|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-20-2017, 06:59 AM
|
| |
That price, while high, is significantly less than flagship Nikon and Canon offerings that can't compete with the specs of this camera, all in a smaller body. For what it offers, I think the A9 looks incredibly competitively priced. It is a $4500 camera targeting a space that is usually reserved for a $6000 camera. I paid $3200 for my A7RII and for what it does in terms of imaging, I consider it a much better deal than what I paid for with my 645D (I still like the D, but it wasn't the 'value' that the Sony has been for me). This whole time, I've been hanging on to my Nikon kit because there has been, from time to time, a job where I need the speed and flexibility that a traditional SLR required.
If this A9 performs half as well as it looks to, I will have no problem selling off my Nikons. I'm not about to buy the A9 because I don't need those specs most of the time, but the fact that it will be available as a rental is all I need. Up to this point, I had to hang on to my Nikon because for those few times I needed it, there was nothing else. This Sony looks to change that. For me, I want high IQ in a smaller, more portable package. Mirrorless is that, and I have found EVF - while not problem free - to be a net gain over OVF. Not all agree - but Sony's new EVF on the A9 looks to solve a lot of complaints. They are innovating at a rate no one else is right now, fixing every little hiccup they can as fast as they can instead of making excuses. You've got to respect that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-19-2017, 01:31 PM
|
| |
Pretty sure mirrorless is fast approaching, or already has approached "truly revolutionary" no?
Personally, I haven't missed my dslr's one little bit since I got my a7rII - and the viewfinders will only get better.
Guess it depends on the user, but the success of Sony and Fuji make a fairly strong argument for that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-16-2017, 08:49 AM
|
| |
I've had a 645D for years that I wasn't sure about with the shutter. It doesn't always make the most consistent sounds, but I still shoot with it and haven't ever had any problems with the images. I would just keep shooting. If the shutter fails you can send it in for replacement, but in my experience the concerns about the sound haven't come to mean anything.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-07-2017, 05:02 PM
|
| |
The 55 mm, the old manual focus one, imo is my favorite 645 lens. I just think it renders really nicely and the focal length is great. It's not too wide, but still gives you some room to breath. It is my only MF lens, all the rest of my 645 lenses are AF (even though I generally shoot digital - the 55 is cropped but I still like it). The 45 (I have owned both versions) is basically crap next the to the 55 imo. I mean, it's fine, but it doesn't have the character or the sharpness of the 55, it's just kinda blegh. If you're shooting film I think the 35 or 45 would be too wide as a complementary lens anyways, but I guess it depends on your style. To me, I would have the 55, 75 (this would be my third - also a great length) and 150 to start. Anything else only after a real demonstrated need.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-27-2017, 01:37 PM
|
| |
HSS is limited to only certain lights if I'm not mistaken? And yes, the studio is a different animal - I guess I didn't immediately think of that as I shoot on location 99% of the time - with profotos. There's no way to use HSS with profotos or any monolight set up right? Or have I totally missed something. Always thought HSS was limited to speedlights.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-27-2017, 11:57 AM
|
| |
And you may soon find out this is where the 1/125 sync of the camera is perhaps the absolute worst part of it. As a portrait photographer who prefers to handhold - 1/125 at that resolution becomes a challenging prospect - even with the 55. With the 150 you're really taking some risks. I handhold my quite a bit, but it always becomes hit or miss under 1/250. I do at least 1/500 and bump up the ISO whenever I can.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
03-21-2017, 10:22 AM
|
| |
I would look into this if you haven't. My sister's cat knocked her laptop off her lap and it fell on the floor and the motherboard was destroyed. She filed a claim with her credit card and 4 weeks later had a check for $700...(it was not a mac)
Blew my mind, but it worked.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-19-2017, 06:08 PM
|
| |
For indoor work - tripod 75% of the time unless using flash then I can handhold generally - though the shit 1/125 speed sometimes is an issue, I lose images from this time to time whereas if I had 1/250 it would be less of an issue.
Outdoors, probably 95% handheld.
I used to shoot more at night outdoors, that was 100% tripod. Now I use A7RII for that work and can handhold for most of it.
Bottom line, the 645 bodies are certainly handholdable as others have posted, but not as much as a smaller, lighter bodies for various reasons.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-18-2017, 08:26 AM
|
| |
To answer your question - the Phase crop factor is about 1.06x (for 645) - so the standard 80mm lens would be close to 85mm.
If you are wanting it in 35mm terms, full frame 645 is .62x - so in 35mm terms the phase is about ~.65-.66 crop factor.
But most all but one or two of the pentax 645 lenses would work on the phase's sized sensor if it were implemented.
---------- Post added 03-18-17 at 08:31 AM ----------
I disagree - that means Canon and Nikon would have no advantage over the Sony. Just because it's mirrorless doesn't mean it's better. It could be, but mirrorless isn't everything. I own and use mirrorless and slr cameras and while for my purposes I generally use the Sony over the Nikon, if I were shooting the type of pictures I made 3 years ago I wouldn't be able to use the Sony as much. There are still better tools for particular jobs. If the new user reports are anything to go by, the Z sounds like it is still a smoother working experience. Lots of talk of generally fussiness out of the new cameras - reminds me of my X Pro 1 - I loved that camera but Fuji didn't have the kinks worked out of that thing and therefore it was not a replacement for anything. In a few years maybe this will be a different conversation, but a mirror isn't necessarily a liability.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-17-2017, 02:39 PM
|
| |
A lot of the hype about adapting third party lenses to the GFX is kind of overblown in my opinion. The 35mm lenses that are adapted are already showing to not work so well, showing the effects of the smaller image circle at wide apertures as you'd expect. They are usable, but from what I've read they don't perform all that well, even the venerable Zeiss Otus lenses reported to be disappointing towards the corners and with wide apertures. Also, they lose AF. So, lens adapting works but isn't exactly optimal.
SLR's are still a relevant design for certain types of work. I love mirrorless, but both of these new cameras seem to have pretty noticeable usability issues that don't put them clearly ahead of the Z. I'm not sure I would trust either one to be a smooth operating workhorse as the Z is.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-17-2017, 08:14 AM
|
| |
Same here, but this kinda baffles me because I don't see the Fuji offering any super clear advantages over the Pentax. If you want the size benefits of mirrorless and a very good fix to the flash sync issue the hassy is the answer. The Fuji has new lenses and is smaller, but not that much smaller. I guess if EVF is that important... IQ seems to not be a good reason to switch since the sensor is the same. Maybe the 110 f/2 is argument enough for some?
I guess if you're buying into a MF system fresh it's worth a look, but Fuji has always felt a little plasticky to me compared to the rest. The hassy and pentax feel much better in hand. I havent' held the GFX but reports say it feels like a blown up XT, which didn't feel that great to me.
I'm still debating switching, but it wouldn't be to the Fuji.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-16-2017, 06:17 PM
|
| |
The bands look like a scanning issue, honestly - these are pretty low quality, overly contrasty scans and look like some results you can get out of the auto setting on the epsons - can you see those bands on the negative when looked at through a loupe? Sometimes a bad lab can fuss up negatives, but it usually is a long scratch. I could be wrong, but whenever I've had that banding it ended up being a scanning issue.
The light leaks look like that, but can be from the camera or can be from film that isn't properly spooled or handled in processing. Hard to tell unless it repeats consistently.
The second and third photos are interesting to me though, just as photos (well, once you get a good scan) - my guess is you been looking at some Gregory Halpern or something?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-16-2017, 12:04 PM
|
| |
Yep, and this is the main thing I don't like about my 645D quite well illustrated, compared with say, my A7rII. Which is why it's about time for me to get rid of it. I mean, I get plenty of nice images from it, but I'm shooting outdoors more often now and it falls flat compared to the newer sensors - and I do expose for the highlights to save them but the post work and the workflow in general is getting old - I have to think shooting with it differently than my other cameras who can hold range better. The original post was to determine how much progress the Z will give me compared to the D in this area.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-16-2017, 06:15 AM
|
| |
If I'm not mistaken the 28-45 is the only lens that won't definitely work (isn't designed for) on a full 645 sensor/film plane, but even that you could still probably do, just with poor edge performance at wide apertures most likely. Even the new 55 and 90 are full 645. It's one of the nice things about the Pentax, you can buy into the system with just the body and a few hundred for old lenses. The manual focus 55 and 75 and 150 for instance, can all be had for a song and perform quite well. The 45 is kinda meh, but still cheap. I wish Pentax would make a good 'normal' - 63 or 65 and fast portrait lens (100/110 f/2 or even 2.8) like the new fuji system - and even hassy has the 65.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-14-2017, 06:05 PM
|
| |
Pentax is pretty bad at any sort of customer communication - whether it's about future plans or repair issues - it is the main reason I have issues with the company and reservations about sticking with them. The product itself usually does what it's supposes to, but they do not inspire confidence in terms of public optics.
If they were smart they would knock the price down for the existing Z, compensate retailers a part of the difference if they were that worried about backlash - and keep pressing forward. Dealers shouldn't be that mad if they have a new product in a few months that drives a lot of sales.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-14-2017, 03:12 PM
|
| |
This is quite helpful and these scenes are relevant to me in their tonality - your street scene is processed in a way that I tend to want my images to be in that sort of light - thank you so much for taking the time to go through your images and prep this post. Much appreciated!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-14-2017, 12:32 PM
|
| |
Okay, that's good to hear. Any comparisons to previous cameras you've used? Specifically how it holds up to Nikon or Sony or the 645D? Incremental or significant perceived improvement?
---------- Post added 03-14-17 at 12:37 PM ----------
Yea, this is what I'm talking about with the 645D - there are some instances where you can get back some tone - but it's just this sickly, undetailed grey stuff that has no real transition and looks fake. Obviously, every camera will have this at some point - minimizing it is the thing for me.
And yea, I know digi is the opposite of film in that way, but honestly, since I've gotten the sony I have gotten back to the overexposure method and it has worked pretty well for me - the DR of that camera makes it possible for the way I work. It's pretty tough to blow anything out - I even feel like while film may have more actual DR - the sony files let you recover as much, or at least very close to as a drum scanned negative ever did. It's only with these new sensors that I've completely moved on from film. The D800 was the start - up until before that I was shooting both in large part for the range.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-14-2017, 12:03 PM
|
| |
Interesting - thank you for this narrative. It sounds like I could get what I wanted, but at the same time it might be frustrating as I like to shoot in a way that minimizes post work. I zero out all contrast and saturation for jpg previews of my D (and well, every camera) because I want to see the flattest version possible, so I understand shooting this way. But to see a blown highlight and it be totally gone..I'd be shooting maybe a bit darker than I'd like. In general, I tend to want an EV+1 look in many scenes as long as I retain that detail, and then I go an make sure the blacks are black. Of course I do shoot other ways, but the D is not as frustrating in those scenarios. I find its shadow retention acceptable, not great, but it works enough for me.
I guess in the end this is habitual - I tended to shoot negative color film (portra) 1-2 stops over, and I take this habit to digital and want to mimic that workflow.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-14-2017, 11:11 AM
|
| |
Hey all,
I'm gonna be moving on from my beloved 645D sometime this year - I'm waiting a little bit longer til I can glean a bit more out of the X1d and Fuji - but am also entertaining sticking with Pentax.
Out of all the things that frustrate me on the 645D, it's the lack of detail it holds in the highlights. Really, if I could change that, I'd prob stick with it a few more years. For small format work, I shoot with an A7RII - and also a now barely used D800. Both cameras seem to way outdo the 645D in real world highlight recovery and file malleability, but also in the quality of how the recovery looks. Even when details is salvageable in a 645D file it just doesn't look as smooth or as natural as the CMOS implementations.
I'm wondering for those of you who shoot with the 645Z and have experienced other cameras - how does do you find highlight recovery in real world situations - compared to the Sony A7rII specifically - since this is the best I'm used to? The way I shoot tends to be on the bright side quite often, but I hate total blowout and while I like the look of my 645D files I bring it on less and less jobs because the Sony, for now, gets me about the same resolution and closer to my ideal realization of the file. That said, I don't like shooting 35mm format when I don't have to. The Sony is great, but for portrait work and jobs that are less run and gun I prefer using medium format. I shoot outdoors alot, often in and exposed for open shade, and love to pick up the sunlit areas and have it look natural, detailed as possible. The sony is pretty great with how I can do this.
Is there any info out there that the Hassy or Fuji will have better highlight recover/dynamic range (less concerned about shadows) - I know it's the same sensor but the same sensor performs differently for different cameras. If there's no real, practical improvement maybe I'll just go to the Z - it's the most affordable option - but the size of the x1d and newly announced 65mm lens sounds perfect. Part of me is not in the mood to buy a camera as old as the Z is now, but I'm also not thinking there is anything on the horizon this year for Pentax MF. Either way - how bout those highlights?
I know the data says these newer cameras quite outdo the 645D, but I am interested in real world impressions - has it been a big step up from the D or more of an incremental gain? Do you see anything out of the new hassy and fuji that make it look like they will outdo the Z in highlight recovery? It seems all real world comparisons for these new cameras forget about the Z...which frustrates me. It should always be in the conversation.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
03-12-2017, 09:15 AM
|
| |
I'd like Pentax to just do anything in this segment, to show they still care really. I'm looking to upgrade soon (I still shoot the 645D), and wouldn't mind staying with Pentax given the not perfect implementations of the new similarly priced Fuji and Hasselblad options. I've also heard that Sony might be entering the MF market soon. I can't hold out longer than this summer.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
02-28-2017, 10:04 AM
|
| |
There's no real consistent, predictable math with printing - too many variables. The general rule of thumb is 360 dpi prints so that the eye cannot distinguish dots, but 12 mp from an iphone will yield a generally poorer version of 12 mp from a dSLR in all but possibly the best conditions.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
02-27-2017, 08:41 AM
|
| |
This is subjective and depends on the image itself and even the paper used. I have printed that large from a Nikon D700 (12 mp) - it was a good file (low iso, tack sharp), and needed interpolating - and it was a bit of a complex image visually, but it looked great. It was obviously interpolated a decent amount, just via photoshop. But you never know what will work well until you try printing it. 35mm images are printed that big all the time (and arguably the effective resolution of those, even when drum scanned - isn't much if any better than 12-16 mp) - it shows that they're blown up, but if the image is good it looks great.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
02-25-2017, 04:00 PM
|
| |
There's really not a good reason to use a Pentax 645Z for this kind of work. The lens lineup simply isn't there, and the need for that resolution or format isn't really there either. There's a reason that Canon is kinda the standard for this work. It's not the sexiest solution, but they have the best lenses for this work and they tether to C1 which are basically the two most important tools for interior/architectural work. I like my 645, but when I need to make those pictures I use another camera because the 645 isn't the best tool for the job.
---------- Post added 02-25-17 at 04:02 PM ----------
Not sure about Pentax making a 645 t/s - the need for those lenses is, if anything, going down not up. The other thing is, a t/s lens kinda goes hand in hand with capture 1 tethering, which Pentax also lacks. But there are architectural photographers who have abandoned them because software correction is that good now.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-11-2017, 08:07 AM
|
| |
Your first statement, to me, misses the mark when considering the demands on sports/action photographers. The keeper frame is not chosen by the one that is in focus generally. If you're generally limited only by what's in focus on a sequence you're already working at a handicap.
Your statement about press photographers being risk averse of course makes sense. Why would you use a camera that puts your job at greater risk!
For those who's job doesn't depend on it and it's fun, of course it doesn't matter.
I don't know Northrup etc and I have no doubt that you can of course shoot sports with a Pentax as you show, and I'm not saying Pentax AF is bad, but it's just not on the level of the other tools out there for that specific task and I don't think should be conflated this way. Neither are a lot of great cameras. Right tool for the right job, if the job is important and you have the requisite skill level (if you don't then it's hard to exploit the gear to it's specific potential and is less important). It's nice that it works for you for your purposes! FWIW I wasn't trying to pick on you, I just thought that there was some info there that would maybe be useful to straighten out because people use these forums for research. Your status as amateur doesn't matter, we both know that has little to no bearing on how good pictures are (plenty of pros w bad photos plenty of ams with better ones), it's the fact that Pentax is not, if you're interested in pursuing serious sports work, the best way to set yourself up for success. Sure you can make it work, but if you don't have to operate at that handicap there are reasons not to. I think even Pentax/Ricoh execs would probably admit that over a beer.
Of course journalism is changing - lots of journalists like to complain about that, which is not a new tradition btw (one reason that I struck out on my own and am no longer a photojournalist myself), but I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-10-2017, 08:21 AM
|
| |
Clearly Pentax can AF, but all of these threads either show unpublishable results (the runner is softish in a lot of frames in the first sequence - would immediately get trashed) or don't demonstrate the true AF test that sports photogs need it to pass - a single, well lit runner on a beach with a 70-200 (and even looks soft in a few frames) is a whole different scenario than using a 300 or 400 picking out and following a sprinting football, soccer or hockey player (indoors). Having shot on the sidelines of many professional sports games - from football, hockey, soccer, baseball and more and having used Pentax gear (though no way on the sports sidelines!) I can tell you that it's not entirely a perception issue - if Pentax AF was good enough, you would see it on the sidelines to some extent. A lot of newspaper, sport and wire photogs are gear tinkerers too and love using new and different stuff and if it got the job done and done well you would see it. But not to the extent that they'll lose their job and piss off their editor for bringing a quirky and not quite suitable tool to get the job done. There's a lot of griping about Canon and Nikon but there's a reason the griping doesn't often end with replacement. Pentax cameras are good at a lot of things, but I wouldn't ever trust one for action while working for a client, heck no. Portraits, sure, do it all the time.
|
