«1

Comments

  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    Lets hope it does not give Nikon ideas on prices when they bring their next high megapixel camera.
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    The lens prices are pretty reasonable and it appears that a good range of them are on the way.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    It is pretty interesting, especially the pricing vs. other MF systems.

    Some ongoing discussion in this thread:

    http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/874/d800-compared-to-medium-format-digital-backs
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    edited April 2014
    I looked for that on going and didn't find it. Thanks for the link. I believe that Hasselblad has the most to lose. Mamiya maybe too. Looks like a dream system for landscapes where weight is much improved over a wooden 8x10 field box.
    Post edited by FreezeAction on
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,349Member
    It is not an off brand - pentax was a well established brand back in the 35mm film era.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    This appears from my point of view to be aimed more toward the Hassleblad, et al. crowd. The lenses are rather slow, albeit also inexpensive. The sensitivity of the sensor is the apparent characteristic which sets it apart from other medium format bodies. And, the price is of course a very significant bit less than the others as well.

    It is a quite attractive package, not for me, but for a lot of folks who want medium format with less than 1/4th the cost of a Hassy.

    Msmoto, mod
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    It is not an off brand - pentax was a well established brand back in the 35mm film era.
    By Off Brand I only meant "Not Nikon". Friends in old camera club used them in the 90's with film and their work was excellent.

  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    And technically speaking its Ricoh, not Pentax. :p
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,349Member
    Yes, Ricoh now still using the name Pentax.

    But here is the question: How does this company have the funds to develop a medium format sensor, body and lens system while Nikon does not?

    Another question: when the soon expected 50mp Nikon FX sensor appears will there really be any significant advantage to buying a whole new system just to get a larger sensor; especially when we are now seeing lenses like the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art appear? It just seems to me the "need" as opposed to the "want" for medium format is diminishing.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,176Member
    edited April 2014
    Pentax doesn't make sensors for their cameras, almost all of them are from Sony. As for the MF sensor, I think it is similar to the ones used by Hassy and Phase One, basically and off the shelf sensor. Pentax was already into medium format during the film days, so they already had lenses for the mount.

    Nikon on the other hand has little or no experience in MF. Considering how good the D800 is, I see no reason for them to go there either.

    MF is a totally different ball game, and has some different applications. Some publishers simply require their photographer to use Hassy for Phase One bodies.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    From what I've been taught firmware even, then larger pixels = less noise. 50MP CMOS full frame would by simple math be smaller than those of a 50MP medium format. The need comes when very large enlargements are made in landscape photos. You can't always stitch multiples together in a blowing wind. 50MP medium format opens a big door for panoramas without stitching. 30x72" gallery wraps become very doable. With stitched 50MP medium format on a good day 5'x12' photos become reality. I often go to a mall that features even larger single prints. There is a market for very large prints.
  • WesleyWesley Posts: 67Member

    Another question: when the soon expected 50mp Nikon FX sensor appears will there really be any significant advantage to buying a whole new system just to get a larger sensor; especially when we are now seeing lenses like the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art appear? It just seems to me the "need" as opposed to the "want" for medium format is diminishing.
    Best to go rent one & try it out yourself.

    MP gap is closing so what else do you get?
    The viewfinder is bigger. Perspective is different; around 80mm~ is like 50mm on full frame. You can change the backs. Leaf shutter for higher flash sync. More tonality. Waist level viewfinder on the film ones =P
    D700: 24-70 2.8, 85 1.8G
    D3100: 18-55
    A7II: 16-35 F4, 55 1.8, 70-200 F4
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,249Moderator
    If 24mp FX is so much better than 24mp DX, for sure it's time to sell those inadequate old FX cameras and git yussef one of those MF sensors... :P
    Always learning.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Pentax doesn't make sensors for their cameras, almost all of them are from Sony. As for the MF sensor, I think it is similar to the ones used by Hassy and Phase One, basically and off the shelf sensor. Pentax was already into medium format during the film days, so they already had lenses for the mount.

    MF is a totally different ball game, and has some different applications. Some publishers simply require their photographer to use Hassy for Phase One bodies.
    I've heard similar and multiple accounts that the sensor in the Pentax is the same as the Hassy H5D-50C. (I can't find anything to confirm that though.) Pentax's previous offering was only 14bit color like DSLRs which was one of the reasons it didn't take off with the MedFmt crowd and quite a few tests put the D800 performing the same. It will be interesting if it is 16 bit color (H5D-50C is) as that would be the cheapest 16bit camera to date.

    I do hope Ricoh keeps this system going. It's not that it is reasonable cost for most, but in terms of pushing the industry, this system continues to raise the bar. Consider currently a 645D goes for $6,200 (from $9,500 in 2010) or a 45% discount. In 4 years the used cost of this will be around $5,500 and at the pro DSLR cost level. Landscape/studio shooters will have to keep an eye on the price. To push DSLR IQ to the next significant level it will be 16bit color raw files not megapixels. Hopefully we see DSLRs get there soon.

    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Nikon made the lenses for the Zenza Bronica in the 1960's….a super camera and wonderful glass. Made the 2 1/4 film format almost affordable. Body was about $400-500 and lenses in the $200-400 as I remember… for those who wonder..
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zenza-Bronica-S2-w-nikon-Nikkor-P-75mm-f2-8-6x6-Medium-Format-EXC-From-Japan-/291124939518?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43c8660afe
    Msmoto, mod
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    @PB_PM: +1
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    Pentax's previous offering was only 14bit color like DSLRs which was one of the reasons it didn't take off with the MedFmt crowd and quite a few tests put the D800 performing the same. It will be interesting if it is 16 bit color (H5D-50C is) as that would be the cheapest 16bit camera to date.
    Its not 16bit, but 14bit still. I was pretty disappointed by that, but the camera is more of a FX camera on steroids than anything else, so it still seems like it will be easily marketable nonetheless. Its also the first MF camera to shoot video, so thats a bonus.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • itsnotmeyouknowitsnotmeyouknow Posts: 481Member
    I have the original 645D, and this is priced very competitively indeed. Must resist pressing the "Buy Me" button.....


    Resistance is futile....

    More info...


    http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-645z-officially-announced.html
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Its not 16bit, but 14bit still. I was pretty disappointed by that, but the camera is more of a FX camera on steroids than anything else, so it still seems like it will be easily marketable nonetheless. Its also the first MF camera to shoot video, so thats a bonus.
    Blah then. I did find it today as well on official release notes.
    Not that its a bad system, I'm sure it will be great. In that realm, I guess that is the trade-off. It must not be the same sensor as the Hassy as well then.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,176Member
    edited April 2014
    Dpreview is saying that it is the same sensor, which is the odd part.
    "The 645Z finds itself amongst some very pricey competitors, both of which use the same 50MP Sony sensor (with no AA filter, as you'd expect)."
    It is possible that it uses a lower end processor that cannot handle 16bit files.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    With my eyes now I doubt I could see a diff in 14 VS 16 bits as far as colors go. Maybe as far as transition 16 would be more "film" like. One primary diff I see in a 50mp FF and a 50mp MF is the format of 3:2 VS 4:3. 0 cropping on the MF for 60x80" prints. 0 cropping on a FF format for 44x66. Still there is the 44mm VS 36mm on the long side of the processor so in the end the MF with adequate glass may suffice for everything. I'd personally much rather see Nikon spend R&D money on FF than venture into MF. If they put 50 or more MP on a FF sensor then my question is how many current lenses with gold rings will resolve 50MP? In a span of 10 years I saw a state of the art Canon L lens go from great to less of a lens than a current Nikon 18-140mm kit lens on a D5300. Proof has been in the prints. Not from DXO. For me advancing the Expeed processor is more important than MF with Nikon. Who wouldn't like a D1000 40MP FF at 10 fps? It's only a question of who builds it Canon with up to three processors or Nikon with a single advanced Expeed if the things I've read here by people a lot more knowledgeable on the inter workings of the guts of the cameras have posted. All this makes me wonder what could Canon do with 3 Digic6 processors in a FF body if the fps were slowed to 10 fps? And what does Nikon have up their sleeves on the drawing boards for the next 5 years?
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,176Member
    edited April 2014
    I think 16bit is also important for dynamic range, not just added colour detail. Until the D800 came around MF ruled in terms of dynamic range, and I'm sure the new generation of MF sensors also took a leap forwards in that regard.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 859Member
    DR is very important to me so that makes me want 16 bits too. Ah why not 24 in a couple more years? The new Pentax body sells for less than an Ebony 8x10, at least their top of the line box. Then cost of glass is going to demand a price for what ever format. In reality a flagship Nikon and Pentax with Porters to lug around would be the ultimate solution. Everyone does not wear the same shoe size and every venue can't be photographed at their best by anyone combination of body/lens... I sure missed my fps last Saturday but the IQ of what I did get made up for it. Maybe the same thing holds true for MF. I'm not spending any more investment capital until after October regardless. By then the fruits of R&D will have fallen from the trees.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    The number of bits has nothing to do with dynamic range. There are plenty of 14-bit cameras with more DR than 16-bit digital backs.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,176Member
    edited April 2014
    Are you talking about the older CCD based MF sensors or the new CMOS versions that just came out this year?

    I believe the new CMOS MF sensors are superior to the D800, which up to now was slightly better than the older CCD based MF sensors. I don't know about a lot of 14bit cameras being better, but there are some. I only made that assertion since current Nikon bodies have more DR in 14bit mode than 12bit mode. It simply seems logical that a modern (from this years new 50MP sensor) 16bit MF file could have more DR as a result.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.