get more DOF (all the frame in focus) with my FF I have to stop down more than what I need to do with my other cameras.

Well you are more expert than me for sure, so you know what I'm talking about and know more than me I bet.
03-01-2018, 03:55 PM - 4 Likes   #12
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
I know the 645z has more resolution and a slightly bigger sensor (not a proper medium format size though, but smaller).

My question comes about the images look: is there any difference between images from both cameras? Possibly those having both might post the same photos taken by each camera and equivalent focal lengths and therefore show the differences, if any.

Thanks mates!
Alvaro, you know those crappy DxOMark ratings?

FWIW, the Pentax K-1 is the eighth best camera they've ever tested.

The 645Z is Number Two!

Of course, all this is irrelevant if someone's no good at photography.

I for instance, would go from being incompetent with a K-1 to incompetent with a 645Z.
03-01-2018, 04:09 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 185
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Alvaro, you know those crappy DxOMark ratings?

FWIW, the Pentax K-1 is the eighth best camera they've ever tested.

The 645Z is Number Two!

Of course, all this is irrelevant if someone's no good at photography.

I for instance, would go from being incompetent with a K-1 to incompetent with a 645Z.
I'm just an aficionado, not an expert by any means.

I own the K-1 since January, but I've always been very curious about the 645z. I'm trying to get good excuses not to buy the 645 and get in bankrupt, although after reading the rumours about a possible 645z Mark II, I'm afraid I'll be more than "just" very curious about it...
03-01-2018, 04:29 PM   #14
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
I'm just an aficionado, not an expert by any means.

I own the K-1 since January, but I've always been very curious about the 645z. I'm trying to get good excuses not to buy the 645 and get in bankrupt, although after reading the rumours about a possible 645z Mark II, I'm afraid I'll be more than "just" very curious about it...
If you're serious about buying the system second hand, PM me and I can forward your details to a possible Australian seller (another forum member).
03-01-2018, 05:59 PM   #15
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
pschlute's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,047
QuoteOriginally posted by alvaro_garcia Quote
With my APS-C cameras I need to close the diafragm more to get all in focus. And with my K-1 the difference is even more evident.

I'm not saying I cannot get good landscape shots, but with similar apertures I get less DOF with a FF than with an APS-C and even less than with my Fujifilm Finepix. To get more DOF (all the frame in focus) with my FF I have to stop down more than what I need to do with my other cameras.
Well yes that is the nature of the beast. It is also a plus for many that want a narrower DOF.

But I would suggest that using a larger sensor will yield better results for landscapes due to increased resolution; increased dynamic range and lower noise. Your K1 should knock spots off most aps-c cameras for landscape work. Imagine a landscape scene with a tree line at 100 metres away. A FF camera with a 35mm lens compared to an aps-c camera with a 24mm lens (thus identical field of view), both set to f11 will yield a difference of just 4 metres greater DOF on the aps-c camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, images, pentax k-1 vs, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
IQ Difference between the DA 16-85 and the D FA 24-70 F2.8 Driline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-16-2016 09:59 AM
K3 IQ vs KS2 IQ Senko Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 18 03-11-2016 07:52 AM
Tamron 70-200 IQ vs 135 prime IQ TOUGEFC Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 08-25-2011 05:48 AM
Canon 450D IQ is not a match for Pentax K10D IQ. Voe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 07-11-2008 09:15 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top