| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2010 12:27:44 AM · #1 |
Press Release
suggest retail $9,400
Message edited by author 2010-03-10 00:30:02. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 12:31:29 AM · #2 |
| Dynamic Range = 11.5f - stops |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 12:36:32 AM · #3 |
Not that much more than a D3x.......this will certainly put a cap onto Nikon & Canon's offerings.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 07:22:29 AM · #4 |
| You think? I'm kind of thinking it won't because they'll be like, "Look we offer something as good for less...." |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 07:34:17 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
You think? I'm kind of thinking it won't because they'll be like, "Look we offer something as good for less...." |
Yes, but when you see these fundamental specs like EOS 1D MkIV @ 16.1 for $5K, and the D3x @24.5 for $8K, why wouldn't you just go that extra few dollars for the medium format, 40MP?
All I'm saying is that as long as Nikon and Canon don't come out with medium format with something to match, they cartainly cannot continue to bring out more expensive cameras in the 35mm sensor size. The market won't bear it. I know if I had a spare $10K hanging around I'd sure want to take a hard look at what that medium format cfamera could do as opposed to the smaller sensor.
But what do I know? I'm using a five year old crop sensor camera, and am not the cutting edge customer anyway.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 07:41:37 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
You think? I'm kind of thinking it won't because they'll be like, "Look we offer something as good for less...." |
Yes, but when you see these fundamental specs like EOS 1D MkIV @ 16.1 for $5K, and the D3x @24.5 for $8K, why wouldn't you just go that extra few dollars for the medium format, 40MP?
All I'm saying is that as long as Nikon and Canon don't come out with medium format with something to match, they cartainly cannot continue to bring out more expensive cameras in the 35mm sensor size. The market won't bear it. I know if I had a spare $10K hanging around I'd sure want to take a hard look at what that medium format cfamera could do as opposed to the smaller sensor.
But what do I know? I'm using a five year old crop sensor camera, and am not the cutting edge customer anyway. |
The market for a pro level d3x/Mk IV are fundamentally different from that of a medium format camera. Apples and oranges. Try shooting a sporting event/photojournalism with a medium format haha.
BTW: If you're just speaking megapixels here, the Mamiya has been out for awhile, nearly the same price with nearly the same resolution...
Message edited by author 2010-03-10 07:43:30. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 07:57:24 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
The market for a pro level d3x/Mk IV are fundamentally different from that of a medium format camera. Apples and oranges. Try shooting a sporting event/photojournalism with a medium format haha.
BTW: If you're just speaking megapixels here, the Mamiya has been out for awhile, nearly the same price with nearly the same resolution... |
Well, from the looks of that Pentax, it just doesn't seem like it's as bulky and cumbersome as the medium formats of yore. I would think that would be attractive, especially as pro level DSLRs seem to be getting heavier and heavier. Do the DSLRs offer something that the medium format doesn't as far as capability? I really know nothing about them. To me, a medium format camera was always a huge, tripod only, landscape camera. This Pentax doesn't look like that. Of course, I also haven't physically seen it, it could be the size of a Buick for all I know! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 08:05:05 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Well, from the looks of that Pentax, it just doesn't seem like it's as bulky and cumbersome as the medium formats of yore. I would think that would be attractive, especially as pro level DSLRs seem to be getting heavier and heavier. Do the DSLRs offer something that the medium format doesn't as far as capability? I really know nothing about them. To me, a medium format camera was always a huge, tripod only, landscape camera. This Pentax doesn't look like that. Of course, I also haven't physically seen it, it could be the size of a Buick for all I know! LOL!!! |
I think the smaller size might be due to the fact that this doesn't appear to be a medium format camera! I thought MF had film sizes of 645, or 6 by 4.5 cm (60 x 45 mm). The specs for this camera are 44 x 33 mm, quite a bit smaller than traditional MF film cameras. Unless I missed something. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 08:06:17 AM · #9 |
| The ISO range is 200-1000 with a boost to 1600. I wonder how the low light/low noise performance compares to the Nikon lineup. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 08:13:46 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Well, from the looks of that Pentax, it just doesn't seem like it's as bulky and cumbersome as the medium formats of yore. I would think that would be attractive, especially as pro level DSLRs seem to be getting heavier and heavier. Do the DSLRs offer something that the medium format doesn't as far as capability? I really know nothing about them. To me, a medium format camera was always a huge, tripod only, landscape camera. This Pentax doesn't look like that. Of course, I also haven't physically seen it, it could be the size of a Buick for all I know! LOL!!! |
Originally posted by brownsm:
I think the smaller size might be due to the fact that this doesn't appear to be a medium format camera! I thought MF had film sizes of 645, or 6 by 4.5 cm (60 x 45 mm). The specs for this camera are 44 x 33 mm, quite a bit smaller than traditional MF film cameras. Unless I missed something. |
Dammit, Jim! We've been hoodwinked! LOL!!!
I was just looking at the $30K Hasselblads, and their sensor isn't 645, either.....
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 08:19:05 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by brownsm:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Well, from the looks of that Pentax, it just doesn't seem like it's as bulky and cumbersome as the medium formats of yore. I would think that would be attractive, especially as pro level DSLRs seem to be getting heavier and heavier. Do the DSLRs offer something that the medium format doesn't as far as capability? I really know nothing about them. To me, a medium format camera was always a huge, tripod only, landscape camera. This Pentax doesn't look like that. Of course, I also haven't physically seen it, it could be the size of a Buick for all I know! LOL!!! |
I think the smaller size might be due to the fact that this doesn't appear to be a medium format camera! I thought MF had film sizes of 645, or 6 by 4.5 cm (60 x 45 mm). The specs for this camera are 44 x 33 mm, quite a bit smaller than traditional MF film cameras. Unless I missed something. |
I'm not going to claim to be an expert in this field, but I've been reading around since I first heard about the Hasselblad H3DII 50. A bit of an explanation on how the size relates to MF can be found here at luminous landscape. Having not been in on the film days of MF, I'm positive there are far more informed people on this site that will add to this conversation a bit later today.
Referring to the size, the new digital MF backs aren't really that much larger than the DSLR's we are more accustomed to here on DPC. One huge difference in appearance/size is in the pentaprism though, which is gigantic by comparison (just like a D700/5DMKII is bigger than a D300/7D).
There are other options for digital backs out there, with a higher (according to dxomark's ratings) dynamic range. Hasselblad, Phase One, Leaf, and Mamiya all make varieties. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 08:25:08 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Referring to the size, the new digital MF backs aren't really that much larger than the DSLR's we are more accustomed to here on DPC. One huge difference in appearance/size is in the pentaprism though, which is gigantic by comparison (just like a D700/5DMKII is bigger than a D300/7D).
There are other options for digital backs out there, with a higher (according to dxomark's ratings) dynamic range. Hasselblad, Phase One, Leaf, and Mamiya all make varieties. |
Okay....for me the question would be, will these camers produce a markedly better image? Or are we getting to the point where the technology is exceeding the human eye's ability to detect the difference?
|
|
|
|
03/10/2010 12:41:19 PM · #13 |
now, I know that this is not the only variable that accounts for image quality, but I found it surprising that my 5D has a lower pixel density than this new "MF" camera. The pixel size of the 5D calculates to about 66 square micrometers (about 8 microns on a side) vs 36 sq microns (6 microns on a side) for the new 645. So, in theory, with all other variables the same, my 5D gathers more light per pixel than the MF pentax. Now, if it had been a true MF size sensor, about 44 x 58 mm, then it would have the same pixel density as the 5D.
Does this MF camera have too many pixels for its own good? |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 01:11:04 PM · #14 |
| I honestly believe a lot of the current batch of digital cameras, particularly the P&S variety, have too many pixels. I think my 7D has too many pixels. Because the consumer always wants "more", the manufacturers give it to them even when it is not needed, and worse, when it is not advised. But that's just me. |
|
|
|
03/10/2010 06:41:28 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay....for me the question would be, will these camers produce a markedly better image? Or are we getting to the point where the technology is exceeding the human eye's ability to detect the difference? |
Yes but for a few different reasons.
1. No AA filter
2. Almost double the dynamic range.
3. Larger pixels means you can stop down further before become diffraction limited.
Obviously will appeal to lansdscape, studio or even wedding photographers moreso than PJ's but it becomes an interesting platform for those who believe in having the right tool for the right job.
If we believe rumour and hearsay then we'll see an internaltional release in the near future, (japan only atm), with pricing of USD $6500.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 02:58:29 AM · #16 |
wedding photographers? MF cameras can't focus that quick you know, or shoot that fast. You're doing really well if you get 1.5 fps from a mf system, and doing really really good if noise doesn't kill everything at ISO 1000, and doing even better if you can focus worth a damn in the dark... yes, you can manual focus of course.
MF cameras are designed for studios and landscapes. Sure, you could use one for a wedding but I wouldn't consider it a viable option compared to a modern SLR where you can shoot 5 fps at ISO 4000.
With regards to the resolution, we'll see 40mp in compact cameras in about 5 yrs time. The way to maximise resolution is to shoot 120 film (or larger) and scan it at huge DPI. You can create 120mp shots this way, with the dynamic range of film and the color depth it affords. It's also cheaper for the bodies and lenses, but you run up subsidiary costs in developing and scanning, but you can buy that equipment yourself I suppose for about $2000 all in for a beast of a scanner.
Digital backs will eventually catch up to the versatility and usability of SLRs (the mamiya 6 film camera came as close as any I've seen), but this isn't it. Still, I'd like one for my landscape and portrait work.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2010 04:44:15 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Tez:
wedding photographers? MF cameras can't focus that quick you know, or shoot that fast. You're doing really well if you get 1.5 fps from a mf system, and doing really really good if noise doesn't kill everything at ISO 1000, and doing even better if you can focus worth a damn in the dark... yes, you can manual focus of course. |
Actually my 20 yo medium format camera is pretty quick in terms of AF and this new body will have the most advanced AF system not only for medium format but for any previous Pentax DSLR by the looks of it. Hell it even supports the Pentax version of what you'd know as USM.
Obviously MF wouldn't be the first choice for the actual ceremony when inside a church/chapel but for any outdoor poses it would be great. Just means that instead of a FF and APS-C combination, togs would carry a FF and MF combination and use each to their strength. Just having one available provides a marketing advantage to those who choose to follow this path.
bazz. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 02:38:04 PM · #18 |
a marketing advantage... how exactly? Do you think brides are gonna give a damn if you say you use a medium format system? Do you think they all understand what that means? Or, do you think it might come across as being pretentious and missing the point?
If I saw a wedding photographer who advertised that they "use a canon 1ds mk III with a 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens to get the shots YOU want!" I'd be a little weirded out. What has this to do with anything relevant to a bride? Not a great deal.
I'm sorry. I don't think this camera is anything special. It isn't full medium format (41.5 x 56mm), but kind of a cropped sensor MF (33 x 44mm, which is only 27% linearly than full frame SLR), as weird as that sounds. I think the 'medium format' label is pushing it a bit.
I appreciate yes, that different systems are for different purposes, but I cannot imagine carrying a medium format system as well as a regular SLR system. What a pain in the ass... the advantages of using a cropped sensor/ff combo is that you can use the same lenses on either body thereby playing to the strengths of each format.
Another reason I think this camera sucks is the shutter rating of 50,000 in a camera that costs what it does. I think this camera will sell because of the resolution... and we all know where that goes and that it fundamentally means nothing, like I said before, we'll see P&S cameras boasting this in a few years time, but the ones that were 7mp will still take better pictures.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2010 05:13:45 PM · #19 |
| About time! I loved my Pentax 645 (film). Big negative, felt like shooting with a 35mm SLR. And this sucker is compatible with the full line of existing 645 lenses, sweet. Gotta get back to work so I can pick one of these guys up. |
|
|
|
03/11/2010 07:39:19 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Tez:
a marketing advantage... how exactly? Do you think brides are gonna give a damn if you say you use a medium format system? Do you think they all understand what that means? Or, do you think it might come across as being pretentious and missing the point? |
Well a bride may not understand the difference between medium and small format camera systems but if a photographer can't find a way to use the much improved image, (and print), quality of MF as a market differentiator then it's not our problem. Medium format was very popular with wedding photographers in the film days and I suspect could be in the digital era for exactly the same reasons.
Originally posted by Tez:
I'm sorry. I don't think this camera is anything special. It isn't full medium format (41.5 x 56mm), but kind of a cropped sensor MF (33 x 44mm, which is only 27% linearly than full frame SLR), as weird as that sounds. I think the 'medium format' label is pushing it a bit. |
Probably not fair to compare MF and 135 linearly as they're two different ratios. If both were 3:2 then we'd be comapring apples with apples but 1.7x the sensor area is a more relevant comparo. Medium format, (ie. 645), is a mount rather than a frame size. As you know, even in the film days there were many subtly different frame sizes for medium format and it's no different in the digital era however if someone truly wants a sensor close to 41x56mm then a Phase One digital back at around $40K is always an option.
This camera is obviously aimed at the middle ground for people who want more DR, (always good when shooting black suits adjacent to white wedding dresses), more detail, (no AA filter), and don't partularly care for the 3:2 ratio of small format.
Originally posted by Tez:
I appreciate yes, that different systems are for different purposes, but I cannot imagine carrying a medium format system as well as a regular SLR system. What a pain in the ass... the advantages of using a cropped sensor/ff combo is that you can use the same lenses on either body thereby playing to the strengths of each format. |
Yup fair enough too and although off topic I might add that I do occasionally use my MF lenses on my DSLR, (via an adapor of course).
Originally posted by Tez:
Another reason I think this camera sucks is the shutter rating of 50,000 in a camera that costs what it does. |
Well at least we agree on one thing. :)
Assuming it failed exactly at 50K every time, it would be a real pita to have the shutter replaced every 50K actuations. Sure one could argue that MF is not meant as a spray and pray body like we see with smaller formats but 50K actuations is not a long lifespan even at consumer level.
Originally posted by Tez:
I think this camera will sell because of the resolution... and we all know where that goes and that it fundamentally means nothing, like I said before, we'll see P&S cameras boasting this in a few years time, but the ones that were 7mp will still take better pictures. |
Yup because larger pixels are always better, (with equal technology). Here we're getting 1.7x the area of a 135 format sensor and at half the cost of it's closest MF competitor. MF will always provide better image quality than fullframe 135 just as fullframe will always be better than APS-C.
I'm considering making the move to digital MF as I already have the lenses, flashes, remotes etc. for this body but having said that I might wait for the white version to be released. :)
bazz. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 10:10:22 PM · #21 |
| I had one in my hands for a few minutes yesterday as I was passing through Yodobashi Camera. A heavy thing, even without the batteries. I didn't like the eyepiece, which is circular and seemingly too small - but it screws off, so I guess there are several options regarding that, like even trying live-view. Next time I go, I'll take an SD card with me and keep a few shots. ;-) |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 12:10:04 AM · #22 |
| Here's the Luminous Landscape review with video Pentax 645D review |
|
