Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 645D vs D3x  (Read 73293 times)
mhecker*
Contributor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2011, 12:12:25 PM »
ReplyReply

By popular demand.

Here are links to the RAW images...   Smiley

http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_DSC3839.NEF

http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_IGP0111.DNG

Enjoy...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7762



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2011, 05:18:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The 645D is cleanly an amazing performer in absolute terms. It is totally in its own class in terms of value.

We can only hope that Canon/Nikon will be more realistic than Phaseone in assessing the value of their offering when pricing their next generation of high end products. The 1ds4 will be a first test of this and we can expect Nikon to follow suit like they did by pricing the D3x in the same bracket as the 1ds3.

Well done Pentax!

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2011, 05:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Miles,

Thanks for posting this and generously making the RAWs available. This is indeed a superior performance by the Pentax. hows that life is not all that bad for those of us with *only* 40MP  Wink

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2011, 05:55:51 PM »
ReplyReply

sorry if this is a dumb question, i haven't been following the pentax 645-  but is there a way of tethering this thing?

cheers paul
Logged

check my new website
http://www.paulrossjones.com
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2011, 07:41:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks to Miles for posting , but I must ask if anyone is surprised.  I would love to see a comparison to the Leica S2 or the comparable Phase (thanks Nick and Mark) and Hasselblad offerings.
Logged
mhecker*
Contributor
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2011, 07:46:12 PM »
ReplyReply

sorry if this is a dumb question, i haven't been following the pentax 645-  but is there a way of tethering this thing?

cheers paul

It kind of does.

See http://www.echenique.com/index.php/2010/09/25/pentax-645d-news/

You can shoot RAW in SD1 and save jpeg in SD2.  The eye-fi card in SD2 transmits the jpeg to Lightroom or an Ipad.
If you use a 6MP jpeg it takes about 2 seconds to transfer it.
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2011, 07:07:34 AM »
ReplyReply


The Eye-Fi option actually works ok. When I get around to my next update on the 645D I'll describe it in more detail, but if you do a search there's a Japanese photog who put a little video of this on the internet.

The small jpegs are respectably fact in transferring. The problem I was having was that the connection seemed to time-out and have to re-establish itself every once in  a while - which took closer to 15  seconds for the first shot.  i haven't had time to work out with the company whether that can be changed. With a PRO card you can do that straight to a laptop without a wireless network around.

There are a number of things about this setup that are sufficiently irritating that it would not really be an option on a high dollar-value production where the client or A/D needs to see the images stat. and with high reliability.

tsjanik: I hope to do a little head-to-head with the S2 when I see Mark in May.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Radu Arama
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2011, 10:44:21 AM »
ReplyReply

The Eye-Fi option actually works ok. When I get around to my next update on the 645D I'll describe it in more detail, but if you do a search there's a Japanese photog who put a little video of this on the internet.

- N.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6GdxDyP1w

Radu
Logged
MattBeardsley
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2011, 01:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting to see... Thanks for sharing (especially the RAW files!)  Side-by-side in Lightroom, the medium format file has so much more detail and is an easy file to work with (wish Hasselblad files worked with Lightroom and Adobe lens corrections!)

Aside from image quality, do you enjoy shooting the 645D?

~Matt
Logged

Matt Beardsley, Oakland, CA
The Artist:  http://mattbeardsleyphoto.com
The Nerd:  http://photoartsmonthly.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2011, 02:36:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you!

Quite interesting actually. I'm much surprised by the differences in color.

Best regards
Erik


By popular demand.

Here are links to the RAW images...   Smiley

http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_DSC3839.NEF

http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_IGP0111.DNG

Enjoy...
Logged

kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 721


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2011, 03:07:07 PM »
ReplyReply

By popular demand.

Here are links to the RAW images...   Smiley
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_DSC3839.NEF
http://wyofoto.com/Pentax_645D/_IGP0111.DNG
Enjoy...

hello I just made a tif from the d3x NEF with Nikons Capture nx2.5  - the way i like to use it.
NX2 renders softer than lightroom and it has better (other) fine detail. I like it a lot better than the more graphical rendered nef provided.
but see for yourself...
When I downsample the pentax to 24mp i see it is still a lot better than the Nikon when it comes to detail. I would like to see the nikon picture taken with an equal expensive lens as the pentax ( nikkor 45mm PCE) and without the sensor filter glass.
Maybe it would improve ...


http://www.beeld.nu/d3x/_DSC3839kers-NX2.tif

« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 06:39:47 PM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2011, 06:22:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Miles for providing some clear exampless of the resolution differences between these two cameras. It's good to be able to quantify the improvement. But let's face it, it would be very surprising if a 40mp sensor which has about  1.6x the area of a 24mp sensor did not show a clear resolution advantage, just as it would be very surprising if the 21mp 5D Mk2 did not show a resolution advantage over the 12.7mp 5D.

Looking at the DXOMark graphs for these two cameras, I see that the D3x still has a significant DR advantage at equal print sizes, of the order of a full stop, and even more than a full stop at high ISO. However, the test results for the other parameters, SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity, are about the same for both cameras.

This suggests to me that the higher resolution of the 645D is its only advantage, and an advantage which is greatest when the composition requires a 4:3 aspect ratio. If the composition requires a 3:2 aspect ratio, the 645D effectively becomes a 35.5mp camera with a sensor about 1.22x the area of FF 35mm.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2011, 06:44:13 PM »
ReplyReply

hello I just made a tif from the d3x NEF with Nikons Capture nx2.5  - the way i like to use it.
NX2 renders softer than lightroom and it has better fine detail. I like it a lot better than the more graphical rendered nef provided.
but see for yourself...
http://www.beeld.nu/d3x/_DSC3839kers-NX2.tif


Thanks for showing this, but I don't see better fine detail compared with my rendition with ACR 6.3. In fact, just the opposite. I still see the slight mushiness of foliage in your Capture NX2.5 version that others have commented on earlier in the thread.

Below are two comparisons at 200% of your version and my attempt using ACR 6.3. However, this is not a default conversion. I retrieved maximum detail with the detail slider set at 0.8 pixels and applied a sharpening of 50% at the same radius.

Of course we're into heavy pixel-peeping at 200%  Grin .

Can you see the differences in these compressed jpegs of screen grabs?
Logged
Dennis Carbo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2011, 07:09:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Left one and Top one have better detail to my eye - really pixel peeping though
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2011, 08:08:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Aside from image quality, do you enjoy shooting the 645D?

I love shooting the 645D. It's my favourite camera to use in ages.  Using it makes me want to shoot.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2011, 10:33:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh! My God! What have I done! The last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from buying a 645D, but the truth must prevail. On the other hand, maybe I've become a victim of my own prejudices.

I've now downloaded the two RAW files, and have converted both images using the same sharpening methods in ACR 6.3, ie. detail at maximum, pixel radius at 0.8, sharpening at 50.

The D3X crop is at 200% and the 645D crop at 150%, so that both images appear the same size on screen.

At this extreme level of pixel-peeping there are differences for sure. The finer detail of the 645D is apparent, but is it really significant considering that such a print would be 3 metres wide at this degree of enlargement (on an HD 1920x1080 monitor)?

Is there a flaw in my procedure? Does ACR 6.3 not favour the 645D?

It would be appreciated if someone would attempt to replicate these results. I attempted to get the same color and tonality in both images by using a different WB in ACR, then later used Autocolor in Photoshop, which lightened the sky considerably but produced more realistic greenery, in my view.
Logged
Leping
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2011, 10:47:43 PM »
ReplyReply

You can easily see from your crops that the Nikon thicken the tree branch's true sizes, the "low-resolution sensor line-thickening effect".
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 10:51:09 PM by Leping » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2011, 11:07:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A good point. I made smaller prints (crops corresponding to 53x83 cm). These were A4s with a 33% crop of the full image. Colors were adjusted in Photoshop so color and tonality was similar.

When looking at the print at short distance, like 25 cm the difference is very significant. At arms length distance I cannot see a difference.

Deep shadow detail seems quite similar to me, but the Pentax has very different color. I also got the impression that the Pentax lens is a better performer than the Nikon. Astonishing! Leping has tested many Pentax lenses on a Canon with adapters and found them truly excellent so it is perhaps no absolute surprise.

Best regards
Erik




Oh! My God! What have I done! The last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from buying a 645D, but the truth must prevail. On the other hand, maybe I've become a victim of my own prejudices.

I've now downloaded the two RAW files, and have converted both images using the same sharpening methods in ACR 6.3, ie. detail at maximum, pixel radius at 0.8, sharpening at 50.

The D3X crop is at 200% and the 645D crop at 150%, so that both images appear the same size on screen.

At this extreme level of pixel-peeping there are differences for sure. The finer detail of the 645D is apparent, but is it really significant considering that such a print would be 3 metres wide at this degree of enlargement (on an HD 1920x1080 monitor)?

Is there a flaw in my procedure? Does ACR 6.3 not favour the 645D?

It would be appreciated if someone would attempt to replicate these results. I attempted to get the same color and tonality in both images by using a different WB in ACR, then later used Autocolor in Photoshop, which lightened the sky considerably but produced more realistic greenery, in my view.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2011, 11:16:34 PM »
ReplyReply

You can easily see from your crops that the Nikon thicken the tree branch's true sizes, the "low-resolution sensor line-thickening effect".


Yes you can. And in order to see the same on a print, the print would be about 3 metres x 2.5 metres, and you'd have to have your nose against it, or to be more precise, view the print from the same distance you view your monitor.

I'm certainly not denying the 645D produces a more detailed result. It would be very strange if it didn't. I'm just trying to get a handle on the circumstances where such an improved resolution might be appreciated.

The initial examples in this thread showed the D3X image as having a slightly mushy appearance, a bit like a P&S jpeg. This now appears to me as a biased presentation. We now have the RAW files, thanks to Miles, and my impression has now changed.  I wonder if that the resolution increase, compared with the D3X, is significant in practice.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2011, 09:39:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

A good point. I made smaller prints (crops corresponding to 53x83 cm). These were A4s with a 33% crop of the full image. Colors were adjusted in Photoshop so color and tonality was similar.

When looking at the print at short distance, like 25 cm the difference is very significant. At arms length distance I cannot see a difference.

Deep shadow detail seems quite similar to me, but the Pentax has very different color. I also got the impression that the Pentax lens is a better performer than the Nikon. Astonishing! Leping has tested many Pentax lenses on a Canon with adapters and found them truly excellent so it is perhaps no absolute surprise.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Erik,
I agree. Lenses are a very important factor when buying a new system. I switched from the Minolta SLR 35mm film camera to Canon 35mm SLR years ago, before I bought my fist DSLR, basically because Canon had invented the Image Stabilisation system and offered a decent 100-400 IS zoom at an affordable price.

I now have a couple of Nikon DSLRs as a result of the excellent Nikkor 14-24/2.8. Any additional performance of the Nikon sensors, compared with Canon, is a bonus.

I've reconverted these RAW files from Miles using zero settings in ACR, a linear tone curve, same Daylight WB, but adjusted exposure to push both histograms equally far to the right without clipping.

I can see no differences in shadow noise, but these images are not ideal for DR comparisons.

What initially surprised me was the difference in exposure adjustments required to push the histograms to the same position, ie. +1.05 for the 645D, and +0.65 for the D3X. Whlist both images could be considered underexposed with regard to ETTR, the 645D is a good 1/3rd of a stop less exposed than the D3X image, according to ACR 6.3.

This could imply a different T/stop rating for the two lenses used, or a different ISO sensitivity for the two sensors.

Having just checked again the DXOMark results for these two cameras, I see that the true sensitivity for the 645D at ISO 100 is actually 104, and that for the D3X, ISO 78.

The difference between ISO 78 and ISO 104 would account very closely for the exposure differences between these two images. This comparison once again confirms the accuracy and relevance of DXOMark testing, and I'm also impressed that ACR 6.3 is able to reflect such accuracy.

What is most puzzling is the significant differences in color hue and saturation between these two images at the same Daylight WB setting in ACR.

One or both of these cameras need calibrating in ACR. I tend to get the impression the most natural result would be about half way betwee the two renditions.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 09:41:05 PM by Ray » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad