mountainvisions Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 <p>First off, medium format has been used for shooting sports for a long time (dating back to film), but you'd think with everyone always complaining that their Pentax isn't fast enough for sports that perhaps even the 645D was just too slow. I mean you need 10fps and at least 50-100 focus points, right? </p> <p>Apparently not so...</p> <p>http://goo.gl/lP2HN</p> <p><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hJZHQMQuufw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </p> <BR></BR> <P>This is definitely gonna put a wrinkle in quite a few peoples inability to get the shots with the equipment they have, especially when you consider the K-5/K-7 and 645D are virtually the same technology, only the 645D doesn't have nearly the frame rate of the former two. </P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewg_ny Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Pretty cool. Was his long lens a FA645 300/4? The short lens the new 55/2.8?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>I know the 300mm f/4 was used, I don't know what the short lens was. I'd guess either a 55mm or 75mm. It couldn't be too wide, he wasn't all that close to them. I'm sure he was looking to fill most of the frame. Anything wider than 55mm would most likely be too wide, but I could be misjudging the distance to subject.</p> <p>Hell of a lighting setup, but not unheard of. There was a climbing photographer that used to carry Pentax 645 gear to the crag, complete with high power strobes. I'd figure a ski slope would be half as much trouble at most!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewg_ny Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>It looked a little too big to be the 75, I thought. And the "300" looked a little small to me--I know he said "300" -- and he may shoot with the 300 sometimes -- but I was thinking it might be a 200/4 that was shown in the video.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattB.Net Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Thanks for sharing that Justin! I always like to see the process and setups of the guys who get those great shots we see in magazines and on billboards. His setup is pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from my K-x & da40 ski setup! But I'm generally not getting paid, or at least not much, and I want to ski while I'm on the mountain since I pay for the lift service. It would probably be pretty tough (not to mention nerve racking) to go ski with my buddies after the shoot with a 645D on me!<br> I'd love to see more of the end result. The shots they showed kind of looked like they were "B roll" shots, don't you think? Not surprising since the best ones were going to be used in ads and stuff like that but I'd still like to see how they came out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTG1 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Very cool!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_harl Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>The Pentax 645D is what I fantasize about when I'm making love to my wife - and the 300mm f/4 lens .... I have my standards! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_janik Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Works well for wildlife as well. 645D, 400mm @f/8 (accurate, fast enough AF)<br> <a href=" <a href=" <p>Heavy crops</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_janik Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Another<br> <a href=" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kuhne Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>People have often said 3 fps of Pentax bodies, and a fraction of a second slower AF is not good enough for sports. I have found it to be adequate, and think of the decades past pro shooters with MF and single shot firing!</p> <p>Doug, wouldn't that scene make a great ad for Pentax!! LOL!!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserere_mei Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Doug Harl wrote:<br> The Pentax 645D is what I fantasize about when I'm making love to my wife</p> </blockquote> <p>Post of the week!!!!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Andrew,</p> <p>That is a good point, it did look A LOT like my 200mm f/4. I guess the 55mm is a lot bigger than I think it is. Seems pretty small on my camera, but I don't have a 75mm to compare it too. Keeping things simple is very nice, for me a 2 lens system in the FLs I use most is ideal, going with anything more becomes a battle.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Matt, I agree, the images on the video seemed like B side shots. I'd like to see the finished product too.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 <blockquote> <p>People have often said 3 fps of Pentax bodies, and a fraction of a second slower AF is not good enough for sports. I have found it to be adequate, and think of the decades past pro shooters with MF and single shot firing!</p> </blockquote> <p>I think the AF is more an issue than the frame rate. And I still say, both are more important to people who aren't familar with what they are shooting. Not that I'm immune to that, put me on a soccer field and I'll be chasing the action too! However, I won't blame my equipment, I'll admit I know nothing (and care nothing) about soccer, thus I am chasing the action after it happens! There are plenty of other sports I'd be similarly clueless shooting.</p> <p>But hey, I'd love to have color tracking AF like the better AF systems have. Nothing wrong with having more tools in the arsenal.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>I started off shooting high school football, baseball and basketball for the local newspaper with a Mamiya C330 TLR, so yes sports can be shot with medium format. And it can be done without auto-anything. It was all manual focus and manual exposure -- not even an exposure meter. You knew exposure by the sunny f/16 rule and flash exposure was by dividing the guide number by the distance to the player. Longest lens they made was 250mm and I think it was 6.3, but with that big negative you could crop into it as far as you liked. Published hundreds of pictures this way. It wasn't just local sports with MF either. If you look at photos of prizefights from the 1950s and 1960s you'll see that TLRs were popular for boxing for quite a while also.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Yep, I remember shooting Razorback volleyball in the late 1990s, and one of the local pros would pull out a MF rig every now and then and shoot low using the waist level viewfinder. He only shot a few frames at a time, then it was gone for the rest of the match. Keeping in mind this was right at the transition of digital for pros, so he was using a Kodak DCS back (probably on a Nikon film body), a Nikon film 35mm (probably an F5), and also the medium format all at the same game.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ad12345 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>What follows is a public service message from a friendly Calgarian who is in no way connected to or paid by any camera store or company....<br> I think the 300mm lens that Ryan was using in the shoot is the FA 300 f/5.6 - a lot lighter, easier to handle and maybe even focuses a little faster than the FA* 300 f/4.<br> If anybody is planning a trip to Calgary in the near future, you can rent the 645D with the FA* 55 2.8 and the leaf shutter lenses Ryan was using (the 135 LS and 75 LS) from "The Camera Store" for a little more than $300 a day. They also have a copy of the FA 645 300 f/5.6 for sale a just over $2k, and the FA* 645 300 f/4 for a little more than $4k.<br> Plan a long weekend in the Rockies or the foothills and you will go home with some very sweet photos. Whenever I return rental gear first thing on Monday morning, the Sunday rentals are free since The Camera Store is one of the few shops in Calgary that isn't open Sundays.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_harl Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>I worked at an Olympic event - not as a photographer mind you ...<br /> Anyway, the "professional" photographers would just lean on their shutter release when the action started ...<br /> <em>God! 'Get a 'F'.... movie camera numbn.ts!' -</em> rant over.</p> <p>The photographers who knew the sport were the ones who had an easier job ... I'm not saying they always got the best shots, but they weren't stressing .....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_j._eberle1 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 <p>Justin, it's not the frame rate that concerns me-- it's the shutter lag time owing to big dampened mirror. What exactly is the spec, so long as you're going to tout the P645D as a sports camera? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere yet.<br> I know the 645N to be on the order of a 1/4 second (250 milliseconds). How are in the heck are you going to get peak of action sports shots with a lag time like that? It will be really hit or miss (mostly miss).<br> Also one really ought not compare DSLRs with 2-1/4 TLRs or 4x5 cameras of old. These had extremely low propagation times due to their leaf shutters, particularly good at hitting peak action when used with electronic strobes. A really good 35mm pro class DSLR today will have a propagation time of 40 milliseconds. Some of the old Rolleis are down in the 2 ms realm. That's why they were so useful for sports for such a long time. That, coupled with the fact that they had leaf-shutter flash sync to 1/500 or 1/1000 to knock down the ambient light contribution (when SLRs generally had focal plane shutters that sync'd no faster than 1/30s or 1/60s).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmantilla Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Also one really ought not compare DSLRs with 2-1/4 TLRs or 4x5 cameras of old. These had extremely low propagation times due to their leaf shutters, particularly good at hitting peak action when used with electronic strobes</p> </blockquote> <p>The photog in the video is using 645 lenses with leaf shutters, so why not compare them to the older cameras? I think everyone will agree the 645N is more easily suited for landscape, but (as usual) in the right hands, it can do some pretty cool stuff, including fast action shooting. I don't think Justin's suggesting that professional photogs dump their FF cameras and go for a 645D. </p> <blockquote> <p>I know the 645N to be on the order of a 1/4 second (250 milliseconds). How are in the heck are you going to get peak of action sports shots with a lag time like that?</p> </blockquote> <p>If the lag is systematic (and consistent), then it's just getting a matter of getting a feel of the timing. Again, not saying it's going to rival a 10fps camera in terms of "ease" but depending on the sport, it's not going to be that bad either. My guess is, if you're doing a billboard shoot, you're probably going to be more thoughtful in setting up and timing a shot than "uzi"shooting at most sports events that are trying to get a shot for the (online) newspaper.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I don't think Justin's suggesting that professional photogs dump their FF cameras and go for a 645D.</p> </blockquote> <p>Spot on!</p> <p>As a matter of fact, I've been on record saying I didn't think FF was necessary for sports shots, nor is 14, 15, or 20MP. Now obviously if your shooting for an ad campaign or billboards you might want the extra resolution, but honestly, I wish there was a "low RAW" mode on Pentax cameras that allowed me to shoot 8MP RAWs and perhaps increased the buffer/frame rate a bit, though at 5fps or 7fps, you already have enough to shoot most things. For my needs, I always wanted Pentax to offer a 5fps camera, once that was achieved I was perfectly satisfied with the frame rate!</p> <p>I've never really needed more than 6-8MP for sports shooting, but I've also never shot billboards or posters. The biggest shots i've had printed (besides youth league work where parents sometimes want a poster, and usually aren't that critical) is a little bigger than 8x11 for the cover of programs. </p> <p>So I'm certainly not advocating that people switch to 645 for sports, just saying that if the 645D can shoot sports, your K-5 or K-7, which are virtually the same technology (the K-5 is probably a step above the 645D), should suffice.</p> <p>David, I also agree with you on the lag time. I wonder what the lag time historically has been on DSLRs? I bet the early DSLRs were in the 200ms range or more, yet, people got accustomed to them. In a lot of ways repetition of the lag gets you used to it. Certainly if you go from a 4ms lag to a 240ms lag, your first day of shooting isn't going to be all that good.</p> <p>Someone posted above about the Olympics where the guys that were regulars at the venues weren't leaning on the high FPS shutter all day, my experience has been similar to that. Very rarely does the experienced guy in the photo pit lean on the shutter, not to mention that with strobes you usually only get 1-2 shots per charge, again negating any advantage to frame rate.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_marz Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 <p>That was sweet! No surprise to anyone, I liked the hiking/flyfishing video touting the weather seals.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmantilla Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 <blockquote> <p>David, I also agree with you on the lag time. I wonder what the lag time historically has been on DSLRs? I bet the early DSLRs were in the 200ms range or more, yet, people got accustomed to them. In a lot of ways repetition of the lag gets you used to it. Certainly if you go from a 4ms lag to a 240ms lag, your first day of shooting isn't going to be all that good. .... Very rarely does the experienced guy in the photo pit lean on the shutter</p> </blockquote> <p>According to Wikipedia, humans take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry">"approximately 190 milliseconds to detect visual stimulus"</a> let alone the additional time needed to respond by pressing a button... so you have to time the shot no matter what.. or time shots between consecutive frames (Hmm, 5fps, so I better hold this button at least half a second before the moment of time when I *think* the action will occur to get the shot).. regardless of camera .. which means knowing the sport you're shooting, which means knowing what you're doing with the camera ;) Still, 10fps would be "cool" but not on my wish list. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainvisions Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 <p>Well I checked.<br> The early 2000s DSLRs from Kodak and Nikon were in the 150ms range. It wasn't until the D1X and D1H (and Kodak 720) that lag times reached (or actually exceeded) film SLR lag times. Canon's 1D also had film like lag times. These times btw, were in the 55-75ms range by the D1H/1D era.<br> Here are some film lag times for top end SLRs (which were used for sports). <br> Nikon F4 144 ms<br />Canon EOS 1N 140 ms<br />Nikon F5 91 ms<br />Canon EOS 3 105 ms<br />Canon EOS 1V 87 ms<br />Canon EOS 1D 87 ms</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_j._eberle1 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 <p>These lag times are incorrect. For starters, the Nikon F5 is 42ms, not 91 ms. Nikon pro class dSLRs are all in the 35-42ms range these days-- for good reason.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now