No love for Vista and Lion? What a travesty! ;)
The camera looks fine. Perhaps still not getting as much out of their own sensors as Nikon and Pentax do, but good enough. Especially considering almost any lens can be mounted with image stabilization.
It's the lenses I'm not convinced about. I'm not sure these FE-mount lenses match up to their excellent A-mount counterparts - the 16-35 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. I realize these lenses cost a little less, but they're still expensive enough. And at f/4, they'd better cost less! But they should still come close in image quality, and I'm afraid they don't. This is unacceptable in my view, considering how great many of Sony's other lenses are.
It seems like they release an updated body about every six weeks. Perhaps it's time to let us know how serious they are about the FE mount by concentrating on producing lenses people will still want in 2020.
JoePhoto: I think these are terrible images ... (not the cameras fault) !!!
Were they shot by a 2-year old ???
The WIRE in the sunset shot ??? give me a break
Not only are these adequate, but what makes you so sure they share their best shots in the samples gallery? I wouldn't.
canonpro: Seems Phase One is still giving 645z users the middle finger due to the pricing from Pentax undercutting them. Thank god for lightroom :)
It's just because it's a direct competitor. It has nothing to do with the price. They don't support Hasselblad either.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Pretty crazy that the 5DM3 is still priced anywhere near $3,000. You'd have to be out of your mind to pay that in this environment unless you absolutely needed one for a job or something.
Yeah, or if you're crazy enough to want to use the Canon lenses you already own! /S
DStudio: It's frustrating to read most of the comments here, trying to compare this ALPA technical camera to others which are nothing like it.
Perhaps it's largely Phase One's fault, for not making this distinction in their press release. Perhaps they're assuming the target audience will already understand this, but in fact many of them don't. In fact, even in their certification training they fail to explain it very well. This is too bad, because the people who buy one understand its virtues. They aren't buying one as a "status symbol."
I think the Pentax lenses are pretty good quality.
Most of the ALPA cameras natively have this Tilt Shift capability, although this one doesn't. This is the "Travel" model. So I guess that's part of the confusion.
This will still allow you to use your excellent wide angle lenses, still with good edge performance, but lacking the ability to move the focal plate around (without an adapter).
zakaria: Great work dpr. The XT 1 is a beautiful camera but still expensive. I wonder how the mirror less cameras are expensive and near the price of some wonderful full frame cameras. Still wondering why manufacturers of mirror less cameras insist on the small size of the body whereas the lenses are huge.
zakaria, get a grip! (really)
It's frustrating to read most of the comments here, trying to compare this ALPA technical camera to others which are nothing like it.
ogl: 645z is 8500 USD.
This is a technical camera - not a general purpose camera (the 645z being probably the most "general purpose" of all the digital MF cameras).
The ALPA has specific purposes:
iAPX: I still don't understand how someone could spend so much into a camera and then use a non-calibrated iPhone display on it. Non-sense!
The Calibration on the iPhone 6 isn't that far off anyway - it's the best smartphone display available:
fmian: The shot in the video with the row of planes appears to apply an effect that looks like the plane of focus has tilted. How is this done?Apologies if it is mentioned in the audio for the video. I don't have speakers on the computer I am using at the moment.
Surprisingly, there will be other jobs if that time comes - including ones that are equally interesting. Might be a good time to move on anyway.
So, a little risk and worry vs. the guarantee of a mundane existence? I suppose most of us do this in some area of our lives, but it's seldom the better choice.
Some people would rather have an interesting, stimulating job than to spend their time making sure they don't lose their mediocre one. Perhaps it's to you we should say "poor fellow."
dark goob: LOL I've been duct taping and bungeeing water bottles to my stuff for years. Then I switched to beer, and my reward for finishing the shoot is to drink said beer and xfer the weight to my belly.
Does it stay there?
Maybe it's better to waste a little water than have the beer go to your waist. :)
Prognathous: Ricoh did this 15 years ago. Quote:
"One of the RDC-7's most interesting features is its "PRO" high-resolution exposure function. There are actually three different PRO modes, two of them making use of the same basic innovation: The camera has the ability to take two full-resolution shots in very rapid succession, displacing the CCD sensor a half the width of a pixel between each shot.(For the real technoids out there, we're told this is accomplished with a mounting arrangement involving a piezoelectric actuator that minutely shifts the CCD during the second exposure of the series.) The camera then takes the two slightly offset 3.3 megapixel images and combines them together into nearly 7 megapixels of raw image data."
There's no way hand-held shots will work with this technology unless they're taking a "trial and error" approach, combined with very smart processing. In other words, statistically out of 8 shots, 3 or 4 must have a different enough pixel alignment to be combined. They'd have to be matched up, overlayed, offset, and cropped. I suppose it's possible.
But I think it's likely this requires a tripod setup, like Hasselblad. Either way, it's only good for static subject matter.
EDIT: On second thought, my initial inclination to laugh at the hand-held suggestion was right! There'd be no need to SHIFT the sensor since hand-held movements would be MUCH greater.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to learn just how it's being implemented, since it's not just a simple 4x resolution boost like on the 'Blad (going from 50MP to 200MP).
Artistico: Nice IQ. Digital medium format is getting better and better value for money.
It would have been nice if Mamiya and Fuji also competed with Pentax for this market segment of high-quality affordable MF cameras - just like in the film days. It would accelerate the development of a digital MF camera within the economical reach of more enthusiasts.
Even with the introduction price, though, Pentax is getting really close to being just that.
BarnET, that isn't exactly true. Pentax has two Leaf Shutter lenses - the 75mm and 135mm LS. Both are manual focus, however, but they do allow at least 1/500s flash sync speed. But this still isn't as good as MF cameras which are largely designed around LS capabilities and allow 1/800s or 1/1600s flash sync.
So as you suggest, the 645Z is more oriented towards other types of photography - landscapes being only one of them. In fact, since it's actually a DSLR, it's suitable to many (most?) of the tasks other DSLRs are well-suited for.
Felix E Klee: In a professional context, for example for fashion photography in a studio, what is the advantage of a medium format camera today?
Today's full frame sensors and optics provide more than enough resolution for even very large printed ads, and dynamic range there is plenty as well. Furthermore, in a studio environment, I expect lighting to be perfect and the pro photographer to frame close to the final result.
For landscape photography medium format is interesting, but that's not my question.
Felix, it's not all about math. An IQ180 or IQ280 is simply going to produce more beautiful photos, with stunning colors and so forth.
A Pentax 645Z will get you much of the way there, for a much lower price.
A Canon or Nikon just won't give you the same results.
There are good reasons fashion photographers still like to use Phase One. One of the main problems with fashion photographers adopting Pentax MF is it hasn't had tethering support until recently, plus I believe it still has slower flash sync speeds than Phase One. In fact some photographers believe a Hasselblad body and lens with a Phase One back is the ultimate digital setup. There's nothing about a studio setup that changes this.
Please show me a Canon or Nikon that can do flash sync at 1/800 or 1/1600s!
Andy Dan: Stupid launch imo. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporary Macro sells for 500$ and it's faster and has macro capabilities. It lacks weather sealing indeed but who needs weather sealing in a slow variable aperture zoom like this new Pentax? Pro's won't use it, enthusiasts won't use it...A new version of the DA 17-70mm F4 AL would have been much better...
I hope you were trying to be ironic, though I rather doubt it. Concern over edge performance is quite literally the exact opposite of omphaloskepsis.
In any case, the nature of wide angle shots means that edge performance is often MORE important than at longer focal lengths. In a portrait the edges are often irrelevant, whereas with a landscape - or when you're exaggerating an extremely close foreground subject - edge performance can be vital. And wide apertures matter here too - especially with the latter example.
He may have a good point. Though photozone isn't the be-all end-all authority, their MTF charts show the Pentax DA17-70/4 beating the previous Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 at the edges.
The updated Sigma 'C' version does better at the edges, but appears to still fall a little short of the Pentax 17-70 at most focal lengths.
KrisAK: Here we go again: Amazon Prime giving me (a Prime subscriber) another service I didn't ask for, while diluting and ignoring the two services for which I did subscribe.
Where's the ramp-up in the number of titles available for Prime Instant Video?
And is it my imagination, or are the prices for "Prime Eligible" products quietly increasing versus the competition?
Amazon Prime: Jack of all trades, master of none.
It's probably not your imagination.
citrontokyo: Love all the complainers here.
This is the perfect landscape lens. It's DC, not SDM. It's WR where the 17-70 is not. It's 16mm where the kit is 18. It's 85mm where the 16-45 is, well...
Anybody who claims it doesn't do this or that clearly isn't thinking.
I fail to see how one would get desirable wedding photos from this lens.
Hopefully it will have nice image quality - and it may - but its aperture is too slow to be that flexible (in providing enough subject isolation), and it appears too expensive for what you get.