Pentax 645D announced (again....)

[mountainvisions]

<p>30 megapixels, 2010 release date (maybe)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.pentax.jp/japan/news/2009/press-image/200907-01b.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1313" /> <img src="http://www.pentax.jp/japan/news/2009/press-image/200907-02b.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1185" /></p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I hope 1) this is actually released 2) Nikon and Canon have an answer to this, as the D3X and 1Ds simply are not on par with digital medium format, even if they are finally getting close to film medium format!</p>

[jgredline]

<p>So Justin..Am I reading right. Medium format film ''still'' has an advantage over digital?</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>Definitely, luminous landscape did a head to head with the FF Canon and both the images and the conclusion of the writer basically said the same thing, it's close, with no real winner.</p>

<p>Now when you consider the price difference (before film and developing) and IQ is a push, the advantage is to film for sure.</p>

<p>I don't know if the D3X broke this barrier but again, for the cost, it is probably close. When you consider the alternative "step up" in IQ from $8000 Nikon D3X to a $10,000-$40000 medium format system, MF film still is quite relevant in this day and age.</p>

<p>My feelings are that MF digital and APS-C offer distinct advantages just like 35mm and MF film did, and that full frame MIGHT actually be the format to go (or go hobbyist) in the future. This is because APS-C is a continuation of what made 35mm what it became, the best compromise for portability and IQ. APS-C takes portability slightly further, but really doesn't give enough up in IQ to make it irrelevant. But the flip side is digital medium format blows the pants off of digital 35mm (just like in the days of film).</p>

<p><em><br /> </em><br>

<em>As the mod here this was a big faux pas on my part, I should have immediately started a second thread before replying.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>So this is my post from Lindy's thread here:</em></p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>No no, not full frame, same as the medium format outfit you are lending to me so I can decide if I am going to invest in my own.<br>

Lets clarify this, Canon and Nikon full frame are virtually on par with the 645 you have, but don't really exceed it.<br>

Now a MF digital SLR is far superior to a medium format film camera.<br>

That camera will most likely cost $10,000 but it's not for your average snap shooter, the files will be huge, and designed to be printed large and detailed just like film medium format. Also, this like the 1Ds and D3X is not a camera you casually walk around with, it's big, bulky and not for casual shooting.<br>

Keep in mind while a lot of non photographers had 35mm SLRs in the closest, very few non photographers had a medium format (645 or other) sitting in the closet, and very few will have medium format digital on the shopping list. So the advantage is this thing blows away the D3X and 1Ds (assuming it comes out), and not to many snap shooters own those cameras either!<br>

Personally, while medium format appeals to me for an IQ perspective, I do everything I can to maximize 35mm/APS-C output to avoid lugging something this large into the mountains. But the fact is using the same techniques with larger formats will yield better results if you are willing to put up with the additional bulk and weight. For this reason, I really like APS-C camera systems, and I think it will be APS-C and medium format around in a few years, with full frame actually being the niche hobbyist camera system.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Appears to be very impressive. I'll bet the price will be as well. In terms of noise/grain, digital seems to have about one stop advantage over film, perhaps more with larger format. At 30mp it should be a winner- perhaps surpassing even the best film for resolution. It seems the D3X is indeed approximating MF film quality. Just as before, what we see now in the most expensive top models will become what we will get in the mid priced models a few years down the road. </p>

<p>As to format advantages, whatever those may be, the same principles would have to apply going from APS-C size to FF, as it would going from FF to MF.</p>

<p>But there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Telephoto advantage goes to APS-C. FF provides better quality wide angle availability, and a larger format without the disadvantages of MF. You will not find longer telephoto and fast action sports shooters using MF. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>No but you never did see much medium format shooting sports, and you don't need that type of res for 99% of sports shots. Although people have used MF film (and I guess digital) to shoot specific shots in sports.</p>

<p>I remember being on the sidelines shooting the LadyBack volleyball games for the U of A, and a fellow photog prob from the NWA Times as he didn't work for us, would occasionally pull out his medium format rig with the waist level viewfinder. He was also shooting digital back in 1998 if that means anything. I believe it was a Kodak DCS 420 or something like that.</p>

<p>However, you don't see that many sports shooters shooting FF digital either, the files are so big, the output so small, there is limited advantage to it.</p>

<p>I'm excited about the 645D but I will most likely never invest in one, not short term. I genuinely prefer the smaller system, and for the cost of a medium format film system, I can outperform my digital kit without having to sell my car!</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Michael...Thanks, you answered the questions I had in between justins answers, but still need a tad more info...<br>

APS-C=GOOD.....FF=Better.....MF= Best? (theoretically)??</p>

[jgredline]

<p>This is getting interesting.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>It really depends on the output. I mean for web photos, digital slide shows, and normal size prints that people generally put up at home, APS-C or FF are both adequate, as is 35mm film. I have a few 20+ in prints I just printed from the K10D and K20D, and I'm very happy with them. I usually do a test run before selling anything so I have a ton of prints I never intend to put on my wall (nor do I have space for)...i usually give these as gifts.</p>

<p>Where it really separates is when you want that 60in print to not look like a poster but like a clean 8x10 that might be on your wall. Remember, it doesn't take all that much resolution for a billboard print or poster print, but it does for a 60in fine art print.</p>

<p>I'm not really so sure any format is vastly better unless what you have isn't filling your needs. For landscapes, yeah, MF film or digital is superior in the detail it can provide on a large print. For Timmy's birthday party, something like G10/LX3 or if you want to get fancy a K-m/k100D should be more than adequate. For sports, APS-C is a nice format. For studio FF might be ideal (as in the 1D or D3X).</p>

<p>I really think the only compelling advantage to FF digital is the viewfinder, while the advantage to MF digital over digital FF is vastly different in terms of real image quality depending on output size!</p>

[trex1]

I can't understand any of this. In my experience, there is no comparison between digital and 35mm film, never mind 645. Digital does not have the dynamic range of film, the colors are strange, and unnatural. You have to tweak the hell out of it in a computer to simply get anything resembling natural colors. A 300 dollar 645n setup kills any digital camera, easily.

[bob_stevenson]

<p>Interesting topic and answers.........</p>

<p>I'm with Justin on this. It does seem true that FF digital is roughly par to medium format roll film,...however, because FF is 35mm styled, with a 2x3 ratio, you have to 'waste' a chunk of pixels to get a MF shaped format, so my evaluation if the FF will NOT yet replace MF film other than in theory.</p>

<p>As par as the pentax 645 digital,...the ground is slipping away from it quite quickly unless they can get it to market sonn with a VERY competitive price. 30 mil pixels is not too much greater than the current crop of top FF models in a much larger package. Currently digital backs are at 60 mil and their price is dropping considerably. So, pentax will have a market all to themselves but it risks being the 'worst of both worlds' without some clever pricing (and leasing) moves.</p>

[ole_hjalmar_kristensen]

<p>"As par as the pentax 645 digital,...the ground is slipping away from it quite quickly unless they can get it to market sonn with a VERY competitive price. 30 mil pixels is not too much greater than the current crop of top FF models in a much larger package."<br>

I haven't actually compared them side by side, but to my eyes my own Pentax 645N seems smaller than the Canon 1Ds, and the weight without batteries is almost exactly the same. Will the 645D be very different?<br>

Having a fixed resolution of 30 megapixels instead of being able to switch backs may be a disadvantage, but I would expect the actual image quality to be significantly better than the current FF cameras. Btw., I have no plans to invest in either, as an amateur I'm more than happy with a 4/3 camera for digital and the Pentax 645N for film.</p>

 

[musings]

<p>While I am excited by the (potential) introduction of the 645D, I honestly am getting tired of waiting. For commercial photographers who need fast output on a variety of mediums (print, web, et al), there is a very compelling reason for the 645D over a film MF system. Of course, Mamiya and Leaf and others have been filling this niche for some time now, so Pentax will have to work extra hard to integrate themselves into the digital MF shooting club. I can't see the 645D in the hands of a hobbyists; it's target will be pro commercial/fashion photographers.</p>

<p><em>(Op Ed: I recently bought in a Toyo 45CX 4x5 large format camera with a Graphex 90mm lens on eBay for $200. It's in excellent shape and the ground glass and lens are flawless. Digital and film MF and digital FF are no match for the large format system. You won't see me hauling this to the kids' soccer games, but when the shots are deliberate and structured (i.e., landscapes), then there is no comparison.)</em></p>

<p>I think Pentax is on the right path with the 645D, but it will be an uphill climb for them. I hope they can make it in the digital commercial shooting world.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_yee]

<p>Won't wedding photogs also be excited over this? I'd think the bigger photo sites would mean better DR and low light performance?<br>

The fashion industry will of course be excited over it because it'll be the return of Pentax to the MF ranks...<br>

And hopefully someone with lots of $$$ will bring it on a Luminous Landscape Antarctica cruise because it's weather sealed to compete w/ the PhaseOne backs ;-)</p>

[jtk]

<p>Pentax surely can't be serious about MF? Death wish?</p>

<p>Leica S2 wil be introduced within a month or two: 30X46mm, 36MP. They'll sell boatloads at any price because lots of Leicaphiles have unlimited money.<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2008/Leica/">http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2008/Leica/</a></p>

<p>Top end competition means Pentax MF will have to be a LOT cheaper even than MamiyaMF which is seriously in the market already, to get sales numbers. Nobody doubts Mamiya's excellence, but even they are unlikely to survive Leica and whatever's next from Nikon/Canon.</p>

<p>Mamiya MF is in the Calumet catalog along with Leaf, Sinar, Hasselblad digis and the usual AFPS/FF DSLR suspects (Nikon, Canon, even Olympus...but not a trace of Pentax). </p>

<p>If Pentax doesn't get that MF in into Calumet (as it hasn't with APS), the game's over in the US because that catalog and its multiple pro-stores are the best US marketing medium for professional equipment, bar none. Pentax doesn't target K20D at professionals so there's no reason for it to be in Calumet catalog, but Oly does target E3 at professionals, therefore....</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Now what will those two unlabeled buttons on the right side be used for? Tripod-eliminating hover mode?</p>

<p>I think the target market knows that 30 megapixels on a larger MF sensor should be superior to 30 megapixels on a 35mm sensor. MF can yield superior detail, color, etc. but there are disadvantages depending on your application--huge files, slow flash sync (unless you use leaf shutters which are available only on certain lenses), slower lenses, no image stabilization, relatively-limited high ISO (for existing designs). Great for slower-paced studio work and landscape photography but considerably less portable (to actually get that superior output you'll be wanting to use a tripod much of the time, too) than smaller formats. There are always compromises...I find this very interesting whether or not I'll ever own one.</p>

<p>I don't think Leicaphiles are necessarily lining up for S2; Leica S may succeed but I wouldn't assume that just because Leica builds it all their fans will come...they didn't line up for R-system, did they? And Leica-S is yet a whole new level of expensive. Pentax was always on the less-expensive end of medium format; priced less than Mamiya or Rollei. So far, Pentax seems to be setting sights on their home market first.</p>

<p>It sounds from Pentax's announcement that there will be a crop-factor with the 645D--I'm assuming that their new Pentax-D FA 55/2.8 is intended to be a 'normal' lens, instead of the old 75/2.8.</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>1.3x MF crop like most other MF digicams...</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<p>I'm pretty much with Jeff on this.</p>

<p>The problem for me is that I very rarely do photo specific trips so going large format while appealing is out of the question. Large format is no doubt significantly better than even 40MP digital MF but it's cumbersome and expensive. Furthermore, in my part of the country we don't have enough vistas, 4x4 trails (legal), and roadside viewpoints to be able to shoot this stuff without humping it miles and miles. Unfortunately the price of one of the more protected wilderness areas in the US is that we didn't build a road to the top of every summit, and most of our roads cut through valleys. Now if I lived in the Carolina's there are roads to the top of many summits and the Blue Ridge PW is probably enough to create a lifetimes worth of compelling landscapes within 1/2 mile of the car!</p>

<p>For this reason, I've embraced 35mm, and a lot of great landscape photographers have made a comfortable living off 35mm and not large format or medium format. However, if I wanted a bump, I'd definitely go film or digital medium format. The price to quality ratio is exceptional, and while this isn't something I'd take on a rafting trip, or a technical climbing trip, or a multiday backpacking trip, it would be far more likely to find it's way into my day hiking setup than a large format system. Where film MF excels is the cost of it is peanuts, while the quality equal to the $8000 FF digital SLRs on the market. I can buy a system, toss it off a cliff, lose to water damage, or whatever, and not be out much. I'd probably have a heart attack if my $8,000-25,000 camera was damaged!</p>

<p>But like I've been saying, and Jeff noted, this isn't a hobbyist camera. People buying this would either have tremendous disposable income, and a strong desire to mess with 200+MB 22Bit RAW files, or be established pros who make $5000 a shoot, and sell $5000 images in a bad economy!</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Well, most here know I am a proponent of film and its advantages. But color <em>accuaracy</em> is not one of them. Pop Phot lab tests, as well as others, have openly declared that digital offers far more accurate colors than film. Even among good, very good, and excellent ratings for digital models' color accuracy, the good rating is easily more accurate than the best film. The K20D tested excellent in RAW imaging, virtually spot on. An improvement over the K10D. Noise/grain control is also better with digital.</p>

<p>But in real, practical terms, there is a difference in accurately, and easily, getting what you are trying for. With film, just choose the film type, and you get a certain predictable color palette. You get the look you want without having to screw around with computer modifications.</p>

<p>There is a market for all these formats. MF has a much more narrow market, because it fills a narrower set of needs. It is not as versatile as FF or APS-C. Its bodies are bulkier, lenses larger, heavier, slower to AF, and with much more limited FL range. Shutter speed more limited, flash sync abysmal, and file sizes huge.</p>

<p>The resolution issue, as the current Pop Photo points out in examining any possible advantages of FF image quality, is not the same with digital as comparing film models between APS, 35mm and MF. With digital, It is a matter of dealing with wide angle, or tele, with very high ISO or moderate, etc. There is generally greater pixel density packed into a smaller area with an APS-C sensor, so with a telephoto shot say using a 200mm lens, after cropping the FF shot to match the image size you'd get with an APS-C camera, you'd have to crop the 24mp Nikon D3x down to 10mp. The D3 down to 5mp. What would the 30mp larger Pentax MF image have to be cropped down to in order to get that tele shot??</p>

<p>So otherwise, the advantages for the larger formats over APS-C are for potentially lower noise at higher ISO with less quality loss due to noise suppression, and some possible additional DR. This would enable greater enlargement without those defects becoming more obvious. But there are now ways to increase DR in a smaller format. It also is the reverse in wide angle. To get the same picture as a D3x with a 24mm lens, the K20D would have to go to a 16mm lens having higher distortion, and its 15mp would then be spread over the same picture area as 24mp with the Nikon image. Likewise with a 30mp MF spreading 30mp over the same area, but I personally think it will be difficult to see the difference in res from 24mp to 30 mp, though noise at higher ISO could be lower and DR maybe higher. So the stretching of blowup prints does not apply the same way as film does.</p>

<p>With the present state of development, I have even heard it said by experienced pro photographers that overall IQ at lower ISO settings from the sharper, higher res APS-C models of DSLR is now approaching close to what was expected of film MF equipment for clean, smooth, low grain images. The K20D is one of the sharpest. At lower ISO, it can deliver an extremely sharp, accurate, clean image. The same people have said the Nikon D3x has fully equalled or even surpassed MF film. So now, at lower ISO, you are essentially getting MF quality in a smaller format with digital models such as these. The FF design is versatile in that it can satisfy the needs of the sports photographer for high action and lower lighting, as well as the wide angle, low-distortion archtecture, or product shooter, or low light landscape photographer. And these models do not have the MF disadvantages mentioned above.</p>

<p>MF is now more of a niche market than ever. Those wide-angle landscape photographes shooting low light, high-ISO, 30+mp images, needing 5 ft blowups. Some wedding photographers demanding the best possible DR. And those who want the aspect ratio shape of the MF image without wasteful cropping.</p>

<p> </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>One thing to note, for digital landscapes DR is a meaningless term.</p>

<p>I always use digital GND filters where by I take multiple exposures and then create a 2-4 stop filter from them. I don't use HDR, I find it gimmicky, sort of like the first few shots you take with a ultra wide lens, they look cool, but aren't my thing.</p>

<p>Anyway, I suspect I exceed film DR using this technique and I dispense with having to line my filter up perfectly in the field. This too me is HUGE advantage to digital over film. I get more DR, and less hassel in the field.</p>

<p>People will say, "but you have to spend all that time at the computer afterwards." thats fine with me, I'm looking to get the absolutely best copy of the image I had in mind. Sure this can be done in the field with film (or even digitally with the same technique using film scans) but it's easier with digital, and those complaining about post processing time, need to realize that if you have high standards, a few hours getting everything perfect behind the computer is worthwhile.</p>

<p> </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Justin, I am surprised to hear you say that DR is not important for Landscapes. In my own 35mm experience I have found that it is easier for ''me'' to get a decent Landscape shot with film and I attribute that to the DR range of it.</p>

[tony_cunningham]

<p>> I hope Nikon and Canon have an answer to this, as the D3X and 1Ds simply are not on par with digital medium format, even if they are finally getting close to film medium format!<br /> <br /> Why should they have an answer? They are not involved with medium format film or digital and this Pentax will not threaten them significantly - different market. They will threaten the Pentax at only 30 MP. The Sony Alpha 900 is already up to 25 MP and it 'only' costs around $2700. Also not all digital medium format is great, although most is of course.<br /> <br /> > Medium format film ''still'' has an advantage over digital?<br /> > Definitely, luminous landscape did a head to head with the FF Canon and both the images and the conclusion of the writer basically said the same thing, it's close, with no real winner.<br /> <br /> This article "State-of-the-Art 35mm Digital vs.Medium Format Film" was published in another era (2002). It compared a Pentax 67 scanned with an Imacon with a Canon EOS 1Ds. The latter was an 11 MP full frame camera. The P67 did not come out of this comparison very well. Since then Canon, Nikon and Sony have introduced full frame DSLRs that exceed 20 MP.<br /> <br /> > I don't know if the D3X broke this barrier but again, for the cost, it is probably close. When you consider the alternative "step up" in IQ from $8000 Nikon D3X to a $10,000-$40000 medium format system, MF film still is quite relevant in this day and age.<br /> <br /> The Nikon D3X is a very expensive camera and from the perspective of price it is not representative of this sector of the market, particularly when compared to the image quality on offer from the Canon 5D II (21 MP) and the Sony Alpha 900 (25 MP). Both these cameras are below $3000.<br /> <br /> > you have to 'waste' a chunk of pixels to get a MF shaped format, so my evaluation if the FF will NOT yet replace MF film other than in theory.<br /> <br /> Medium format cameras (that use 120 film) are available in 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17, so you can take your pick. 6x9 is more or less the same 'shape' as 35 mm. I use most of these formats and scan on an Imacon Flextight 949 - this is just below the drum scanners in quality. I have been comparing these options with the above mentioned full frame 20+ MP cameras.<br /> <br /> Looking at the Pentax 67, I can scan to approximately 9,333x8,000 pixels - looks impressive at first sight. If I take a Canon 5D II it is only 5,616x3,755. The 5D II makes quite clean files up to ISO 800 or even 1600. This means that unlike film it can be doubled in size for fine art work, taking us to 11,232x7,488. It is also possible for less critical work, but still of excellent quality (e.g. ink jet on canvas) to multiply by 2.5 - 14,040x9,360.<br /> <br /> This is not theory. People are doing this and making very high quality prints. I also make high quality prints with my Pentax 6x7, but unfortunately they are not better than those made with the latest DSLRs above 16 MP and probably not much better than with a really good K20D file. I will try this out of curiosity and report the results.<br>

Anyhow I am really looking forward to the new Pentax MF digital camera and just hope it is compatible with the Pentax MF film camera lenses. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Color film's glory days died when the good labs mostly died. "Good labs" meant same day service, certainly on E6, even on Kodachrome if you happened to live in a big city (eg San Francisco). It meant zero handling damage and more-devoted-than-minimum-wage technicians.</p>

<p>Scanning is fine (I use a Nikon), better than digi sometimes, but you have to start with properly processed film ( I do with B&W) and you have to be prepared to spend serious money if you're going to explore a lot of potential images.</p>

<p>If someone is comfortable sending film away somewhere for processing, in no hurry for metabolic reasons (per small town wedding photogs in ancient history), they still can't trust that their lab will be there next time around.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_yee]

<p>Justin:<br>

"I always use digital GND filters where by I take multiple exposures and then create a 2-4 stop filter from them."<br>

When you do this, doesn't the motion blur of leaves drive you nuts? Or are do you manage to composite pieces of the image together so it doesn't matter as much? Sorry for the OT question.</p>

 

[musings]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Now if I lived in the Carolina's there are roads to the top of many summits and the Blue Ridge PW is probably enough to create a lifetimes worth of compelling landscapes within 1/2 mile of the car!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is very true, Justin. North Carolina has great access to some of these summits and wilderness from state highways and roads. If you come down here for a visit, we can haul the Toyo CX from the car trunk to the shooting location. A lot of the wilderness in NY is less accessible, so 35mm/DSLR is the way to go, especially a weather-sealed beauty like the K10. Rest assured, if I came up to NY, I would only bring the K10 and a few lenses to stay light and quick... :-)</p>