Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pentax 645D: The Interview  (Read 14433 times)
luisial1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2010, 08:56:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
The owners of Pentax 645 + 67 glass will wait for the Pentax 645D (especially now, as it is "announced"). Pentax already has a virtual user base.

Has it been confirmed that 67 glass will be compatiable (with adaptor) ?  The interview only mentions Pentax AF legacy glass.
Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #41 on: March 17, 2010, 10:02:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
I think Canon is the 400 lb. fat guy in the room and it seems most everyone lives in fear, or anticipation about what they'll do next.

Ask any photographer if they're gonna buy a RED and they say uh well, I'm kind of thinking about what the next 5d is gonna be like,
BC

My mind is boggled by how much talk there is about people shooting TV and films with the Canon: The whole last episode of House with the 5D2, Ron Howard and crew shooting with a 7D (!), TV Show Numb3rs, etc., etc.

Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #42 on: March 17, 2010, 10:18:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
so pentax has a 40mpix ccd, no video for about 9000 (maybe less street).....this most likely produces considerably better still files at base iso then the soon to be announced
canon 1ds4, which is probably 30mpix cmos, HD (maybe uncompressed) video (maybe up to 60fps)....and the obvious advantages of DSLR.....for about 8000....
the 5DII shoots 24fps HD video, (according to rumors a coming firmware provides uncompressed video via HDMI) and everybody has one especially for 2400$....

who will get the ds4? sport shooters might, but the file is too big, they just bought the d4 anyway....
and let's not forget the 5DIII will give the same (maybe even better) file in a couple of months later for 25% of the price....

i think a lot of people would rather go for a 5DII/pentax combo, have all bases covered (video and superior stills) for the same price...

if phase/hass/mamiya weren't shaking in their boots, they should be after reading this interview.....

pentax seemingly waited patiently and now are going in for the kill....and it will be easy for them.....

is the 645d my dream camera? not at all, but i am much more likely to buy it rather then a 30mpix canon (if it delivers and unless the canon has something outrageous i can't imagine now...)
Agree.
Cameras of the 1ds and D3x class are becoming overkill.
90% of the users that need the high megapixel count, does not need any of the extra features which add 5k to the price tag of those cameras.
Hence the success of the 5d2.

As soon the 1ds4 will be out, very likely Sony will show up their 30mp body for less than half the price.

Current Sony A900 has almost been a non event on the market, I have to say, but nevertheless the camera when is in use, has more reliable AF and deliver better files (and faster with larger buffer) than both canon counterpart.
Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #43 on: March 17, 2010, 10:35:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
My mind is boggled by how much talk there is about people shooting TV and films with the Canon: The whole last episode of House with the 5D2, Ron Howard and crew shooting with a 7D (!), TV Show Numb3rs, etc., etc.

i talked to 2 DPs the other day and both prefer the 7D...because of the 24fps and because the smaller sensor actually makes it a little easier to keep focus.....the sliver of the 5DII is almost overkill unless you need that look....both prefered the canons to the red btw.....neither said that the canons gave better footage but they both felt that in a year from now that is all they will shoot anyway (canon) so why bother with red.....like i said this is not from my own experience but only from what 2 actively shooting (commercial) DPs told me.....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 17, 2010, 10:52:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
i talked to 2 DPs the other day and both prefer the 7D...because of the 24fps and because the smaller sensor actually makes it a little easier to keep focus.....the sliver of the 5DII is almost overkill unless you need that look
APS sensor makes perfect sense for video, really. After all they're about the same size as a frame of 35mm motion film. And even 3k video resolution is still well within the capabilities of an APS sensor.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2010, 12:04:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
My mind is boggled by how much talk there is about people shooting TV and films with the Canon: The whole last episode of House with the 5D2, Ron Howard and crew shooting with a 7D (!), TV Show Numb3rs, etc., etc.

The final episode of House is not being shot entirely with the 5D2, its being used as a special effect, shallow dof rig for certain shots.  The 5D footage looks good, but not for an entire 46 minutes of 1080p, which is intercut with commercials shot on film and run through high quality telecine.  The compression artifacts are too hard to integrate, for long periods and without MASSIVE POST, into film/Red/Arricam footage.

That being said, the 5D is amazing, especially when considering video was an after thought.  Pulling focus with the L lenses is a cruel joke.  You block the shot, run through rehersal, tape everything down, then BAM, focus is slightly off.  The next 5D and ds4 I bet will solve many of these problems, such as RAW VIDEO.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #46 on: March 18, 2010, 07:11:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Awww. Why ruin a good story with the facts?  

Folks would much prefer to think that a million dollar TV production can be shot with an $800 camera, just like the one that they own, and probably hand-held by one person as well.

Michael
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2010, 07:27:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: luisial1
Has it been confirmed that 67 glass will be compatiable (with adaptor) ?  The interview only mentions Pentax AF legacy glass.
The offical announcement also mentions 645A lenses and if the A lenses work, so should the 67.  Perhaps the auto diaphram will be be lost, but I can't imagine why since it's retained on the film 645.

Lens mount   Pentax 645AF2 bayonet mount
Usable lenses: Pentax 645AF2, 645AF, and 645A mount lenses  
Logged
billthecat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2010, 08:04:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been watching Battlestar Galactica on BluRay and the image quality is usually worse than my home videos with a Canon 5D2. There is less noise and more detail in my Canon and I can also hand hold the camera better than they can even without a bracket.  The list goes on with blown highlights and purple fringing in trees.

Bill

Quote from: michael
Awww. Why ruin a good story with the facts?  

Folks would much prefer to think that a million dollar TV production can be shot with an $800 camera, just like the one that they own, and probably hand-held by one person as well.

Michael
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2010, 09:30:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Awww. Why ruin a good story with the facts?  

Folks would much prefer to think that a million dollar TV production can be shot with an $800 camera, just like the one that they own, and probably hand-held by one person as well.

Michael


True but some of the footage of expensive episodic broadcast is being shot with a under $3,000 camera which would have been unheard of a couple of years ago and though high budget broadcast advertising  is still shot on film or with a RED/Arricam, there is more and more experimentation trying to use these dslrs.

Let's see what happens next, but the beauty of digital footage is it's opened up a whole new world for artists.   Prior to even mini-dv, building a reel, or learning the editorial process was an incredibly expensive and time consuming ordeal.  

A 7d a few lenses, some sticks and a copy of FCP studio tops out at about 4 grand.  To do any of this a few years ago was in the hundreds of thousands.

Regardless, under certain situations the 5d2 footage has artifacts.  No denying it, no talking around it.

Maybe outside with a lot of quick cuts, lens flare, very shallow dof, it doesn't show, but in real lit production a jacket zipper will christmas tree light, or a red top with have this moving moire.

As T-Mark said it can be fixed in post, usually massive, but it would be nice to see Canon address this at the front end.

Now as far as the 7d or a smaller frame, I dunno, I guess that's ok as long as you don't have noise.  The real beauty of the 5d2 is that you can shoot video at almost any iso and not see noise when the image is moving.

http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg

What really would be nice is if there was a single codec that was the standard for video.  It's almost mind numbing to go through the process of mixed codec, formats, frame sizes and try to cut and color a coherent piece, even for the web.

We just had a RED on set and the DP/video guy used it for about 2% of the footage.  For locked down lit dialog it was fine,(Then again what he shot with it could have been done with about any high def eng) but moving, high iso, , even quick  stationary images he was holding a 5d2, while the RED set in the corner.

Regardless of all of that, I would bet dollars to donuts the next 1ds4 is gonna be a killer.  Canon had to learn a lesson about putting more stuff in a cheaper camera (5d2)  than their flagship and though you never know what any of these companies are going to do, almost everyone believes the next 1ds will have raw footage, probably more than 2k and maybe even better live focus.

Will I buy it, yea maybe . . . well probably, cause when I tally up the numbers and the art, no camera has been as good for my business as Canon.  It may sometimes seem soul less and everyone loves to kick sand on em, but everybody owns one and there is a reason why, mostly because it covers more territory than any camera.

BC
Logged
ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2010, 09:52:15 AM »
ReplyReply

What about Canon video cameras, ordinary cameras will always lack some comfortability. I think no 1Ds will sell much different figures due to video capabilities, it was rather the price of the 5D MK2 which opened many doors.
That said, I hope that Canon pays more attention to still image side, much can be improved.

Quote from: bcooter
Regardless of all of that, I would bet dollars to donuts the next 1ds4 is gonna be a killer.  Canon had to learn a lesson about putting more stuff in a cheaper camera (5d2)  than their flagship and though you never know what any of these companies are going to do, almost everyone believes the next 1ds will have raw footage, probably more than 2k and maybe even better live focus.
Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2010, 10:01:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Awww. Why ruin a good story with the facts?  

Folks would much prefer to think that a million dollar TV production can be shot with an $800 camera, just like the one that they own, and probably hand-held by one person as well.

Michael

it's actually funny to see how little the production has changed around the 800$ camera!
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2010, 10:15:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ihv
What about Canon video cameras, ordinary cameras will always lack some comfortability. I think no 1Ds will sell much different figures due to video capabilities, it was rather the price of the 5D MK2 which opened many doors.
That said, I hope that Canon pays more attention to still image side, much can be improved.


It's funny talking about price.

This thread is about a $10,000 medium format camera, that is  at least half the price of any of the traditional medium format cameras and everybody seems thrilled,  but since Canon has a 3 grand 5d2, some of the same people seem crushed that a 1ds4 would be 7 thousand.

But maybe that's where all these cameras need to be, $3,500 max, since they change every 18 months or so.  I guess you don't need weather sealing, or tank like build quality if it's gonna be traded in before it gets close to worn out.

In regards to still image quality that's very much personal preference.  In certain situations and working in post I can see the difference (maybe even appreciate the difference) of a non aa filtered ccd camera vs. a aa filter cmos, but I've shot both systems side by side for a few years and to a client/A.D./person if I put the images up on screen most clients don't notice, though the ones that do always pick the Canon file and say something like it looks less digital, whatever that means.

Some photographer's love the oversharp look of medium format, some don't.  
____________________________________

In regards to Paul's quote about how production around the camera is the same, well today maybe, but I'll bet you see less crew soon.  After all a clean 2000 iso allows for less lighting power, less cable pullers, smaller generators,  faster production.

Just as digital still photography has double the volume in a day's shooting, I would imagine, cinema, motion, television production will also start doubling the volume per day, if they haven't already.

Could be wrong, but we'll see.

BC

Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2010, 10:42:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
but I've shot both systems side by side for a few years and to a client/A.D./person if I put the images up on screen most clients don't notice, though the ones that do always pick the Canon file and say something like it looks less digital, whatever that means.

Some photographer's love the oversharp look of medium format, some don't.  
____________________________________

In regards to Paul's quote about how production around the camera is the same, well today maybe, but I'll bet you see less crew soon.  After all a clean 2000 iso allows for less lighting power, less cable pullers, smaller generators,  faster production.

Just as digital still photography has double the volume in a day's shooting, I would imagine, cinema, motion, television production will also start doubling the volume per day, if they haven't already.

BC

I believe the Canon's "less digital" look refers to less sharp, which seems to look more "natural" and pleasing to many people.

In terms of the production/crew size not changing (yet!) with the smaller cameras, I think that is because these behind the scenes videos that keep popping up are productions which are using a variety of camera formats, so naturally the crew has to be large enough to support the Arri/Red/ or whatever other main camera they are using...
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1653



WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 18, 2010, 11:01:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
Some photographer's love the oversharp look of medium format, some don't.

Much depends on what the camera is pointing at. For those who feel Gawd got it wrong and there's no place for pores on women, or are after that 1970s airbrush look, well, MFD is probably wasted on them.

Personally I don't want to view the world in soft-focus and don't want a camera to dictate a look, I'll take the life-like file and then decide on where to take it.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 11:10:01 AM by KLaban » Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #55 on: March 18, 2010, 11:24:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
I believe the Canon's "less digital" look refers to less sharp, which seems to look more "natural" and pleasing to many people.

In terms of the production/crew size not changing (yet!) with the smaller cameras, I think that is because these behind the scenes videos that keep popping up are productions which are using a variety of camera formats, so naturally the crew has to be large enough to support the Arri/Red/ or whatever other main camera they are using...


Soft or sharp, it's just the response.   Personally I don't care what anyone uses and honestly believe a photographer should "use" whatever gets them where they want to be.

The more experienced (older) AD's make more comments, the younger ones, don't seem to care, at least in my experience.

Some of this comes from the preview on computer, some can just be the monitor calibration, but usually it doesn't matter cause production is so ramped up today you have to shoot the easiest fastest camera anyway.

Maybe that's the reason Pentax targeted the landscape photographer.  Those guys don't usually have 12 people standing behind them saying can you move than center tree to the left.

As far as costs, well we all know it's a world run by the money guys.  I know two chief marketing officers that came from "finance", not creative, not marketing, so try explaining to them why a camera package is $5,000, vs. $1,000 for the day.

Let's face it the economy has changed the way all of us look at this stuff.  A few years ago a new $30,000 digital back didn't make you blink, today a new $7,000 Canon will make you think twice before sliding that credit card over the counter.

It's not that business is bad, or not good, it's just that all of us have proven to our clients that we can shoot more for less.  That's going to be a hard one to go back on.

The only thing that will move our numbers up is to offer more . . .  and motion and stills combined does that a lot more than 15 more mm of frame format.  Shooting both motion and stills is a hard trick to pull off, it's probably not 100% there yet in all productions, but it gets closer by the day as photographers get better at motion, the equipment gets cheaper and easier,  film crews get better at bringing in a still guy and retouchers get better at making, 1,000 iso quick stills from a motion shoot look professional.

BC
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #56 on: March 18, 2010, 11:30:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
Much depends on what the camera is pointing at. For those who feel Gawd got it wrong and there's no place for pores on women, or are after that 1970s airbrush look, well, MFD is probably wasted on them.

Personally I don't want to view the world in soft-focus and don't want a camera to dictate a look, I'll take the life-like file and then decide on where to take it.

The dslr's can have as much eye shredding, eye lash/pore/powder texture detail as any back, on screen.  The dslrs are hardly "soft focus".

Only LEAF has a really pleasing sharpness to a file, for people photography.  Sharp but not too sharp, not crunchy like Phase, and the Leaf color is really natural as well.  

The ds3/5d2/d3x files are smooth and natural without being too sharp.  The files look like P30+ files run through LR and then adjsuted for pleasing color in PS, but you get that look OUT OF THE CAMERA and in the in camera JPEGS that the get sent to the designer for FPO during the shoot.  

For people photography the current dslr's are about perfect.  

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1653



WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 18, 2010, 11:40:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
The dslrs are hardly "soft focus".


Agreed, I was compensating for the "oversharp look of medium format".
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 11:43:16 AM by KLaban » Logged

pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #58 on: March 18, 2010, 04:07:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
It's funny talking about price.

This thread is about a $10,000 medium format camera, that is  at least half the price of any of the traditional medium format cameras and everybody seems thrilled,  but since Canon has a 3 grand 5d2, some of the same people seem crushed that a 1ds4 would be 7 thousand.

But maybe that's where all these cameras need to be, $3,500 max, since they change every 18 months or so.  I guess you don't need weather sealing, or tank like build quality if it's gonna be traded in before it gets close to worn out.

In regards to still image quality that's very much personal preference.  In certain situations and working in post I can see the difference (maybe even appreciate the difference) of a non aa filtered ccd camera vs. a aa filter cmos, but I've shot both systems side by side for a few years and to a client/A.D./person if I put the images up on screen most clients don't notice, though the ones that do always pick the Canon file and say something like it looks less digital, whatever that means.

Some photographer's love the oversharp look of medium format, some don't.  
____________________________________

In regards to Paul's quote about how production around the camera is the same, well today maybe, but I'll bet you see less crew soon.  After all a clean 2000 iso allows for less lighting power, less cable pullers, smaller generators,  faster production.

Just as digital still photography has double the volume in a day's shooting, I would imagine, cinema, motion, television production will also start doubling the volume per day, if they haven't already.

Could be wrong, but we'll see.

BC


the 5DII at the 2500$ price point keeps popping up in all discussions because it can do so much...and like you say: is weatherproofing and faster AF worth an extra 5000$ or 2 extra 5DIIs? not for me....

the 5DIIs ability to do everything very very well thank you automatically makes it the elephant in the room.....

i can see the 2500$ camera becoming a 18-24 month investment..no problem with that at all....

DMF lost me when i was on my way to have my P30 upgraded to a P30+.....for 7000$....and i almost did it...they make it look like it is the most natural thing in the world....but i thought about it for a second....and that was that....

to put the pentax (or even the ds4 at around the same price) in perspective....i could get a whole litepanel kit with 3 dimmable/variable color for the same price....hmmm

the canons almost have that polaroid effect: it's does not necessarily have to look exactly the way the final product will look like but it has to look good because it sets the tone for the rest of the day.....and somehow that screen makes everything look good....


as for production and sets: i think most TV productions and DP simply replaced the cameras....and are slowly finding out that they can do with one or 2 trucks less gear all of a sudden....but in some of those behind the scenes videos it does not look like it has sunken in yet...

and let's not forget that film, TV,...is union...so there have to be at least  15 random guys with headsets.....

it'll all change...
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2010, 10:33:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Awww. Why ruin a good story with the facts?  

Folks would much prefer to think that a million dollar TV production can be shot with an $800 camera, just like the one that they own, and probably hand-held by one person as well.

Michael

Here's the story: House Season Finale Filmed Entirely with Canon 5D Mark II

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-...non-5d-mark-ii/

Some quotes:

"@MVRamunno: What is the difference in how it looks on a TV screen compared to a regular camera?

Greg Yaitanes: richer. shallow focus pulls the actors faces to forground [sic]"

"@klizma: How did you manage to stabilize the camera in tight spaces? Any special kind of brackets?

GY: no. mostly gave it a hand held feel. or on a small tripod"

"This is quite an endorsement for Canon, with a network giant entrusting the finale of one of its most popular shows to the 5D Mark II "

"In 2008, House was distributed in a total of 66 countries. With an audience of over 81.8 million worldwide, it was the most watched television show on the globe and far surpassed the viewership figures of the leading TV dramas the previous two years"
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 10:50:18 AM by lisa_r » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad