Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: rumor: Pentax 645D Price: $6500 USD  (Read 92845 times)
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2010, 03:13:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
The rumors in Japan point to around 40MP. Just everybody knows that Canon and Nikon will release soon 30+ megapixels cameras, except for some Pentax 645 film shooters, nobdy would go for the 645D at only 30MP.

Megapixels are not everything. I'm curious about this camera simply for how it might feel to actually shoot it. I love how the LCD and the buttons are pointed backwards, toward the user of the camera, rather than forward, like the H Hasselblad. (Although many of my subjects do find it comfortable to simply lean forward and read the LCD off the H, if I ask them what fstop I'm shooting at). Some people find the 24x36 proportion of the Canon and Nikon to be severely restrictive when shooting vertical images; while this Pentax does not seem to offer a vertical grip, oddly, they seem to offer a tripod mount on both the side and bottom! So I guess no need for an RRS plate. If I bought this camera, I'd have to buy some travel stickers and affix them to the camera body; the camera to me makes me think of some kind of sea animal. Maybe paint it green, and add couple of fake eyeballs glued to either side of the body, Rodney Dangerfield style, in those sloped areas on either side of the Pentax logo. The only downside of this camera is the lack of pop-up flash, hidden in the viewfinder.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 03:18:16 PM by gwhitf » Logged
smoody
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2010, 03:13:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Everybody in E-bay for the lenses while they still are bargains.
Fred.

I already bought a mint used 35mm focal length lens a couple of weeks ago for a very good price as a hedge. :-)
Logged

.
.
. . . . photos
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2010, 03:16:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
The problem with a 30mp DSLR is that it will suffer from diffraction effects much sooner.  If you like to shoot stopped down for big DOF this will be a problem, and even at equal or less pixels the MF solution will be better and cameras like the pentax could still be an attractive solution.  Don't worry Bernard you could still stitch to your hearts content with any MF camera.

Nope, you will always have a better DoF/diffraction compromise with smaller sensors everything else being equal. This should be fairly obvious if you have ever used LF. The only potential problem with smaller sensors is lack of DR, but since FX sensor technology is typically one generation ahead compared to cheaper MF alternatives like the Pentax, we have that one mostly covered so far.

Yep, I could keep stitching as long as the battery isn't dead at -15C... and I strongly doubt that unfortunately...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2010, 03:18:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
Megapixels are not everything. I'm curious about this camera simply for how it might feel to actually shoot it. I love how the LCD and the buttons are pointed backwards, toward the user of the camera, rather than forward, like the H Hasselblad. (Although many of my subjects do find it comfortable to simply lean forward and read the LCD off the H, if I ask them what fstop I'm shooting at). Some people find the 24x36 proportion of the Canon and Nikon to be severely restrictive when shooting vertical images; while this Pentax does not seem to offer a vertical grip, oddly, they seem to offer a tripod mount on both the side and bottom! So I guess no need for an RRS plate. If I bought this camera, I'd have to buy some travel stickers and affix them to the camera body; the camera to me makes me think of some kind of sea animal. Maybe a couple of fake eyeballs glued to either side of the body, Rodney Dangerfield style.

Indeed, that would work.

I guess that it will be released at the camera show in Tokyo in March. I'll try to cover the show and do a quick hands on with it asap.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2010, 03:49:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
I guess that it will be released at the camera show in Tokyo in March.

If they actually do sell this camera for $6500 US, they'd better crank up the production lines, because they're going to fly off the shelves.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2010, 04:10:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
If they actually do sell this camera for $6500 US, they'd better crank up the production lines, because they're going to fly off the shelves.

Yes, on the other hand I'd be surprised if it were ready to ship the day of the announcement...

As a side note, it appears it might be announced on March 11th... which happens to be my birthday... maybe I should pay closer attention to this camera...

http://www.cpplus.jp/en/visitor/index.html

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2389



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2010, 04:20:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Nope, you will always have a better DoF/diffraction compromise with smaller sensors everything else being equal. This should be fairly obvious if you have ever used LF. The only potential problem with smaller sensors is lack of DR, but since FX sensor technology is typically one generation ahead compared to cheaper MF alternatives like the Pentax, we have that one mostly covered so far.

Yep, I could keep stitching as long as the battery isn't dead at -15C... and I strongly doubt that unfortunately...

Cheers,
Bernard

Have a look here at this article:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
You might have more DOF with a smaller sensor but less detail.  Here's a quote, "You have all the data at hand, but take the green-yellow light and f/8-f/11 aperture values as a reference. It represents a realistic, not too demanding case. Consider a 35mm system with a lens at f/11. At best, the maximum resolution you will get is equivalent to 16 MP, even if your camera has 22 or 25 MP. In the case of an APS-C based system the limit goes to 7 MP, and 4 MP considering a Four Thirds format. Stopping down to f/22 the limit of the effective resolution of the 35mm based system goes to 4 MP!"
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 04:22:00 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2010, 07:14:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Have a look here at this article:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
You might have more DOF with a smaller sensor but less detail.
Only if you choose to compare at equal f-stop, but if the goal is equally great DOF, the smaller format will use a less high aperture ratio [equal effective aperture diameter in fact], which equalizes the effects of diffraction on sharpness. (It gives diffraction spots smaller in equal proportion to how much smaller the image is, so equal sized when images are displayed at equal size.)

Maybe this site needs a FAQ (Frequently Argued Questions), to allow quick debunking of frequently stated myths like "smaller formats are more diffraction limited when you need to stop down for DOF".
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2389



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2010, 08:05:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Only if you choose to compare at equal f-stop, but if the goal is equally great DOF, the smaller format will use a less high aperture ratio [equal effective aperture diameter in fact], which equalizes the effects of diffraction on sharpness. (It gives diffraction spots smaller in equal proportion to how much smaller the image is, so equal sized when images are displayed at equal size.)

Maybe this site needs a FAQ (Frequently Argued Questions), to allow quick debunking of frequently stated myths like "smaller formats are more diffraction limited when you need to stop down for DOF".

I'm referring to smaller sensel sites not format size.   If you pack 30mp into a 35mm format the sensel sites are going to be smaller than if you pack them into a MF sized sensor.  Above in the thread someone suggested no one would buy a 22mp pentax 645 if Canikon had 30+mp cameras coming out and I'm pointing out that a MF 22mp MF chip will still have advantages over the DSLR equiv.   Since light has set wavelengths the argument about smaller sensors giving more DOF with equal detail is not going to hold water.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 10:10:11 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2010, 08:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
... the argument about smaller sensors giving more DOF with equal detail is [not] going to hold water.
Agreed, adding the "not" that I think you intended. But that is not what I said, and your initial claim about a smaller format getting _less_ detail, due to greater diffraction effects, with equal DOF is equally invalid.

One more time: printed (or otherwise displayed) with the image of the subject the same size, the aperture that gives equal diffraction spot size on the print also gives equal sized circle of confusion (OOF effects) at each part of the image. This happens with equal effective aperture _diameter_ (a.k.a. entrance pupil size) regardless of format, so that the angular spread of light due to diffraction is equal. I am not sure, but you still seem to be thinking about equal f-stop comparisons when you talk about smaller pixel sizes and more DOF.

There are potential advantages to larger formats, but reducing diffraction problems in high DOF images is not one of them.
Logged
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2010, 09:42:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gwhitf
I love how the LCD and the buttons are pointed backwards, toward the user of the camera, rather than forward, like the H Hasselblad. (Although many of my subjects do find it comfortable to simply lean forward and read the LCD off the H, if I ask them what fstop I'm shooting at).

A few observations:

1) When the camera is in horizontal orientation, the LCD on the Hasselblad H grip does not face forward. It faces up. Just where you would want it if you are using a waist-level finder, or are shooting with the camera at a low angle or any other time that you are above the camera and not behind it.

2) When the camera is pointed straight down (as it would when photographing your subjects feet rather than face) then yes, the grip LCD would face forward. Also if doing repro work on a stand with the camera pointed down (waist-level finder is very handy here) then the grip LCD is facing forward where you can see it.

3) On the H4D cameras, aperture and shutter speed settings can be displayed on the 3" LCD panel on the back in addition to being displayed on the the grip LCD and in the viewfinder. Change aperture or shutter speed and the new settings are automatically displayed on the back LCD (rear), grip LCD (top) and viewfinder simultaneously.

4) You can still ask your subjects to tell you what aperture you're using. Maybe they'll feel more involved in the process.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2389



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 17, 2010, 12:54:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Agreed, adding the "not" that I think you intended. But that is not what I said, and your initial claim about a smaller format getting _less_ detail, due to greater diffraction effects, with equal DOF is equally invalid.

One more time: printed (or otherwise displayed) with the image of the subject the same size, the aperture that gives equal diffraction spot size on the print also gives equal sized circle of confusion (OOF effects) at each part of the image. This happens with equal effective aperture _diameter_ (a.k.a. entrance pupil size) regardless of format, so that the angular spread of light due to diffraction is equal. I am not sure, but you still seem to be thinking about equal f-stop comparisons when you talk about smaller pixel sizes and more DOF.

There are potential advantages to larger formats, but reducing diffraction problems in high DOF images is not one of them.

Sounds intelligent, if I am charitable and skip over the pedantic "One more time" stuff, but I think you're missing something important so please do some more reading and preferably testing before you go out and write that FAQ okay?   Now since this thread is about the Pentax Rumor let's get back to it.  What about the pentax lenses?  Are they decent?  I'm guessing they must be from the interest.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 12:55:28 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 17, 2010, 02:11:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Now since this thread is about the Pentax Rumor let's get back to it.  What about the pentax lenses?  Are they decent?  I'm guessing they must be from the interest.

For what it is worth, the Pentax 645 system has been THE landscape camera in Japan for many many years. The lenses are said to be excellent.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #33 on: February 17, 2010, 03:15:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, the lens are exelent. Not exactly in the same league than Hasselblad but not far. In the past, the 645 system and also the 67 Pentax have been intensively used by a lot of professionals. These were indestructible cameras. Generaly, Pentax lenses are really good value. I have a few of these manual glasses and the mechanism is absolutely perfect, even after 30 years. The feeling (sensation in hand) is by far superior to any Canon o Nikon old primes. It is more in the Zeiss or Leica R league, so the pleasure is real. Pentax is a small company but their gear are built with high quality standard. The only concern is that now a digital camera is also a computer, and that is where Canon, Nikon and Sony, as big companies, have more mediums in research-devellopment.
My concern is that it is not CMOS and lack video. But sure this Pentax in image quality is going to be top-class.

Fred.
Logged
Ed Jack
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #34 on: February 17, 2010, 04:30:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Pentax have missed a trick here.

Why go down the ill fated integrated approach like the Mamiya ZD, which most people suggest was a bit of a failure (maybe more to do with sensor implementation rather than concept).

I would have liked an open-back system, especially if the ubiquitous lenses are as good as people are saying and as affordable too - even less than the mamiya offerings (like for like), which are no slouch optically either. Does anybody know if the af system in the pentax 645 is based upon motors in the camera itself, like the mamiya AFD system, or if they are in the lenses like most 35 mm cameras. I only ask, as if you look at mamiya, the only way you can get better Af performance is to go get one of the ever newer incarnations of the AFD, such as the AFDIII or the latest Phamiya one DCF etc. If this is the case with pentax, then more's the better as the presumably can put the very latest autofocus technology into the body and make even quite old lenses focus quickly/accurately. If however the motors are based in the old legacy lenses - the only ones availble now, then there is a problem. Good though the lenses may be optically, no amount of jiggery pokey at the body end would be able to improve things?!

I suppose given there are no third party backs with a pentax mount - for obvious reasons - there would be no market for used third party compatible backs (a growing market and a "cheap" way into MFDB's), and I suppose Phase one isn't going to rush out to make one (a mount for pentax for its backs) or have capture one compatibility, if people can go out and buy a pentax 645 body and full set of lenses for half the price of the Phase One alternatives!!
However by the same token Phase/sinar/leaf might also nab some massive latent Pentax 645 film user base that want to use their backs with their existing lens set up! I have no idea how big this fan base might be and as to whether it "would pay". Certainly if you are a pentax user $7K will buy you a nice second hand back from a third party, such as a 22Mp back or even a 33/39MP back.

It's an interesting business model becuase an open platform option now, would mean that all new Leaf/sinar and maybe Phase backs might support the platform in the future (or even intro into the existing line of backs hte pentax mount) and there-by increase the market for the lesnes and any new digital lenses in the pipeline. My guess is that the margins for an integrated digital platform (in fact what they seem to be releasing) would be higher than the increased lens market base for third party back buyers ?

One good thing is that these integrated back cameras are generally more compact and lighter than modular designs. I, like others have commented would prefer to buy a 22Mp "full frame (well OK 1.1X crop)" camera rather than a 31MP cropped sensor product, especially if I was into landscapes (and I am). I am fed up of not using all of a lenses image circle (I shoot with the heavilly crop 16MP sensor MFDB). I can tell you, that if you are humping many KG's of Japaneese glass around the mountains, you are going to want to feel that all that glass is doing something usefull (and not just "the middle bit")!!

just my thoughts

Ed
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 04:36:37 AM by Ed Jack » Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #35 on: February 17, 2010, 04:45:54 AM »
ReplyReply

pentax until now never had intershangeable back's, only inserts wich makes it very difficult for others to create a back for it. So no third party back's will be available. Besides, there are som many used back's for sale, proven systems, extreme quality. Never jump into a new system as it will have a lot of problems the first years to come.
Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 17, 2010, 05:10:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ixpressraf
Never jump into a new system as it will have a lot of problems the first years to come.

To be fair to Pentax, this wouldnt exactly be their first camera   and plenty of 'old' systems have their problems too. If they sell their 645D at the rumoured price, then I think you will have a lot of people jumping all over it.
Logged
brentward
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #37 on: February 17, 2010, 08:38:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been saving some of my choice 67 lenses just in case they finally came out with this!

The 100 macro for the 67 is the highest resolving MF lens I think I've ever used.
Logged

___________________________________
brentwardphoto
splashpour.com
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2010, 10:25:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: brentward
I've been saving some of my choice 67 lenses just in case they finally came out with this!

The 100 macro for the 67 is the highest resolving MF lens I think I've ever used.
Here we go: http://cgi.ebay.es/EXCELLENT-SMC-PENTAX-67...=item19b9ed1a2e
 
This is not gonna last for long...
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2010, 10:42:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: brentward
The 100 macro for the 67 is the highest resolving MF lens I think I've ever used

... on film.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad