Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 25mm 645D lens vs D800  (Read 12317 times)
Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2012, 01:29:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Just called Pentax USA and was transferred to their 645D expert, who seemed extremely guarded.  He had no information on shipping date, when I discussed with him that it was listed at B&H for May 15 delivery, a date that by now had been removed.  He pointed out that the DA lens was a few ounces less and thought it would be optimized for the digital sensor with specific coatings, internal repression of reflection, and position of the rear element.  However, he had no concrete info in that regard and suggested I'd wait for the announcement and for the reviews that would come out at that time. 
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2012, 06:47:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The DA lens is 30g lighter, I hadn't noticed that so there is less of something and it's not the lens shade. In reading posts about the D800, it's clear that only the best glass can utilize the full resolution of the camera.  One advantage the 645D has is that it's less demanding of the lenses as a consequence of its larger sensor.  For example, my 120mm A and FA exceed the resolution of the sensor and the A version can be had for $500.
A few  other FA lenses are superb on the 645D and many other lenses including zooms are quite good.  The D800 may be "only" $3000, but by the time suitable lenses are acquired there would be little savings if any over a 645D system (except for the troublesome 25mm). Cheesy

Tom
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2012, 07:02:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The DA lens is 30g lighter, I hadn't noticed that so there is less of something and it's not the lens shade. In reading posts about the D800, it's clear that only the best glass can utilize the full resolution of the camera.  One advantage the 645D has is that it's less demanding of the lenses as a consequence of its larger sensor.  For example, my 120mm A and FA exceed the resolution of the sensor and the A version can be had for $500.

I am not sure that resolution in the center of the frame is close to being an issue with 36mp on FX.

On the other hand corner sharpness appears to become exponentially more challenging when you reach larger sensor sizes, especially if the lenses have to remain reasonably small, light and affordable.

The comparison between the excellent Leica S 120mm on the S2 (described by some as the best lens ever designed) and the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 on the D800 should speak for itself. The corners are better on the D800 in absolute terms although the Zeiss - expensive by 35mm standards - is 3 times cheaper.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2012, 08:44:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The cost of the 25mm is certainly way up there and a bone of contention for many.  It is also out of range for Pentax's customary philosophy of affordability paired with outstanding image quality and rigidity. 

However, when I look at the price from a business perspective I am wondering whether we are reasonable in our expectation.  All the other MFD manufacturers (Leica, Phase, Hasselblad, Rollei DFW) are charging on a price level similar to the "new" digital prices rather than Pentax' "old" MF film prices.  In fact, I find myself rather fortunate to have so much 1st class Pentax glass and equipment left from the "good old film" days. 

Moreover, IMHO Pentax exceeds some of the other manufacturers in terms of quality and longevity of their products.  I'd rather like to see them reduce their number of product lines and keep their philosophy of high quality and affordability.  I believe it's reasonable to blame Hasselblad, Phase, Leica, and Rollei/Schneider for their prices and it's rather unfortunate that Pentax is following that trend.  But I don't think they are the only ones to blame. 
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2012, 09:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

...On the other hand corner sharpness appears to become exponentially more challenging when you reach larger sensor sizes, especially if the lenses have to remain reasonably small, light and affordable...


Bernard:

I'm not a fan of cropped sensors, but an advantage of the reduced format of the 645D is that we don't see the corners. 
As for size, the 645 lenses are comparable in size and weight to Canon's 35mm lenses.  I'm convinced that the D800 is a great step forward in cameras, but I'm not selling my 645D; I might get a D800 however.

Tom
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2012, 09:21:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm convinced that the D800 is a great step forward in cameras, but I'm not selling my 645D; I might get a D800 however.

Tom,

Why would you, the 645D is obviously an amazing performer.

As mentioned above, I am personally in favor of simplicity and rationalization. If your needs enable you to standardize on a single platform, that would be my choice. I am of the opinion that the complexity and cost resulting from the parallel use of multiple camera platforms end up overcoming the limited advantages you may gain in some corner applications.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 487


« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2012, 09:22:57 PM »
ReplyReply



.......  All the other MFD manufacturers (Leica, Phase, Hasselblad, Rollei DFW) are charging on a price level similar to the "new" digital prices rather than Pentax' "old" MF film prices.  In fact, I find myself rather fortunate to have so much 1st class Pentax glass and equipment left from the "good old film" days....... 

 

Lacunapratum:

Like you, I am a long time Pentax user.  I came to the realization that the Pentax  we old-timers knew ceased to exist at the Hoya acquisition.  It's a different company; we just think we know it because of the name.

Tom
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2012, 09:43:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Tom,

Why would you, the 645D is obviously an amazing performer.

As mentioned above, I am personally in favor of simplicity and rationalization. If your needs enable you to standardize on a single platform, that would be my choice. I am of the opinion that the complexity and cost resulting from the parallel use of multiple camera platforms end up overcoming the limited advantages you may gain in some corner applications.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard:

Well, because the 25mm is 5k.

I  likely wont, but the prospect of a D800 and the 14-24 or Zeiss 21mm at the cost of a 645 25mm is tempting.  I use a K-5 as well as the 645D, so using two systems is not new.  Admittedly, the interface of the two cameras is very similar and they even use the same battery how convenient is that?   I expect that 645-sized sensors at a reasonable price are not too far in the future, so why invest in the 25mm DA, better to replace the K-5 with a D800 - perhaps Wink.
 
Tom
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2012, 09:50:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I expect that 645-sized sensors at a reasonable price are not too far in the future ...
Why do you expect that, beyond just hoping for it? I see no trends in prices or in IC fabrication technology or in sales volume and related economies of scale that point to a major downward price trend for sensors of roughly 54x42mm size.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2012, 10:39:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Why do you expect that, beyond just hoping for it? I see no trends in prices or in IC fabrication technology or in sales volume and related economies of scale that point to a major downward price trend for sensors of roughly 54x42mm size.

Well, although the actual sales figures are not known, it could be argued that the success of the 645D may have helped generate significantly more volume for sensor manufacturers. Dalsa must be pretty mad to have lost that deal to former Kodak.

This additional volume could put Pentax in a favorable position to negotiate more agressive pricing for the next generation of sensors.

Of course, we don't know if the next gen 645D would sell as well as the initial iteration, even if it is much better with a larger sensor, 60+ megapixels, live view,...

The reason being that a significant portion of the 645D sales are elder landscape shooters in Japan who are really not in a consumer-electronics-let-'s-buy-the-new-one-every-2-years kind of mentality... but anyway we do not care. It is enough for Pentax to build a business plan ambitious enough that they forecast sales figure high enough to get lower prices on sensors.  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Lacunapratum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2012, 11:32:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, unfortunately.  For me I am glad they gave these wonderful lenses a digital life and a superb body.  And I'll fall for the 25mm and their two wide zooms.  I am afraid that'll satisfy my needs for a while. 
Logged
DandA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2012, 12:31:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Just called Pentax USA and was transferred to their 645D expert, who seemed extremely guarded.  He had no information on shipping date, when I discussed with him that it was listed at B&H for May 15 delivery, a date that by now had been removed.  He pointed out that the DA lens was a few ounces less and thought it would be optimized for the digital sensor with specific coatings, internal repression of reflection, and position of the rear element.  However, he had no concrete info in that regard and suggested I'd wait for the announcement and for the reviews that would come out at that time.  

Besides the extended hood on the D FA 25mm, I suspect that additional coatings were probably applied to the new lens.  It's generally one of the first things manufactures add to exisiting lenses to improve their readiness for use on digital.  As for the reduced weight, it doesn't mean they eliminated anything.  It could simply be the change in fabrication of an internal part.  A smaller rear element as mentioned sounds plauseable, as this would also help with internal reflections.  Sounds like Pentax is trying to tweak the exisiting D FA 25mm to minimize certain problematic characteristics when that lens was used on the 645D and the newer DA 25mm is the by-product.

Dave (D&A)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 10:21:44 PM by DandA » Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2012, 05:54:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Why do you expect that, beyond just hoping for it? I see no trends in prices or in IC fabrication technology or in sales volume and related economies of scale that point to a major downward price trend for sensors of roughly 54x42mm size.

Im basing my expectation on past performance - risky for investments, less so for sensor development  Grin.  Who would have thought a few years ago that a 36 MP DSLR would be available for 3k?
What Bernard said; theres always a market for affordable quality.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2012, 08:08:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Im basing my expectation on past performance - risky for investments, less so for sensor development  Grin.  Who would have thought a few years ago that a 36 MP DSLR would be available for 3k?
Your prediction and my reply were about cost at a given sensor size (full 645) and indeed sensor price depends far more on size than on pixel count. On that point, the "past performance" that you refer to shows prices rather flat for some years at a given sensor size, at least for 36x24mm (has been at $3000 since the original 5D), and for what used to be e largest medium format, 48x36mm. The even larger near full 645 format sensors have not been around long enough to show a clear trend, but so far there has been no evidence of a downward price trend there either.
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #34 on: April 11, 2012, 09:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Time will tell if 645 sensors become affordable.  In any event, Im reluctant to invest in a reduced image circle lens.  It was a mistake for Pentax to abandon their FA series of 35mm lenses for the DA series.  Presumably they did this based on sensor costs 10 years ago.  Now that FF 35mm sensors are relatively inexpensive, Pentax finds itself limited by their lenses to an APS-C sensor.   
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #35 on: April 11, 2012, 03:39:51 PM »
ReplyReply

It was a mistake for Pentax to abandon their FA series of 35mm lenses for the DA series.  Now that FF 35mm sensors are relatively inexpensive, ...
That depends on one's standards for "inexpensive". With minimum 35mm format DSLR prices at $3000, and no downward price trend after the original Canon 5D, the vast majority of customers for interchangeable lens cameras surely still find 35mm format DSLRs way too expensive, so that formats "APS-C" continue to dominate sales. I suspect that Pentax probably would add little to its overall sales volume and revenue by competing in 35mm format head-on against the industry giants, Canon and Nikon, and so has decided to carve its own high-end niche with 44x33mm format instead, in territory where those two giants show no sign of venturing, and where Pentax, instead of the giants, has the advantage of an established lens user base.
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #36 on: April 11, 2012, 05:07:13 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sony 850 was(is?) certainly under $3000 and I would be surprised if Sony doesn't have a Nex 9 or something in the works using a FF sensor.  I suspect most serious buyers purchasing APS-C cameras expect they might upgrade to FF someday and buy lenses accordingly, if they have a choice.  Nikon had enough sense  to continue their FX lens line and produced few DX lenses well before they introduced a FX body.  When they did, they had a client base already invested in usable lenses.  I agree that it's too late for Pentax to compete with FF 35mm and the 645D is their niche; all the more reason not to introduce reduced image circle lenses.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3634



WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2012, 05:44:10 PM »
ReplyReply

The next generation of brand C or N, with a standard lens, will cost less than a brand H lenscap does now, and deliver the same resolution.

Oh, and by the way, 1600 ISO allows one to use a few tungsten bulbs in lieu of a truck load of flash.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2012, 06:57:20 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sony 850 was(is?) certainly under $3000 and I would be surprised if Sony doesn't have a Nex 9 or something in the works using a FF sensor.
The Sony A850 was a loss-leading failure, and was discontinued before its older sibling the A900 which Sony explained was because it mostly took sales from the A900, not from the competition. Anyway, the dominant 35mm format players are Canon and Nikon, so they are the ones with the economies of scale to push prices down, not Sony, and their pricing is the main measure of the market. And the latest Canon and Nikon models do not lower prices at all --- in fact, the Canon 5D Mk 3 is the most expensive in the 5D series.

Sony might offer a 35mm format mirrorless body, though that would require yet another line of lenses, because the current NEX lenses are clearly adapted to the smaller format (the focal lengths of the zooms in particular show this). But even if so, why would that lower prices for 35mm format to mainstream levels?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 06:58:56 PM by BJL » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2012, 07:41:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The Sony A850 was a loss-leading failure, and was discontinued before its older sibling the A900 which Sony explained was because it mostly took sales from the A900, not from the competition. Anyway, the dominant 35mm format players are Canon and Nikon, so they are the ones with the economies of scale to push prices down, not Sony, and their pricing is the main measure of the market. And the latest Canon and Nikon models do not lower prices at all --- in fact, the Canon 5D Mk 3 is the most expensive in the 5D series.

Sony might offer a 35mm format mirrorless body, though that would require yet another line of lenses, because the current NEX lenses are clearly adapted to the smaller format (the focal lengths of the zooms in particular show this). But even if so, why would that lower prices for 35mm format to mainstream levels?

I would expect Nikon to start playing in the cheaper FX body segment late next year, after they have filled the D800 demand.

My unsubstantiated guess is that the sensor is likely to be the one used by the D800 but in a D5100-D7000 type of lesser body around 2,000+ US$. It would probably be produced in Thailand.

This is the strategy they have been using for many years now: introduce a set of new technologies in a higher end body for which customers are willing to pay a price premium, democratize some of the core technologies (typically the sensor) 1+ year later.

From the onset, the price of the sensor in the upper model (the D800 this time around) takes into account the economies of scales that will result from many more units being sold further down the road thanks to the cheaper model to be released later. This helps them secure a very comfortable margin in the higher end model.

Fair for everyone, efficient since fewer sensors need to be designed and economically smart.

I never quite understood why Canon did not follow this model.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad