It is difficult to find full resolution images from this camera. Most, if not all I found were in a tiny 400x300 px box that does no say much about it.
Roland Karlsson: Hmmmm .... whatever it can do - it sure is ugly.
Thankfully you won't be taking pictures of it too often.
smafdy: As with most of their camera line up, Pentax offers the best in-class bang for the buck of any camera manufacturer. Considering the price point of this cam, leapfrogging the 'full frame' format is a valid product development strategy.
As for the two photogs in the article, the latter might be happier with an iPhone.
I think the second writer would like a Holga, for its magic, or perhaps a lomo konstruktor.
The Davinator: I've been enjoying my 645Z for a few months now. It is a fantastic tool that gives 4x5 film a serious run for its money. Once you get used to its files for landscape, 35mm FF seems puny in comparison.
If 70% difference is insignifican, then APS-C vs FF argument is pointless too. Yet it continues going on and on.
I wonder if there is anyone on the planet who wanted to use 645z for taking handheld pictures of random people around the park. I am sorry, but I really found some 50% of the latter review to be a waste of space.
It could summarized in one sentence: '645D is most suited for landscape and studio work, due to it's autofocus, portability issues and size that catches public attention'. There is no need to present three random snapshots and all the verbosity.
RPJG: "What I found was that this incredible camera wasn’t going to produce good photography by itself. It wasn’t going to let me passively walk in to a situation hoping to make a little bit of art out of it. I couldn’t just wander about with it and let set and setting determine what picture I was taking. The 645Z doesn’t like that. No, you have to be deliberate. The photo has to be in your head as an end goal, and only at that point does the 645Z become the tool to get the job done."
Seriously? This banal statement can be made about any camera ever made, maybe with the exception of using high-fps cameras to get a sporting shot.
And contrastingly from Ming Thein's review:
"Paradoxically, whilst most cameras benefit from being shot with the deliberation and care of medium format, this camera benefits from being shot like a DSLR – under such situations is where it’ll extend your image quality envelope enormously and bring previously unimaginable results."
This was the world's most obvious point. It made me shake my head a bit. How is it non-trivial, that when you point a camera on garbage, it will capture garbage?
I am no quite sure what was the point of including the latter writer.
jorg14: Granted for a working pro in a studio situation (rare for most of us) the Pentax would be a good tool. But do you really need the IQ the Pentax has over a good FF camera? Do your customers actually see the difference?For years I've lusted over full frame to replace my Leica M3 of old. But now I've come to the conclusion that APS-C is more than enough. In fact my latest toy is the Sony RX1002 and I've gotten some amazing pictures.
I think FF will be enough for most people. I am able to tell the difference between an M43 and APS-C camera on 12x18 inch shots or larger. I would imagine a 20x30 shot or more would show the difference between a Full-frame and medium format. But most people don't print larger than that.
Let me add that 20x30 inch on APS-C is probably about as high as I would go. I can already see quite a bit of grain and some softness from 1-2 ft viewing distance. It does not look terrible, but I think FF or medium format would look a lot better.
bigdaddave: I'll probably get suspended again but frankly the final result wasn't worth all the bother
Sure, but isn't it an interesting description that let you learn some techniques? Because I did learn a few things and that is the point of these articles.
I was hoping there would be a full frame mirrorless round up. It would be funny to see people argue why Sony shouldn't have won.
oldfogey: Please Note: My DPR Nov. 2009 suggestion to Olympus - Now I hope they look me up and at least offer me a free body for making the suggestion!
"An Ultraresolution Consumer grade SLR from Olympus?Nov 19, 2009
Now Hasseblad have done it - offered an ultraresolution camera which combines 4 images shifted by 1 pixel to generate full colour resolution matching the sensor resolution. The only drawback is the need to keep the camera and subject completely motionless during the process. Clearly Olympus (and Pentax/Sony) have to make a response - they already have sensor shift image stabilization - all (?) that is needed is new firmware to enable a similar mode of operation in their consumer grade cameras - and why stop with full pixel shifts - why not 1/2 pixel shifts? Providing a lense with the needed resolution is mounted and a sufficiently stable tripod is used we could see the introduction of a practical under $1k 40mp landscape/still life camera."
I think they should be able to do it in a single shutter slap. They would need to read out the signal at each position with an electronic 'shutter'. That could be quite a bit faster than a few FPS. The sensors are technically capable of taking 30, 60, 120 fps for movies and often more.
Matthew Miller: For what it's worth, we had this rumor for Pentax last year — http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52214695
This looks like it could be possible with a firmware tweak. Maybe it's not out of the books just yet.
That being said, we had full frame rumors since many, many years and none of them came to fruition.
straylightrun: Remember when dpreview used to be about actual news instead of rumors?
Well, stories like this do generate them profit - they attract a lot of attention.
I think it's ok, so long it is clearly stated it's a rumor and not a confirmed information (as it is).
completelyrandomstuff: Free advertising for Hasselblad - all the hate will generate a lot of brand awareness.
I don't know. This is the only thing that came to my mind that would explain what they are doing.
Free advertising for Hasselblad - all the hate will generate a lot of brand awareness.
firstname.lastname@example.org: Preferred the image before it was cropped. I don't think there was "way too much foreground" in the pre cropped image. The final image has dramatic light but is not quite compelling as a composition, in my opinion.
Thanks for posting your image and your thoughts, though.
I agree with the guys above... I am curious, why did you end up cropping with a somewhat central horizon? Did you want the lit clouds in 1/3rd?
RichRMA: Are any of these lenses likely to be as good as the old Olympus Super High Grade 4/3rds lenses? Or are they more akin to the High Grade in-terms of performance and build-quality?
Olympus claims that 40-150 is better than the 35-100, but it could be marketing at work.
DPreview: are you going to have a Hands On some times soon? Or did they not send you one of these yet?
Zvonimir Tosic: Totally not interested in zoom lenses. but I have to admit this one is good.
Price is comparable with the competition, and the street price will always be lower, and when it comes in kits, it will be dirt cheap. So for a lens with quality motor, best coating on the market, and the WR, this may be the only lens some user will ever need. Why it's not f4 constant? Well it starts at f3.5 and ends at f5.6, so average is f4 anyway.
Well done, Pentax engineers.
@iudex: The 16-45mm is even less versatile lens, than this 16-85, yet it has quite a following. Every manufacturer has one of those: Canon 15-85, Nikon 16-85, Sony 16-80, Olympus 12-60 and 12-50. They all have variable (and moderate) apertures, but the reason why every manufacturer has one is because it is very useful. I would gladly get one and replace my 16-45 with it.
It's not average F4, but it is easier to make a variable aperture lens and this one doesn't seem to compromise on the size. If the MTF charts are accurate and consistent for all focal lengths, this lens should be very good.