Is the Pentax 645Z a game changer for Nikon?

[pge]

<p>Several people have mentioned lens collections saying that people will not switch away from Nikon because they are too invested already. Although that may be true in some cases, and I have to admit that I am one of those people, I think that arguement has an expiry date. New people enter the high end camera world all the time, Nikon lenses have resale value and some people just have lots of money. I also think its the amateurs that have large lense collections, not pros. Pros doesn't need 5 lenses in the 50-55mm range like I have. There is no practical point. The pros that I know often just have the 3 or so lenses that they actually need. The studio guys often just need one lens. Kent, I enjoyed your post.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>In these days I am using a D4S and D7100 together, sometimes with a D800E. The differences between FX and DX as well as 16 vs. 36MP are extremely obvious to me, and gradually which camera to use under which conditions becomes second nature. None of those cameras is necessarily "better" than any other one overall; it all depends on the particular subject and the specific shooting conditions. However, sensor size does matter. It was true during the film days and it is still true today. That was why after carefully considering it for two years and rented one to try out, I bought a Contax 645 back in 2001 with a couple of its Zeiss lenses, which, unfortunately, along with a 500mm/f8 Nikon mirror lens, remains one of the biggest equipment purchase regrets I have ever made. I didn't pay attention to the fact that Contax's camera business wasn't doing very well and when they folded a few years later, my Contax, while still a great camera, became something without a future.</p>

<p>Another factor I wasn't aware of back in 2001 was that digital photography would improve so much that 24MP FX is sufficient for most people. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, when Canon introduced the 1DS Mark III in August 2007, its 21MP was the leader for 35mm format. A little more than a year later, Nikon's D3X's 24MP essentially matched the Canon. Now 7 years later, Canon still remains at 22MP, essentially no change from the 1DS Mark III. There is a clear indicator that for the most part, 36MP is unnecessary, let alone various medium formats.</p>

<p>Therefore, while size still matters, there is also a "good enough" factor. A decade ago I felt the need to get into medium-format 645 film. Today, FX exceeds that quality. To go beyond FX, the cost started to go up dramatically for some small, almost negligible gain. Unless you are in a high-end stuido that has a lot of well paid jobs, it is much more economical to rent a Hasselblad for a day or two when you need it.</p>

<p>And if I were a really dedicated landscape photographer, I would still consider 4x5 film. The flexibility of movements is still unmatched by smaller formats. The main problem with that approach is that without a huge 35mm film market, film and processing cost may become (perhaps already is) prohibitively high and difficult to find.</p>

<p>To me, it is very strange that someone like <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a>, who captures a lot of night train images and now dips into weddings, would resists FX. Kent is the type of photographers who can benefit the most from the high-ISO capabilities of FX.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I just wanted to agree with Shun (to show you I can!) There's no one ideal camera, but I suspect the times when the 645Z would be the right option but a bigger-sensor medium format back, or a more convenient D800E wouldn't be, are small. I got a film 645 to complement my D700, and it does have a resolution advantage with affordable scans; against the D800E, probably not so much, especially if you don't just want to be scanning grain. I've so far resisted 6x7 (unless anyone wants to donate a Mamiya to me) and also consider 5x4 to be the obvious step to do what the D800 can't (quite) - 10x8 is probably going too far, and 7x5 is a little obscure. And if everything holds still, there are always scanning backs. It's a shame super-angulons aren't cheap.<br />

<br />

To me, the 645Z is likely to be better than a D800 at "medium format style" shots, but probably not hugely - though I'm interested to see what Don makes of one. A D800 is, in resolution, not a huge step from a 5D2, though it's quite jump from a D700. I'm interested to see how the package holds up, but the D800 is an awfully competent camera (as is the 5D3).<br />

<br />

If 6x7 film never got the bulk market away from 35mm, it seems unlikely that a 645Z will. The competition between 35mm-sized sensors and APS-sized sensors is a different story, and the lack of many fast DX lenses meant that FX has a much clearer advantage in isolation control. Medium format would have that advantage if there were a lot of very fast medium format lenses out there, but - with the possible exception of the 67 version of the 600 f/4 and allowing for the rarity of the Nikkor 300 f/2 - there aren't. With a fast enough 35mm lens, you get about the same depth of field as medium format - though possibly with some more optical aberrations.<br />

<br />

I remember in the distant past some film fanatics claimed that "35mm film has about 36MP of resolution". I remember that specific figure, which makes me think the resolution of the D800 isn't a coincidence. It's also no coincidence that I barely use 35mm film. Though the bluebells are now out, so my fridge may get its annual stock check of Velvia. These days, when not shooting digital, the 645 is likely to have it. Maybe in a few years I'd think the same about 36MP, but - given that I can still live with a 12MP D700 but find a soft 6MP 135 film scan to be restrictive - I think I've got some time. How far out is popular digital holography?</p>

[Two23]

<p><img src=" alt="" /><<To me, it is very strange that someone like <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=39504" rel="nofollow">Kent Staubus</a>, who captures a lot of night train images and now dips into weddings, would resists FX. Kent is the type of photographers who can benefit the most from the high-ISO capabilities of FX.>></p>

<p>I've looked very closely at the D800e several times, but the thing I keep coming back to is: "Will I earn more $$ if I bought one? Will my customers see any difference?" The answer to both is no. It's a great camera, but I just don't want to spend the money. I really enjoy shooting 4x5 but for reasons that may not be apparent to those on a modern DSLR gear-oriented board. (Not a knock, an observation.) What I like about my Chamonix 045n is it's a very flexible platform. I rarely use modern lenses on it (i.e. newer than 1960) and rarely shoot color. Since the Chamonix uses generic lens boards to mount lenses on, just about any lens ever made can be used on it! I now have several lenses from the 1840s, a few from the 1850s, two from 1860s, and a "cluster" of them from 1900-1925. I love these! I just bought a mint condition Century 4x5 camera that folds up into a neat little box (called a "cycle" camera) made in 1908. I also bought a Volute shutter & Velostigmat lens for it, c.1912. I love the classic look I get from these! The cost doesn't matter because I'm not taking hundreds of shots per day. I figured out that all costs considered, 4x5 is actually cheaper than my Nikon DSLR system. (It comes down to depreciation vs. film cost.)</p>

<p>My night trains are mostly done with big flash set ups and I certainly have plenty of power. I rarely need more than ISO 800 for these. In winter when the ground is snow covered I've even been shooting some ISO 400 4x5. I just don't need ISO 6400 for this. Finally, I just hate putting big money into expensive modern cameras--they lose value SO fast! I'd rather put the $$ into pre-Civil War era gear as it holds its value very well, often even increases. For me, it's just as much fun too. I get a bigger kick out of using my c.1845 Ross Petzval than I do using my new Nikon 80-400mm VR-G.</p>

<p>You are correct that even the image quality from a Nikon D3300 will exceed what I was getting from 645 medium format 15 years ago even comparing ISO 100 to ISO 800. That's good enough for me. Finally, I agree that the whole idea is to pick the gear to best match the job. That's the whole thing. One thing I've come to think after over quarter century of "intensive" shooting is that the camera is the least important thing in photography.</p>

<p>Kent in SD<br /> https://flickr/p/naE8L4<br>

<br /> <br /> Chamonix 045n<br /> 1845 Ross 6 inch Petzval<br /> Ilford HP5</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>No offense, Kent, if you can find more-demanding customers who can tell the difference between FX and DX and care about the difference, you can potentially be able to charge more. But that also depends on where you are located, among other factors. I love photography and I think I am pretty good at it, but it is not easy to earn a living that way. I sure am glad that I have a day job doing something else.</p>

[Two23]

<p>At one time in the 1990s I was taking many photos with 645 and 4x5, building a stock photo portfolio with local and regional players. My thinking was when I got a big enough catalog (mostly agricultural and winter shots) I could retire early and live off that steady income. The entire stock photo market got turned upside down and that wasn't viable any more. For the past couple of years I have been doing weddings and some specialty "photo sessions," but I am getting tired of that to be honest. It ties up my Saturdays plus a considerable amount of my free time processing, editing, and meeting with customers. Even though the money is decent, I just don't need it. It truly is work, not fun. I'm starting to think I'd rather just have the freedom to do what I want on the weekends. I mentioned "specialty sessions," and that mostly entails taking photos with my vintage camera gear of owners with their vintage threshing machines, tractors, and so on, as well as family portraits on farms. This I enjoy doing and unlike a wedding it's more flexible. Mostly, I enjoy photo'ing in winter and at night, for my own enjoyment. </p>

<p>I live in a (relatively) small city on the Northern Plains, but it is a major regional medical center. Most of my wedding customers are medical professionals from one of the hospitals here, and they will pay well for good service. (My background is Rx sales & I've worked as an OT here.) I probably could earn a "living" of sorts with photography at this point, but it would be hectic and not at all fun. I'm thinking of easing out of "work" and back into "fun." For me, it's not only a lot of fun to set up elaborate flash shots and pull them off in very harsh conditions, but it's also fun to use very primitive photo gear and make interesting images with it. I do carefully evaluate every new camera that comes out, but when looking at something like a D800e I have to factor in new lenses that are equals to Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. That REALLY ups the cost for me. Just as many on this thread are reluctant about the lens cost going from Nikon FX to Pentax 645, I am equally reluctant to buy a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and 14-24mm f2.8. I'd rather spend the money on travel than gear. I will get more interesting images from a ticket to Slovenia than from a D800e. When you boil it down, I think that's been the response here to the Pentax system. "Happy with what I have, can't justify the cost of a change." Anyway, certainly no offense taken.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think that's been the response here to the Pentax system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I don't think so.</p>

<p>When you compare FX (36x24mm) vs. DX (24x16mm), you are talking about 2.25 times the sensor area, and you maintain the access of all sorts of Nikon F mount lenses. Concerning high ISO results, the difference should be quite obvious to anybody who has some knowledge about photography.</p>

<p>The Pentax 645Z has a 44x33mm sensor, which is only 1.68 times the FX area. But you lose the various f1.4 lenses and f2.8 zooms. The fastest Pentax 645 lens is f2.8. Therefore, in terms of true high-ISO capability and flexibility, it is a step or two backward from Nikon FX.</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that medium-format digital has narrow applications. You can't really sell your Nikon and move to Pentax 645Z. It is more like an add-on to improve one or two specific areas. When I bought my Contax 645 a decade ago, it never replaced any of my Nikon stuff. It was there to augment a few areas. (Therefore, the entire argument about selling your Nikon to pay for the Pentax 645Z is simply not realistic.) Worse yet, if you want to shoot landscape, the lack of true wide angle lens due to Pentax's crop factor is going to be a problem, not to mention that Pentax offers a bunch of old lenses designed for 6x4.5mm film, not 44x33mm digital.</p>

<p>As we always advice people, if you are serious about photography, you don't just consider an individual camera, you buy into a camera system. If you need medium-format digital, Hasselblad is a real system, unfortunately at very high costs. So if you don't run a high-end studio or are not Bill Gates rich, rental is probably a more realistic answer, well, if you need medium-format at all in the first place.</p>

<p>P.S. True 6x4.5cm film is about 3 times 35mm film area.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Again, and I think most would agree, the Pentax Z is not going to be a game changer for Nikon, and certainly I will continue with vested Nikon equipment. How are we in this discussion going to see, and compare what a 24x36 print from a D-800, verses a 24X36 print from a Pentax Z is going to compare on the wall? We have our computer screens and thats it. Also strong imagery has yet to come out of a Z so we won't know for a while. As far as expensive is concerned, had it not been for the expense of Hasselblad's I wonder if Pentax would even bother with a Medium D-Cam at all. As you most are aware, I use, love, and continue to be amazed at what can be done with My Pentax 67II, with Velvia, properly scanned. So I'm a fan, but I'm not going to jump at a Z based on that of course.<br>

Here we go again, we're looking for the silver bullet, I admit it, and as for an edge for big landscape prints, I do have my compass aimed at the Z, and this will be my last hurrah, if making this happen, its going to be a well thought out decision, with a lot of research, and real world comparing. The silver bullet...We just can't help ourselves.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<The Pentax 645Z has a 44x33mm sensor, which is only 1.68 times the FX area. But you lose the various f1.4 lenses and f2.8 zooms. The fastest Pentax 645 lens is f2.8. Therefore, in terms of true high-ISO capability and flexibility, it is a step or two backward from Nikon FX.>></p>

<p>As you increase format size, you lose DOF. An f2.8 lens on medium format might be more like f2 on a D800. The loss of shallow DOF isn't as great as you would first think. A Pentax would not be a good choice to shoot sports with, but it would be nice to shoot portraits or do commercial shoots. As for high ISO, even with my night shots I rarely need anything more than ISO 3200, and mostly I shoot ISO 800 with digital. With my film cameras, it's often ISO 100 Acros for night shots. (That film has greatly reduced reciprocity failure.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>As you increase format size, you lose DOF. An f2.8 lens on medium format might be more like f2 on a D800. The loss of shallow DOF isn't as great as you would first think.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, first of all, calling the Pentax 645Z "medium format" is a bit of a stratch. At best it is pseudo medium format since its sensor is only moderately larger than FX, but the camera design and its lenses are originally for true 645. As a result, it is similar to DX-format DSRLs without any DX lenses. Just imagine that you are forced to use your D7100 without any 17-55mm/f2.8 DX, 10-24mm DX, and 11-16mm/f2.8 Tamron ....</p>

<p>And even you are talking about "the loss of shallow DOF." Hello, if I spend $8500 for a 645Z body alone, roughly 3 times the cost of a D800 body, and lenses are extra, I want some improvements. Instead, we are talking about the loss is several key areas are not that big. So why should someone like Don Bright spend all that extra money?</p>

<p>Some people would argue that one can shoot landscape with any focal length, but when I shoot landscape, two Nikon lenses come to mind:</p>

<ul>

<li>Some 16-35mm type wide zoom. In these days I prefer the new 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S, a $750 lens that is slower but optically excellent: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-18-35mm-g-review/</li>

<li>The 24mm/f3.5 PC-E to give me tilt-shift capability, not as flexible as true 4x5 large format, but it comes in handy.</li>

</ul>

<p>I am not even going to bring up very Nikon-specific lenses such as the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, which even Canon has no equivalent. I don't like to use that lens for landscape work.</p>

<p>So before Don starts talking about comparing 24x36" prints from the 645Z and D800 on the wall, I would first determine which Pentax 645 lenses you are going to use to produce the equivalent images from those two Nikon lenses that are common for landscape photography. For example, how do you get tilt/shift? How do you get the equivalent of 35mm, 24mm, and 20mm? And how much those lenses would cost you.</p>

<p>And if you are indeed going to compare 24x36 prints, since the 645Z sensor is 3:4 in 33x44mm, you have to crop further, thus further reducing the sensor size difference.</p>

<p>I am sure that you can find a few applications where the Pentax 645Z will do a better job than the D800, but those are limited while the 645Z camera system (remember system, not just one body) is actually inferior in many areas. Is that a system you want to pour over $10K into (body + lenses)? I am curious about whether Don Bright will actually buy a 645Z.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>An f2.8 lens on medium format might be more like f2 on a D800.</em></p>

<p>With the Pentax f/2.8 would be like f/2.2 on a D800. So in many cases with FX you have about 1.3 stops advantage over the Pentax in subject isolation by using shallow depth of field (using the fastest lenses available for each system). This difference seems to carry through most of the range of lenses offered. While it is not a problem for short tele portrait use as I would normally stop down to f/2.8 to f/4 (in mixed flash / available light) for head and shoulders shots on FX (f/8-f/11 in the studio), but for whole body shots I often use f/1.4 on my 35mm wide angle lens to separate the subject clearly in a complex environment. The Pentax has a 1/125s top flash sync speed; the Leica S offers 1/500s flash sync speed with non-CS lenses and 1/1000s with their CS lenses and a similar (30x45mm) sensor size as the Pentax. So, a Leica S user with CS lenses would need three stops less flash energy than a Pentax 645Z user when working in bright ambient light to get an equivalent effect in terms of lighting balance between natural light and flash, and with 1/125s there might be difficulty in freezing movement if there is any (in a situation where the ambient light is as bright as the flash). Of course, the Leica costs more. To me it seems that Leica specifically targeted photographers who use flash and natural light together outdoors, whereas Pentax did not seem to give much consideration to those users. Maybe they are targeting landscape photographers mostly. In the studio, I suppose one can work with 1/125s but if there are windows it could be limiting there, also. </p>

 

[donbright]

<p>Shun,<br>

Great points, and I concur lens choice is key as the new lenses would be be the wiser choice. I wouldn't even venture into adapting my 67 lenses just because it can be done, even though there is certain to be a strong result depending on variables. Yes! $10 grand is an attention getter, and my enthusiasm over the possibilities with the Z isn't going to blind me and push me out the door today for the grand experiment. Fortunately I have people like you to induce a reality check, but one thing we don't know yet, is how this larger sensor going from CCD to CMOS is going to perform with dedicated lenses. This could set a new bar, but I'm not holding my breathe. Ideally, for the landscape we wish for the obvious, then hope at this juncture that it will deliver.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sensor <strong>area</strong> is really a complete red herring. It's pure linear size and pixel density that count toward image resolution - leaving aside the depth-of-field and signal/noise issues for a moment.</p>

<p>I've just found the true pixel count of the Pentax 645Z. It's 8256 x 6192; and if you compare that to the pixel count of a D800 it works out as having only a little over 12% more pixels when comparing the long sides of their formats. Meaning you can get a 27 x 20.5 inch print from the 645Z (at 300 ppi), as opposed to the 24.5 x 16 inch print you could get from a D800 at the same "resolution". I don't think that's a massive increase in print size by anybody's standard. And neither of those prints need a huge house to show them off. In fact the close proximity of the viewer forced by a small exhibition space would seem to demand a higher image quality.</p>

<p>Hands up anyone who thinks they could reliably spot the difference between a 27" by 18" print cropped from the 645Z, and a same size print from a D800E. I don't imagine I'm seeing many hands raised.</p>

<p>Fact is that the difference between 51 and 36 megapixels isn't nearly as impressive to the eye as it is to the ear. It certainly comes nowhere near the difference between 12 and 36 megapixels going from a D700 to a D800. In line-pairs/millimetre there's actually a drop from the theoretical limit of 102 lppmm of a D800E to under 94 lppmm on the 645Z. So no game-changing to be found there.</p>

<p>Extending the focal length of the lens from, say, 50mm to 60mm to cover approximately the same horizontal AoV reduces D-o-F by approximately 1 stop. So an f/2 lens on full-frame gets you the same D-o-F as an f/2.8 lens on the 645Z. That's still no game-changer of a difference.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I wrote above <em>the Leica S offers 1/500s flash sync speed with non-CS lenses and 1/1000s with their CS lenses</em><br>

<em><br /></em>This was my mistake; the Leica S has a 1/125s top sync speed with non-CS lenses (just like the Pentax) but 1/1000s with CS lenses. Most of their lenses available in CS versions (though from what I can see, the 30-90mm, 24mm, and 120mm T/S are not).</p>

<p>One advantage Pentax has is the number of zoom lenses (5). Leica has only one native zoom and Hasselblad two. In landscape photography zooms can be helpful especially when the camera position cannot be freely chosen. Hasselblad has a tilt/shift adapter which seems to have quite nice movement range up to +-18mm shift, +-10 degree tilt but it acts as a 1.5X teleconverter so that limits wide angle options and may affect image quality as well. Leica has a 120mm tilt/shift lens with free relative directions of tilt and shift (12 mm and 8 degrees). I'm very fond of the 85mm PC-E for landscapes and macro as this allows me to photograph e.g. sheets of ice formations on lake / sea ice with everything in focus. If I were to go into medium format the availability of this type of lens would be high on a list of priorities. Of course, through the use of a view camera and lenses it may be possible to obtain this capability in medium format, but the bellows camera increases physical size and given the sensor size there may not be realistic superwide with shift capability. I guess these issues will be solved gradually as the medium format systems evolve around the smaller than 645 full-frame sensors.</p>

[themaz]

<blockquote>

<p>Sensor <strong>area</strong> is really a complete red herring. It's pure linear size and pixel density that count toward image resolution - leaving aside the depth-of-field and signal/noise issues for a moment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That would be true in an ideal world, but physics has a nasty habit of interfering with that ideal. Sensor technology is now so advanced that diffraction limits how sharp of an image we can make. Even at f5.6 with a D5100 you see the effects when you start to pixel peep. <br>

This wasn't an issue with film, as it is at most capable of around the same resolution as maybe 12 MP or so. It sure is an issue now that we have sensors capable of 24 MP in a DX format that is pretty close to the old 110 film format, or 36 MP in the FX size that matches 35mm. <br>

The nature of light itself limits how much resolution we can get at each sensor size, and the optical engineers and sensor guys have hit that limit. The only way to get more useful pixels now is to grow the sensor area. Of course, better processing algorithms can fake more resolution, but it's not the same thing.</p>