[jogiba]

645D kills the D800 in fine detail (100 iso) but not $7,000 more. If Pentax comes out with a FF using the 36mp sensor that will make my day.
click here for 1920x1200 image



D800 on the left and 645D on the right

[D4rknezz]

I have one of these babies on pre-order....

Take a look at the pillow. The D800 completely destroyed its texture.

[JinDesu]

Jogiba, i'm lost here. Are you saying the D800's detail is really amazing in that comparison? Because that comparison shows the D800 is losing a lot of detail in the blue pillow...

I looked at the ISO 50 shots between the D800 and the 645D's ISO 100 shots, and the 645D did edge out the D800 a bit. It was a better comparison than the one attached in this thread though.

[noons]

Also, I'm assuming those comparison shots are jpeg?
Until we get raw comparison, all arguments are pointless.

[Verglace]

Its not unsurprising.
1. 645d has a larger sensor, larger sensors provide better images, its just physics.
2. 645d uses a CCD sensor which is known to be better for images.
3. 645D costs more than twice as much as a d800, although a higher price doesn't always mean its better, in this case it is.

They are in a completely different class, but yes a Pentax FF would be awesome.

[jogiba]

Jogiba, i'm lost here. Are you saying the D800's detail is really amazing in that comparison? Because that comparison shows the D800 is losing a lot of detail in the blue pillow...

I looked at the ISO 50 shots between the D800 and the 645D's ISO 100 shots, and the 645D did edge out the D800 a bit. It was a better comparison than the one attached in this thread though.

The 645D shows more fine detail but not $7,000 more IMHO. Both were at 100 iso and the D800 also has 50 iso but still not as good as the 645D but for $7,000 less.

[jogiba]

Also, I'm assuming those comparison shots are jpeg?
Until we get raw comparison, all arguments are pointless.

So your saying RAW will give one of the cameras the advantage ? I don't think RAW will increase fine detail in one but not the other.

[Christine Tham]

I must admit I don't really understand the point of all these body comparisons. They are of different mount systems.

Bodies get obsolete the day they come onto the market. There's always something better on the horizon.

Lenses are expensive. Do people really jump from one lens system to another just for the sake of a shinier body? How do they afford it?

I'm unlikely to buy a DSLR other than Pentax because I have too much invested in Pentax glass and buying the equivalent in Nikon or Canon will cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

Having said that I did strongly consider switching from Pentax to Canon earlier this year but now I've decided to invest in M-mount instead. Now I need to make that investment pay off. So I won't be interested in any body that doesn't support M mount, no matter how bodaciously sexy.

The Leica M9 is a flawed camera in my opinion. So my next logical purchase will be the Leica mirrorless - supposedly to be announced in May.

[Digitalis]

he Leica M9 is a flawed camera in my opinion. So my next logical purchase will be the Leica mirrorless - supposedly to be announced in May.

And what is flawed about the M9 exactly? I have been using one for several years and although I find the rangefinder patch to be a bit small, and the overall baselength of the rangefinder mechanism to be a bit short* for lenses like the Summilux-M 75mm f/1.4 the M9 is an excellent camera with superb optics and excellent construction quality.


*the zeiss IKON has a longer baselength which means the RF is more accurate with faster lenses

[Christine Tham]

And what is flawed about the M9 exactly?

Search some of my previous posts.

The rangefinder seemed to be difficult to use compared to the Ikon, and even previous M bodies. Virtually impossible to use in low light.

ISO above 1000 not very usable.

Magenta cast with some wide angle lens (which is fine on the NEX-5N).

Continuous mode rate too slow to be usable.

Shutter lag is really bad - the camera doesn't feel responsive at all.

Camera crashes and corrupts the last shot when battery is low - I've lost a few shots because of this.

Oh, and the battery life is too short.

I gave up on the M9 and prefer to use the NEX-5N. Far easier to use and delivers better quality in low light.

[Digitalis]

Search some of my previous posts. The rangefinder seemed to be difficult to use compared to the Ikon, and even previous M bodies. Virtually impossible to use in low light. ISO above 1000 not very usable. Magenta cast with some wide angle lens (which is fine on the NEX-5N). Continuous mode rate too slow to be usable. Shutter lag is really bad - the camera doesn't feel responsive at all. Camera crashes and corrupts the last shot when battery is low - I've lost a few shots because of this. Oh, and the battery life is too short. I gave up on the M9 and prefer to use the NEX-5N. Far easier to use and delivers better quality in low light.

I didn't find the rangefinder on the M9 difficult to use than any ordinary rangefinder, it is still clearer than what you get on a bessa but I have had years of experience with getting my eye in position correctly. I don't have any problems using the M9 in low light - but I suppose that is because all of the lenses I own for the Leica M mount are f/1.4 and faster and I rarely have to go above ISO 1000. I have had my M9 crash on me a few times and for that reason and I always keep a back up battery in my pocket. I figure if you are going to spend so much on a camera you had better be able to buy extra batteries for it because there is nothing worse than having a $7,500 on a camera only to have it become a paperweight. Also I haven't lost a shot because I also have image recovery software at my disposal I have never lost a shot due to shutter lag, but that is also because It pays to know how to time your shots...and I have never bothered with the continuous shooting mode on my M9 - I don't need it. And the magenta cast has occasionally been a problem, but it is easily fixed if you know how to do it. Besides as I do not own any M mount lenses wider than the Summilux-M 21mm f/1.4 ASPH - and I use that lens sparingly, because it is a rather extreme focal length and I have always been more comfortable with 50mm lenses especially the noctilux.

[Clicker]

All camera bodies and some lenses have their own "peculiarities" as with most things there is really no rights or wrongs just users and their preferences

[Christine Tham]

I have never lost a shot due to shutter lag, but that is also because It pays to know how to time your shots...and I have never bothered with the continuous shooting mode on my M9 - I don't need it.

If you have never lost a shot due to shutter lag, and you have never used continuous mode, have you ever taken shots like these (all taken yesterday on the NEX-5N and M-mount lenses - I can MF on the NEX-5N faster than some DSLRs can AF!)






I personally like this one, there is motion blur because all 3 otters were flicking their heads as I was taking the shots, and in this frame (out of a continuous batch) they were perfectly positioned:


Also have you ever taken these sort of low light shots (wombat sleeping in the Sydney Wild Life park illuminated only by a single red tungsten light (the sort that we used to have in darkrooms! However in this case I got additional assistance from some idiot's flash firing off just when I took the shot - flash photography is absolutely forbidden) - taken in ISO6400 using the multi-exposure anti motion blur mode on the camera:


This is the same wombat without the benefit of the flash trail - taken on the Sony 55-210mm - the Sony AF took considerably longer to AF (with lots of hunting) than my MF - I noted with some pleasure quite a few DSLR users giving up trying to focus on it:

[Digitalis]

I can MF on the NEX-5N faster than some DSLRs can AF!)

so can I, with the hyperfocal method I use with street photography I can mentally estimate my subject's distance and focus the lens before I even raise the camera to my eye.

the Nex-5N is a decent camera, I just don't trust sony products. My Leica M8 and M9 have both served me well and I'm sure they will continue to do so

I noted with some pleasure quite a few DSLR users giving up trying to focus on it:

That shot doesn't do anything for me, it is a rather lifeless portrayal of a wombat.

If you want a challenge try something like this:

[JinDesu]

THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD FOR THE ABOVE DISCUSSION!

Anyways - the D800 does seem to give the 645D a run for its money, but it doesn't reach or beat - and that extra bit (and lenses) may make the difference for MF shooters.