Discussion
ExPat2B said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8L2bljfLiU
Someone has had a go with one tethered to the Canon booth at CP+
I'm not up to speed with digital cameras and the resolution/print size they'll allow, but I'm very impressed by how it resolves such small details like the writing on the guide's badge, even at high ISOs.Someone has had a go with one tethered to the Canon booth at CP+
I read a review of the Pentax 645z last night - http://chrisgilesphotography.com/blog/category/pen... - towards the end of which he comments on his (limited) experience of files from the Canons. Whether just those around on the Canon supplied sites, with some poor uploads, or eleswhere he doesn't say.
The thing that interests me is his comment about the "small sensor look". I can well understand that ultimately the larger sensor will give better images, but is this 'small look' something that would be apparent on prints, unless massive, or down to his zooming in on monitor views, or maybe because it's what he wants to believe after the investment?
The thing that interests me is his comment about the "small sensor look". I can well understand that ultimately the larger sensor will give better images, but is this 'small look' something that would be apparent on prints, unless massive, or down to his zooming in on monitor views, or maybe because it's what he wants to believe after the investment?
I've just had a 645Z for a day to evaluate, I am torn between going for an older 645d outfit to run alongside my 5D3 or a 5DsR to run alongside the 5D3, the benefit there being only one set of lenses to carry. As with the files from my current MFD outfit the 645z files do have something about them, an untangible, something I can't put my finger on. I do find you can push and pull them more than 35mm files too.
LastLight said:
The thing that interests me is his comment about the "small sensor look". I can well understand that ultimately the larger sensor will give better images, but is this 'small look' something that would be apparent on prints, unless massive, or down to his zooming in on monitor views, or maybe because it's what he wants to believe after the investment?
I think that's a lens issue, not a sensor issue. The projected image inside a medium or large format camera is physically much larger, so can achieve the same image resolution with a much lower number of lines per mm. Quite how this effects the final product, I don't know enough to be sure but I can see how the differences in optics can result in the respective "looks".I'm very new to digital, mostly iPad Mini (!) and very recently an APS sensored Sony A6000, so have few references for all this. But I did use large format and medium format film a lot so do recognise the possible benefits of greater initial image size. My hope was that the Canon or even Sony A7r might allow me to push files to large sizes and handle a lot of manipulation, pre-printing, to save cost, size, broaden lens choice etc.
Trouble is, the more I read about the Pentax the more it seems somehow 'special' in the way it renders images! It will be a heck of a hit on my overall spending plans with knock on (or outs) for PC, Wacom tablet, printer, software etc. but I can't shake the feeling that I might be disappointed if I go elsewhere.
Trouble is, the more I read about the Pentax the more it seems somehow 'special' in the way it renders images! It will be a heck of a hit on my overall spending plans with knock on (or outs) for PC, Wacom tablet, printer, software etc. but I can't shake the feeling that I might be disappointed if I go elsewhere.
Edited by LastLight on Monday 2nd March 17:08
Interesting comparison here, with images, that again refers to the benefits of a larger sensor. Is the author correct about the non-switchable in camera sharpening of the DSLR and, if so is it only true of Nikon?
http://srussenschuck.com/full-frame-dslr-versus-me...
Picture examples:
http://srussenschuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...
http://srussenschuck.com/full-frame-dslr-versus-me...
Picture examples:
http://srussenschuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...
Larger sensors have an advantage ( given similar tech levels of the sensor) - in that the lens is bigger.
More lens per pixel/image means that given equal tolerance on the lens the image will be better on the larger sensor.
Theres also a few other advantages -
larger surface area so lower apparent noise ( though most MF are terrible because they are ccd)
Shallower depth of field doe to larger 'crop factor' , same as you get from crop slr to ff. The problem here is the lack of really fast lenses for MF, 2.8 seems to be about the limit. Given the cmos 50mp mf sensor is only 1.7 times the area/size of 35mm then a 1.4 or 1.2 lens will ultimately win on the 35mm here.
More lens per pixel/image means that given equal tolerance on the lens the image will be better on the larger sensor.
Theres also a few other advantages -
larger surface area so lower apparent noise ( though most MF are terrible because they are ccd)
Shallower depth of field doe to larger 'crop factor' , same as you get from crop slr to ff. The problem here is the lack of really fast lenses for MF, 2.8 seems to be about the limit. Given the cmos 50mp mf sensor is only 1.7 times the area/size of 35mm then a 1.4 or 1.2 lens will ultimately win on the 35mm here.
He does refer to possible differences due to the lenses used and I wonder if the software he used might have an impact.
I keep being drawn back to the Pentax, as originally planned - for more resilient and workable files and colour/transitions, or have I overplayed this in my mind? - and think I could offset some of the cost with cheaper (sh) lenses.
But one thing nagging me, which you touch on, is that I like the out of focus effects of lenses like the Leica Notilux, the old Canon 50mm f0.95 'Dream Lens' and the Canon 85mm f1.2. Could I get a similar, painterly effect from any lens I could get on the 645 I wonder?
I keep being drawn back to the Pentax, as originally planned - for more resilient and workable files and colour/transitions, or have I overplayed this in my mind? - and think I could offset some of the cost with cheaper (sh) lenses.
But one thing nagging me, which you touch on, is that I like the out of focus effects of lenses like the Leica Notilux, the old Canon 50mm f0.95 'Dream Lens' and the Canon 85mm f1.2. Could I get a similar, painterly effect from any lens I could get on the 645 I wonder?
Not sure mate, most of the mf crowd are so 'into' mf that they forget the photos. I hang out on LL and frankly half of it is utter garbage.
Some of them ( pro's doing commercial work etc) do make stunning images. Not sure how much difference would be to a D810 or whatever tho, 35mm is hugely competent.
As for lenses again no idea what the MF portrait lens(s) for shallow dof are.
Some of them ( pro's doing commercial work etc) do make stunning images. Not sure how much difference would be to a D810 or whatever tho, 35mm is hugely competent.
As for lenses again no idea what the MF portrait lens(s) for shallow dof are.
Cheers. I look at 500pix and Flickr regularly and the best pictures at screen size seem to come from all sorts of cameras. The large format stuff in the Linhof and Alpa groups (cameras I love) are often the very least inspiring!
Generally it is location, subject, lighting etc. that makes me wish I'd taken something, so I take your point. I've even been wondering about the 645z with one or two s.h. lenses suitable for landscape for if I think I need the size then a Sony, Canon or similar with either a 50mm or 85mm lens and a mirror lens for that almost abstract painterly bokeh/out of focus look I love. Decisions, decisions...
Generally it is location, subject, lighting etc. that makes me wish I'd taken something, so I take your point. I've even been wondering about the 645z with one or two s.h. lenses suitable for landscape for if I think I need the size then a Sony, Canon or similar with either a 50mm or 85mm lens and a mirror lens for that almost abstract painterly bokeh/out of focus look I love. Decisions, decisions...
RobDickinson said:
A big percentage of my shots are stitched images. 10, 12, 30 shots. OK I would likely need fewer frames with MF but still, same output.
Unless it needs to be take in 1 frame an ~20mp slr is fine. A 36mp a7r is pretty good and about the weight of a mf battery
It's interesting to see that you use a Gigapan sometimes as I researched into that quite a bit last year and was thinking of going that way - the robotised mount and stitching software etc. looks relatively straightforward at the capture stage but I guess there can be quiet a bit of adjustment afterwards to balance light et cetera?Unless it needs to be take in 1 frame an ~20mp slr is fine. A 36mp a7r is pretty good and about the weight of a mf battery
I find the gigapan very useful for night time pano's which I tend to shoot with a 50mm.
I prefer my manual pano head ( novoflext vr slim atm) for golden hour pano shooting as the gigapan is just too slow to setup and shoot, by the time its configured the light has changed...
gigapan is great at high pixel daytime shots too
I also have an emotimo tb3 which I need to try out for astro pano's with the 50, not quite as fully featured as the gigapan and not a true nodal pano head but it may meet my needs for that aspect.
I prefer my manual pano head ( novoflext vr slim atm) for golden hour pano shooting as the gigapan is just too slow to setup and shoot, by the time its configured the light has changed...
gigapan is great at high pixel daytime shots too
I also have an emotimo tb3 which I need to try out for astro pano's with the 50, not quite as fully featured as the gigapan and not a true nodal pano head but it may meet my needs for that aspect.
I'm going to be getting one to replace my trusty old 1Ds II which at 10 years old is looking forward to retirement. However while it looks like a fantastic camera for landscape type work, I also enjoy shooting motorsports.
It looks like the 5Ds will have similar AF to the 1Dx/7D II etc..., and also has the 1.6x crop mode so should be fine for this. But part of me thinks it will be too specialised as a landscape camera, and I'd be better off with a second body (probably a 7D II) for the action stuff.
However, for the money that will cost, all I'd gain is a faster shooting rate (not a big deal for me as 4fps from my 1Ds has been fine), a few more focus points and slightly higher ISO range.
Any thoughts?
It looks like the 5Ds will have similar AF to the 1Dx/7D II etc..., and also has the 1.6x crop mode so should be fine for this. But part of me thinks it will be too specialised as a landscape camera, and I'd be better off with a second body (probably a 7D II) for the action stuff.
However, for the money that will cost, all I'd gain is a faster shooting rate (not a big deal for me as 4fps from my 1Ds has been fine), a few more focus points and slightly higher ISO range.
Any thoughts?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff