raztec: Pardon my ignorance, but what can these cameras and lens combination do that a Nikon D810 with a pro lens can't for 1/4 the price?
How fast doezzzzzzzzzz one have to be to shoot a bee? Catch the thing in a jar holding a cotton ball dabbed with FlyNap and you're done. The Pentax 645Z is about as fast as my Canon 5d2; which is pretty darn quick for medium format :)
Teila Day: I've got the feeling that Hasselblad will be dropping the price of their cameras and lenses a lot more in the future. A 15% discount on a $8100 Hasselblad lens doesn't pass the "good business sense" test for me.
Hasselblad either needs to add a lot more to what the lens offers, or a lot more to what the camera offers at those prices. It was different when Hasselblad was about the only stable game in town, but times are a'changing and Hasselblad really, really needs to bring more to the table.
Overpriced? Heck no! ... if people are paying for it. The question is, are people paying for enough lenses/bodies to make it all worth while for Hasselblad, and I suspect not... and that would be a problem.
The cameras are already cut down to 60% of their usual price, and falling. If Pentax gets off its behind and offers 3-4 great leaf lenses + decent software and some refinement changes to the 645Z, Hasselblad will face a far greater challenge to say the least.
'Blad needs to regroup.
Not likely. If you ran a successful business and your production costs went down, you don't lower your prices, you keep your prices and reap the benefit of increased profit. Hasselblad is slashing prices as if they're struggling (or see impending doom) to my eyes.
To me, Hasselblad's actions are indicative of poor corporate performance in the "net profit" department.
(chuckle) yes, just like the "experts" (I'm not being a sass, I'm agreeing with you) used to proclaim that you could't hand hold a 12mp Nikon D2x without extreme care because of its great resolution.
80 or 100mp is hand hold-able when using common sense.
I recall Nikon "experts" swearing on high, that Nikon would never go 'full frame'.... (as if Nikon had a choice).
I've got the feeling that Hasselblad will be dropping the price of their cameras and lenses a lot more in the future. A 15% discount on a $8100 Hasselblad lens doesn't pass the "good business sense" test for me.
I'm just glad shooting cameras without that darn low-pass filter is an option today. Good riddance. Such was long a reality in medium format.
1. Sync at 1/800th shutter (Phase will sync at 1/1600th).
2. Offer a far more pleasing aspect ratio to a lot of photographers.
3. You can see and capture more of the "scene" using that aspect ratio and the same mm lens. Meaning, using a 100mm lens on a D810 and a Hasselblad, you'll see more of the total scene using the larger format camera.
4. Using the same focal length, you're able to get closer using the larger format camera, which, plays a role in manipulating the depth of field.
5. Depth of field falloff is slower, meaning the larger sensor camera will go from in focus to out of focus area via a smoother transition.
6. 50mp, things are a bit (not a whole lot) bigger with a bit more detail, which is nice for macros.
7. Whites will not blow out as quickly on the larger sensor camera. There's just more colour info to work with.
Shoot a macro of a bee's face using a D810/5Dsr vs. using a 100mp medium format back, and the benefit will be quickly obvious to you.
jthommo101: I had this lens but sold it; it was simply not as sharp at 400mm as the venerable 400/5.6. Not up to the mark for serious birding, I'm afraid.
I use VR/IS when shooting diving brown pelicans, and other birds because irrespective of whether or not you're shooting a bird in flight, stabilization (in lens or IBIS) aids in being able to place the bird (or any other object such as aircraft) where you want it in the frame.
It's also great for children photography; more able to maintain erratically moving children where you want in the frame/composition much better than without stabilization.
Petroglyph: Thank you for the review. I've used this leans for nearly a year and I don't find anything to quibble with in the review. It is one of my favorites but limited by its size and slow aperture more for some things than indicated here. I wouldn't use it for studio portraits, for example, even though one could in theory.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is a VERY popular studio lens, especially for 3/4 shots, etc.. Even on a 1.5x crop it's easily doable, and preferred, for many things in the studio setting. Same with the 135 f/2 and 200 f/2. Thus, the 100-400 lens can work as well for many photographers. The problem is that in a dimly lit studio when not using modeling lights, the f/4 lens might hunt focus whereas a faster lens (e.g. 70-200 f/2.8) would not in many scenarios... even when using ambient window light.
All of those lenses excel on full frame bodies in studio, as you have the increased focal length, allowing one to get closer to the subject and manipulate the background better in many instances as opposed to using a 85mm or 100mm lens.
Looks like a nice overhaul of a nice lens.
Jon Ragnarsson: If this was a Canon or Nikon, people would be going crazy over it. Such an underrated cameras.
I'm not "basically" saying anything. I'm SPECIFICALLY saying things. Don't incorrectly assume what hasn't been said.
The K-1 came too late, as many Nikon shooters are already saddled up with the D800 series and Canon shooters with the 5D series with established lenses in both of those camps. I fully realize what the K-1 is to the market, and couldn't be more glad for Pentax and the affect it will have on other manufacturers in the next iteration of their cameras (that's where the affect of the K-1 will mostly be).
"You love Pentax cameras but hate all the lenses? Even when you have no knowledge of their performance (150-450 is excellent optically).....Weird. Anyways best of luck!"
Please read constructively and stop presupposing. What I plainly said is that I love the *brand*. Pentax digital bodies didn't appeal to me personally until the 645Z. I find the K-1 very appealing. I've enjoyed Pentax film cameras for decades; if I "hated" Pentax lenses I wouldn't own them.
"FA*250-600 f5.6" doesn't compete with high quality primes, f/5.6 + zoom lens usually equates to poor teleconverter performance compared to comparable primes.
D-FA 150-450 ... usually when you have a huge zoom range, quality suffers noticeably compared to primes, and premium zooms with a very small zoom range. For all I know, Pentax pulled a rabbit out of the hat, and they're able to get stellar image quality and colour rendition with a lens that offers a 3x zoom range.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's highly improbable.
Let me be clear so that I'm not misunderstood. I am not saying that Pentax is inadequate, sub par or is a bad "system". It isn't on all accounts. I'm saying (accurately) that Pentax is behind, having to catch-up if it wants a piece of the high-line market.
K-1 would've *really* shook the *entire* premium DSLR market up had Pentax offered it several years ago. Pentax gets a strong A++ for K-1 and 645 series. I love the brand.
B&H; I put FF Pentax Lenses as my search criteria:
Not much that will compel a Canon/Nikon shooter (especially pro) to even think about switching "systems".
Schneider is great as I've posted many times; also pricey. Not only (fast/modern) leaf shutter lenses for *any* of their 645, but modern lenses that aren't screw driven. It's 2016 for Pete's sake! Pentax should've had mostly silent AF FF lenses 5-10 years ago. I love my 120mm f/4, but sheesh... whirr whirr whirr... letting everyone in the city know it's hunting focus.
Priolite = great! but I'm still trying to get a handle on their quality before I buy. B&H won't carry them for some reason. The tech is excellent; makes sync speed irrelevant. Will drive the hi-cost of big packs down.
WA= 28-45 f/4.5 seems like a 645 winner!
200 f/4 vs. 200 f/2? (chuckle)
There's no "argument". I didn't mention whether or not Pentax was a "fine system". The fact is that many photographers would gladly purchase a Pentax if Pentax offered solutions on par with what they're used to having in their camera bag from Nikon/Canon.
Pentax 85 f/1.2? (portraits)Pentax 135 f/2.0? (portraits)Pentax 300 f/2.8?Pentax 400 f/2.8?Pentax 200 f/2.0? (portraits)
Pentax 200-400 f/4? Nikon has it and Canon has a 200-400 f/4 with extender built in. That's the kind of stuff many photographers consider & buy.. It might not matter to you, or Pentax, but it does to many others $pending thousands on cameras and lenses.
The HSS feature in Broncolor strobes will work with our Canons but not Pentax 645 we're told by B&H. That's real world stuff, not make believe. Pentax won't work with Profoto B1 either but will with Nikon/Canon where TTL is supported for those bodies.
No leaf shutter lenses for 645Z? C'mon!
Take your head out of the sand.
IvanM: Imo, its a pity the camera is so ugly....the Mamiya ZD & AFD and Leica S/S2 are much nicer looking bodies...of course looks have nothing to to with image quality and handling, .... but I'm just saying...
It's ugly alright... but after looking at it daily, I'm starting to come around. Still ugly, but it's getting slightly better looking with each passing week I think.
Marksphoto: images from DSLR's are already clean and sharp enough for just about every single use you can think of...
What's the point of this camera?
Marksphoto.... Well, Let's see here... it's 2016, and the Pentax 645Z still offers better rendition for landscape and fine art shooters over the Canon 5Ds/r and Nikon D810. It blows whites later than both of those bodies and the out-of-focus areas (can) come into play sooner. It's different.
I find the aspect ratio more pleasing as well. Nikon/Canon hasn't offered that at 50mm or more yet. ;)
Dan DeLion: The question: How long will Ricoh/Pentax be around? The shakeout in MF has caused Hassy to lower some prices by 40%. Mamiya is gone. How long can a second rate MF body from a second rate manufacturer with a very limited selection of capable lenses compete with Hassy, Phase One, Canon, Sony and Nikon? My guess would be: “Not long!”
Hasselblad, 1/800th max shutter, lenses that in the real-world don't benefit me over the Pentax offerings; all at much higher price.
I like the modularity of the Hasselblad, but at the price of the Pentax Z, or it's replacement, I can just buy an entire new Pentax (meaning I get a new back *and* modern/upgraded tech in the camera as opposed to paying over twice as much for a Hasselblad back alone.
I always thought the Pentax 645's were ugly. Phase/Hasselblad/Rollei looked so much better IMO. "good looks" isn't why I buy cameras and lenses, and while I like shooting Hassy, I purchased the 645Z because it made the most sense for my use.
With a comparable Hassy, I'd be paying more to get less. Except for the CaptureOne software, Phase is in the same boat. That said, I wish Pentax would focus more on pro feature on their 645Z like Phase. Pentax should've had Schneider design their 55mm f/2.8 lens with a 1/1600 sync leaf shutter, that can be disabled via menu or programable button.
But then if that was the case, we'd be talking about an entire different camera "system". It's not just about the camera, it's about all the other stuff too. It's about being able to put shift/tilt lenses on Canikon, it's about Zeiss lenses readily available for Canikon, It's about flash modules for speed lights and studio strobes, it's about 3rd party support, etc.. It's also about customer service and 3rd party high quality fix-it shops.
I shoot Nikon, Canon and Pentax (film (k1000 & digital (645Z). I think Pentax makes far more compelling cameras when it comes to features per dollar spent; Pentax still has a long way to go on lenses. Pentax really needs to develop their own lenses or get into bed with a manufacturers known for designing great glass (e.g. Zeiss or Schneider) instead of continuing to flounder. Pentax has to take a stand on quality.... and if they focused on their lenses like they've done on their latest camera, a lot more Pentax bodies and lenses would be sold.
are there any jobs left which justify the outlay for one of these?
it's really nice to see the Alpa name come back to life. :)
jonny1976: canon is the most boring photo company in the world really..
Photomedium, I see what you mean. In that context, once you've spent a certain amount of money in camera gear (lenses and pro-like bodies); you can't reasonably expect "excitement" unless you dig really deep into your purse.
About the only other way you get your socks knocked off is the rare time that a manufacturer comes out with something so surprising that it catches everyone off guard.. e.g., like if the 1Dx2 was mirrorless, 36mp, had better focus performance than the 1Dx, and shot stills at 30fps with endless buffer.
Other than that kind of leap in technology, it's just reasonable to expect incremental changes/advances. I look for excitement in other things that matter, such as studio strobe advancements, etc.. I can see in the not to distant future a camera's "sync speed" being insignificant.
Thanks for getting me straight Photomedium. Good points. I too never upgrade or switch unless I've a very compelling reason to do so. Best in photography to all of you.
Joseph, Oh I see. Hmmm.... Maybe he should be one of those Hokey looking bright red Hasselblads with the Ferrari emblem conspicuously displayed. In the same week, order a RED camera (should quench his video thirst and a cinema lens or two costing $10k or there about should give him something to Oooh and ahhh over), and to top it all off... he should pick up a nice Linhof M 679CS 6x9 camera and a nice 80mm lens and some packs of film... That should keep him busy for a while ;)
@jonny1976 says "canon is the most boring photo company in the world really.."
So boring that they have excellent 3rd party support
So boring that professional gear/studio equip. manufacturers often make special features available to Canon first. (e.g. Profoto B1, hss)
So boring that I can find Canon supported at Universities around the U.S. at the drop of a hat. I can't do that with Oly, Sony, et al.
So boring that they've been at the forefront of resolution and offering FF, for most of the time digital cameras have been mainstream while Nikon, et. al., languished with 1.5x crop and 12mp or so for *years* before waking up and smelling the coffee.
So boring that Canon offered stabilization for the superteles while Nikon drug its behind, figuring it was ok to ask $$,$$$ for a non-stabilized 600mm lens (eye roll).
So boring that Canon offered video....So boring that Canon... built-in teleconverter... 200-400 lens..So boring that...
... you get the idea.