Pentax 645Z versus top end DSLR?

[ksporry]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I need some advice. I am considering if I should buy that new Pentax 645Z MF camera or not.<br>

Its a tough choice for me because:<br>

a) I'm not a pro, I won't make any money out of it (at least not any time soon)<br>

b) It's a lot of money for someone who's not a pro (though it's the cheapest DMF package around)<br>

c) I already have several different camera systems: several rangefinders, Canon, Nikon (D800E), and an old beat up C500 Hassy (the latter needs some restoring). Adding another new system to the collection, well, I like collecting gear but it needs to make sense (and the rest so far has made sense, and didn't break the bank)<br>

d) Considering I already have a D800E, I wonder to what extend the 645Z benefits me as a non-pro shooter<br>

e) The 645Z has a flash sync of only 1/125. That one bothers me. Although I'd use the camera predominantly for studio work, I do want to be able to use it outside in high contrast/bright sunlight conditions, for which I may need a much higher sync speed. I heard about this being better with leaf shutter lenses, and although I know the hassy's have those with a flash sync speed of 1/500, I don't know to what extent I can match that with the pentax (for sure it won't reach the 1/8000 that Canon and Nikon boast with radio triggered speedlights...)</p>

<p>Note, I did mention the hassy, and I am considering getting that restored, but right now I'm not too convinced that its a comparable solution. especially since the pentax will work so much faster with AF and digital files etc.</p>

<p>So, any suggestions/comments/etc, will be much appreciated!</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Kryn, pro or not, you still have to give us some detail on what you'll be shooting. There's a sort of paradox in your question: I've never met anybody who uses medium format that thought that the D800 was an adequate substitute, but I've also known people that felt didn't need DMF because they were satisfied with high-end DSLR's.</p>

<p>This isn't a difference of opinion, it's a difference of subject matter and end use. Since you're a non-pro, we can guess that your images won't be subject to high-end magazine reproduction or super-detailed retouching, but some of the most beautiful small-press books and exhibition prints come from people like yourself. We just need to know where you want to go and how you plan to get there.</p>

 

[ksporry]

<p>Right, ok, I think that is a very fair statement, and thanks for pointing that out.</p>

<p>So, in the past I've mostly done street and travel photography, and recently i've been getting into strobist stuff. Portraits, fashion, etc. I'm just beginning with that stuff, but i'd like to grow into that area, as I find it highly inspiring, and its a bit of a challenge still for me. I was planning to use it mostly for studio type photography, but with the DSLRs I've recently been doing on location shoots with friends who also have a big passion in photography. That stuff has been very unplanned and spontaneous, but I'd like to get more into envisioning shots, plan them out and then go ahead and shoot them.</p>

<p>You mentioned the high res requirements of the high-end mags etc. It's an interesting point because those shots often need to be as hi-res as possible (i.e. DMF). So without any commercial intent, the need for hi-res would drop. Having said that I also know that the high resolution (and associated other image quality characteristics) is not the only thing that's different about MF compared to 35mm. From what I understood is that the look is actually a little different too (skipping the obvious square format versus 3x4 or 2x3 discussion for a moment). I don't know if that is just a matter of angle of view and DOF, or if there's something else to it (the first 2 can be matched on DSLR).</p>

<p>I'm getting a lot of inspiration from the likes of Joe McNally and his Beijing fashion shots, Karl Taylor with similar fashion shots, and Peter Hurley with his view on head shots. The latter use mostly MF (though Karl occasionally uses DSLR), but Joe uses only DSLRs, which makes that decision all the harder.</p>

<p>At some point I'd like to publish my own books/prints/etc, but I never expect myself to make actual money from it (besides, I love my day job too much for that as well).</p>

<p>I'm not sure if that helps clarify my own situation?</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Kryn, I'm sorry, but you seem to be confusing my point with a misconception that's all over the internet - that the main advantage of MFD is more pixels. I still use my 16MP Hasselblad back for those pro uses (check out my books - please!) and they satisfy my customers. That look is a factor too - and let's not forget plain competitiveness.</p>

<p>Fashion is a tough one because it's all about image and who's the coolest. If the designers/stylists/models you need to work with have been impressed with a certain brand, you'll need to respond in some way. While the idea of amateur fashion photographer strikes me personally as being only one notch away from amateur accountant, I can understand your interest in the images. Your purchasing problem is that the other people your team will work with can take these expenses off their taxes and you can't.</p>

<p>In the end, my own gut feeling is that you should be spending this money on lighting, not cameras. But these aren't business expenses, so you have some leeway here. </p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Kryn,</p>

<p>Have the 500c restored. David Odess is who I would send it to. </p>

<p>http://www.david-odess.com/</p>

<p>I have a 1969 500C that I had restored 10 years ago and I still use it. Consider having a Maxwell screen installed as it makes the camera so much better (yes, I had one installed). I'd love to have a CFV 50 digital back for my Hasselblad but the price is a bit steep ($15,500) :) </p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=hasselblad+cfv-50c&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps</p>

<p>You can have your 120 film scanned and now you have a "DMF". The only downside is the the lab turn-around time. As Brian suggested spend your money on lighting. You can always get a DMF camera later on.</p>

<p>An advantage of using a film scanner solution is that there is NO image crop factor. You get the full 6x6 image and then YOU can decide what to crop in post processing. And you have the negatives to boot.</p>

<p>Give Ektar 100 film a try. For the cost of a DMF you can shoot a lot of film with scanning.</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>If it were a real business, the answer would be easy: forget about camera bodies and spend all that money on great lighting gear. Period. But it's not - it's a very demanding hobbyist who seems to be on the cusp of becoming an artist. An honorable place but hard to give advice on. I've spent much of my life in the studio and gravitate towards lighting myself. Most of all though, I'm interested in seeing where the O.P. will go with this.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I doubt it is worth getting the Pentax myself. I would stick with the Nikon, and as others suggest, get some lighting gear if your are really into portraits and portraiture. Medium format gives less depth of field for the angle of view and this accounts to a great degree for its special look. You can get a similar look by opening up your FF lenses and/or moving back and using a longer lens. Owning too many systems only leads to mental anguish when deciding what to use, in my opinion.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I don't shoot MF, but I do have a few things to suggest. The D800 is not the weak link - your lenses probably are, assuming you are using Nikon lenses. Nikon does not make the best lenses for its cameras, at least not for focal lengths under 85mm (micro lenses excepted).</p>

<p>If you want the best lenses for the Nikon for any given focal length, compare all compatible brands. Getting the best lenses for the D800 will be cheaper than you think: for example, you can adapt some MF lenses, although you will lose automation. The Sigma Art 50/1.4 is almost as good as the Zeiss for a fraction of the price (it's better and cheaper than Nikon's 58/1.4). There are some Contax 645 lenses which apparently are very good, and I'm sure you can adapt them. What do you think about using some Hasselblad lenses?</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The first question to ask is what's wrong with your present equipment that you're seeking to solve by buying a 645Z?</p>

<p>Your flexibility will drop and your pixel count will increase, is that what you want? Are you printing 40x60s or wall size prints?</p>

<p>The only direct comparison between the Nikon and a MF camera that I've seen is here:</p>

<p>

<p>and the determining factor wasn't higher resolution but the increase in DR and smooth tonality that the MF body gave. But as the camera sensor and body were different from the 645Z there's no way to know if it will also provide that advantage.</p>

 

[thomas_k.]

<p>Kryn:<br>

What lenses are you using on your D800e?</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Thanks for your link Mike. I watched and googled the Hasselblad's (or Leica S's) MF advantage seem 16Bit/channel vs 14 provided by Nikon or Pentax 645 Z&D.<br>

AFAIK Hasselblad offer a DMF back for their classics now? <br>

@ Kryn: I'd stick to what I have until I'd feel hitting a wall of limitations. - There seem great things to be done with a Nikon. - Also don't expect much from the Pentax' AF. Their APSC DSLRs aren't known for AF speed and why should Pentax not use a fast AF module in them if they had one for the 645s? </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>+1 to Thomas's question.<br /> Rather than start a complete new system, I'd put that money into lenses for the D800E. There aren't many lenses out there that take full advantage of the resolution the D800E is capable of. So if I were in your position Kryn, I'd be doing research on the best lenses available in Nikon mount, with a view to putting my money into those. You can get a lot of good glass for the price of the Pentax 645Z body alone. Add in the money you'd need to spend on lenses for it, and you could have a Nikon outfit that most pros would envy.<br /> I mean, over £6K ($10K US) for a camera body for 'amateur' use - seriously?!</p>

<p>It's not even as if you're getting a full 56mm by 42mm sensor with the Pentax. In fact its sensor is barely bigger than the 35mm film frame really. And how big do you print/display your pictures? Because the D800E will easily do an A2+ size print that'll stand the closest scrutiny, and much bigger at more than acceptable image quality.</p>

<p>Edit: Karl Taylor and Joe McNally have being Karl Taylor and Joe McNally all sewn up - i.e. pushing their videos, books, blogs and other self-promotion. Go plough your own furrow Kryn.</p>

[Ken Katz]

If you want to read reviews of the Pentax by a professional photography who actually owns and uses the 645Z, along with Hasselblad 500 series cameras (and 39mp back), plus an extensive Nikon system (810/800E plus Zeiss lenses including 2 Otus lenses), perhaps you should take a look here:

 

http://blog.mingthein.com/other-reviews/

 

Ming also backs up his review with excellent images.

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>the Hasselblad's (or Leica S's) MF advantage seem 16Bit/channel vs 14 provided by Nikon or Pentax 645 Z&D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a myth, which the MFD manufacturers are only too happy to see continue to propagate. There hasn't been a true 16 bit medium format system since the 11 micron pixel era of the late 1990s. Nowadays they still have 16 bit AtoD converters, but they route 14 bit sensor outputs through them. So it has no benefit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AFAIK Hasselblad offer a DMF back for their classics now?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Hasselblad classics (I presume you mean V series) always have been supported with digital backs, whether by 3rd parties or by Hasselblad themselves. What's changed recently is that Hasselblad now have - for the first time - a very low noise CMOS back in the CFV50c.</p>

<p>The same Sony 44x33 mm CMOS sensor is used in the Pentax 645Z camera and Phase One IQ250 back. There are huge price disparities between all three, with the Pentax being a relative bargain, the Hasselblad being the cheapest detachable back, and the Phase One being, well, reassuringly expensive.</p>

[ksporry]

<p>Thanks for all the responses. I see some very interesting on opinions, and all seem to steer me away from the 645Z.so at least it's consistent :)<br>

I should say, it's not the pixel count by for me. If I gave that impression I apologize. <br>

I do have good glass for my d800e. I got the 35, 50 and 85 1.4 from sigma which are steliar. All are art series except the 85 of course. Got a standard 70-200 obviously, and a 135/2D. <br>

I think I will follow up on the advice to get the Hasselblad restored. </p>

<p>As a note, the 645Z sensor is twice as big as a 35mm frame, which should give a significantly better image.<br>

I also indicated that the price is a huge hurdle and the biggest reason for me to question the decision. I simply don't have a good justification for spending the money, other than ergono Ics (I really like the ergonomics) , gear collection with a margical (and questionable) improvement in quality output. <br>

So I'll focus on lighting and the hassy instead.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, appreciate your candid advice!</p>

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>As a note, the 645Z sensor is twice as big as a 35mm frame</p>

</blockquote>

<p>44 x 33 mm is less than 1.7x as big than 35mm...but still worth it.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>If you are in doubt here is a good review on the 645D the 645Z predecessor versus Nikon's D800E. <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/introduction.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/nikon-d800e-vs-pentax-645d/introduction.html</a> </p>

<p>The 645Z has a slightly larger sensor than the 645D plus it has a Movie and Live view, things that are not really essential for shooting Medium Format.</p>

<p>Regardless of the review there is no way that a 35mm sensor is going to beat out a Medium format sensor not matter how many pixels you pack in there. However the 645Z cost 3 times as much as the D800 plus if you consider the cost of the lenses you better have good reason and good subjects to shoot with that camera.</p>

<p>I don't mean to discourage you not at all, I'm saving my pennies until the price of the 645D goes down and then I might pluck for it. The good thing about medium format is that you can get by with just one lens. I shot with my Mamiya 645 for years with just the normal 80mm lens. Of course if you have the funds you can later get a wide angle and maybe a telephoto lens, but that definitely can wait. </p>

 

[ksporry]

<p>In general there are several options, all with pro's and cons.<br>

This weekend I was looking around in the local camera market, and they have some interesting offers. For example, they had a H1 (actually a Fuji GX645AF, which never went beyond the H1 version) for 13000 RMB (about 1300 GBP), including a standard 80/2.0 and film clip. Which is a good deal as it was pretty much unscratched., very clean! They also were selling a couple of Contax AF 645's between 7k RMB (body + film clip) and 15k RMB (complete set).<br>

Now, the H1's are very modular and in fact, you can get later parts without problems. a very well supported camera. The contax is phased out completely so spares will become difficult. The latter had battery issues as well apparently. The Contax lenses however are a steal compared to hasselblad lenses. Literally 50-20% of the hassleblad equivalent, and are amazing lenses being Zeiss and all that (not that the hasselblad lenses are bad).</p>

<p>The problem comes when going digital. Getting a cheap hasselblad (as I said, I own a 500C already, which just needs a clean, lub, and some adjusting) isn't the biggest issue. Same for the Contax.<br>

The problem is the price of a digital back for any of these, any back.... Even second hand the most pathetic backs still go for 20-40k RMB. Any decent back that is to compete with the 645Z, will vastly outprice the 645Z with 2 lenses easily. Lets not forget that that 645Z sensor is the same as the CFV-50 Hasselblad released at 50% higher price (I think 10k US for the 645Z versus 15k US for the CFV-50).<br>

It this point the photographer that wants to go MF needs to make a decision to go either for the 645Z with probably inferior lenses (compared to the other brands mentioned), but an overall waaay more competitive price, and swallow the fact that the value of that camera will drop significantly in a few years' time. Or go for a much more expensive setup (e.g. Hasselblad), with the benefit that the camera and lenses will always be good enough and don't need bi-yearly upgrades, with a back that costs a fortune, but also keeps a decent resell value if an upgrade is required.</p>

<p>Note, I would't mind spending 1 or 2k US for an old 16-22MP back for my 500C just to play and get a feel for it. My problem with that is that they are simply not available...</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>"...the 645Z with probably inferior lenses (compared to the other brands mentioned)" Not necessarily if you look at the lenses produced recently, intended for the Z and 645D. There are also a few Pentax 645 film lenses that were standouts and can be used, not to mention a few of the better P67 lenses that can be used via adapter. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>Lets not forget that that 645Z sensor is the same as the CFV-50 Hasselblad released at 50% higher price (I think 10k US for the 645Z versus 15k US for the CFV-50)."</em></p>

<p>Pentax has Ricoh backing them up so they can offer the same sensor for a cheaper price were as Hasselblad is a stand alone company, so if something goes wrong they have to absorb the costs.</p>

[ksporry]

<p>Maybe, but the sensor is Sony, so I expect Ricoh to have the same issue as Hasselblad.</p>

<p>If you consider cost: 1.7k US for a GX645AF/H1 (kit), versus 8k US for a pentax 645Z (kit), versus 10k for a CFV50 back (excludes a V-series camera kit), versus 15k for a H5D (kit). Interestingly the H5D body does not cost 5k US. I think the H5D body is actually called H5X (which allows film backs).<br>

If a H5D body indeed costs 5k US, and allows film backs (which I doubt considering an H5X exists/was announced), that'd be VERY interesting considering its capabilities!</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Kryn, if there's a D in the name (as in H4D, H5D), not only can it not use film backs, it is also tied to a particular digital back (factory mated to one or more particular Hasselblad back serial numbers). People complained about this restriction for a long time, so Hasselblad eventually relented and released the parallel H4X (now H5X), which allows 3rd party digital backs and film backs - like the early H1 and H2 did.</p>

[ksporry]

<p>That's a very interesting point actually! So I guess that means if anyone would go for a body, it'd better be a H1, H2 or a H4/5X . I didn't know that, thanks!</p>