plevyadophy: Have all the Pentax fans actually considered the fact that this thing is NOT really medium format; it's not true medium format in sensor size nor is it digital medium format.
It's more like the medium format equivalent of a Leica M8 or Canon 1D with their APS-H sized sensors, and some have even gone as far as referring to this new Pentax's sensor size as Medium Format DX.
Really, in my view, things only matter when the diagonal of the sensor/film roughlydoubles/halves. So going from micro Four Thirds to 35mm,and then from 35mm to 645 or 6 x 6, and then up to 10 x 8 all make a significant difference. For those going from Pentax APS-C sensor cams to this Pentax 645Z there's gonna be a MASSIVE difference but I don't think it's worth bothering with if you already own say a Nikon D800e.
The camera body is superb though, the best on the market in my view. It's just a pity that they didn't provide a fully articulating rear LCD instead of the mere flip up and flip down variety.
Hi,What I meant was, that many people need to REALLY understand what is required in terms of shot discipline when shooting medium format, and yet others need to gain an understand of what REAL differences can be obtained and easily observed by use of different formats.
Sometimes, the Nirvana some seek can never be realised ( e.g. One is not shooting subject matter or displaying on a medium that will show off the goodness one thought one was paying for ) or perhaps the effort involved is more than one really wants to put up with ( e.g. Lugging a tripod with you on every shoot, slower raw processing, purchase of a new computer to cope with the huge files and so on )
Perhap, a little bit of a reality check can be found here: http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=9047&relatedposts_position=0
montoniphotography: who is he?
pedromeyer: So why not a full frame sensor? couldn't they get an idea from Sony, to resolve this? From all the video of how they polish the aluminum for 45 min, I was left with the sense, that no sooner I would work with such a camera, that it would be filled with all sorts of nicks and tarnishes to the body, given that it looks so overly delicate. In other words, a work horse this is not.
You, in a roundabout way, agree with my cynical/terse analysis and then suggest I have a chip on my shoulder. Strange.
No chip, just telling it as it is; calling out pretentiousness (Owners of the Mickey Mouse Noctilux gushing about the lens' "glow" when in actual fact the glow was/is a flaw; brassing, yet another flaw, which you just admitted is a flaw; and how about the most infamous, the M8 and it's need for an ir cut filter? Yet another flaw that Leica themselves laughingly tried to convince folk was a virtue and I won't bother listing the flaws of the Leica S/S2). Without the "red dot" those things would be seen for what they are, failings.
brownie314: "The theory of 'Marginal Gains' states that if you make tiny improvements in all aspects of your performance, then these improvements will all add up and create a significant overall improvement."
That is not the way I understood marginal gains. The way I understood it is - once the "low hanging fruit" is gotten (i.e. now you have a DSLR and a good lens) the improvements to be made after that are increasingly harder and more expensive to get and make "marginal" improvements.
And your interpretation is EXACTLY how I have understood the marginal gains theory to work, and it is applicable in a number of fields e.g. fast car > performance car > racing car. Going from one to other results in HUGE costs out of all proportion to the performance gains acheived.
I strongly suspect, and I may well be corrected, that the author has been a bit "creative" with the interpretation and application of the marginal gains theory.
rdscibilia: I suggest we use the same calculator for eugenics studies. Why should we have to suffer with people who don't have the right look?
Your suggestion marks you out as being far braver than I. :o)
Yes, exactly. As I suggested, a silly affectation "conveniently" acquired to make up for a flaw.
Leica's brass way way way too easily.
@T3Leica owners don't like "brassing", they simply pretend to; they've spent insane money on the camera, it is poorly painted so they make a virtue out of a flaw by pretending that "brassing" is cool.
Just as the old Noctilux was rubbish, but owners talked of its "glow" as if it was some virtue, when in actual fact that "glow" comes about as a result of uncorrected lens abberations.
Have all the Pentax fans actually considered the fact that this thing is NOT really medium format; it's not true medium format in sensor size nor is it digital medium format.
BozillaNZ: So int he end Pentax still can't produce any full-sized sensor cameras! It's either Cropped 35mm or cropped 645, Pentax is for Croppers! It's sensor is far smaller than theactual '645' model number suggests, no matter how you fans spin it.
It's my understanding that the actual recorded image area on 645 film was around 42 x 56mm. None of the digital medium format sensors from the cams you mentioned are that large.
I have avoided saying this but this preview has prompted me to ask "and where on earth is the Review of the Canon 1D X???!!!!"
It used to be that DPReview's excuse for not reviewing certain cams, e.g. the Leica S2 and S, was that they were super expensive and/or not likely to be products purchased by many of the readers of DPReivew.
Well, this cam might be cheap by medium format standards but it is considerably more expensive than a Canon 1D X, and therefore, surely?, must fall into the category of "product not likely to be purchased by many of the readers of DPReview"
Edymagno: I had high hopes for this lens performance but the "lowly" price under $1k will keep my expectations at bay. There's no way the Sigma will approach the Otus IQ. After all, you get what you pay. I truly hope to be proven wrong. Maybe Canon will get it right at around $2k.
@DStudioGo to SLRGear.com, they've extensively reviewed BOTH lenses AND have made comparisons to each other in the respective reviews.
My take on the reviews is that, purely based on optical performance, the Otus is the better lens overall. However, the Sigma Art is equal to it and very close to it in many parameters as well as having the advantage of autofocus, that it's a no-brainer for most people to buy the Sigma Art given the price difference.
Jose A. Pacheco: After more than two years of releasing this overview, I guess that Canon will release the 1D X Mark II before we see the full review of the 1D X here.
Well, they would need to read a review if that Farrari is anything like the Canon 1D Mark III with it's infamous autofocus flaws.
Donnie G: Nikon's corporate bean counters are showing us how to turn cost cutting into a "death by a thousand cuts". If Nikon doesn't find a partner outside of the camera business to merge with soon, then they may not survive long term after all. Apple or Google might be interested in acquiring a camera company, and Nikon would be a good fit for either one of them. Well, that's my best guess anyhow.
But ................. their camera division makes up a HUGE percentage of the company's overall income. Failure in the camera/imaging division impacts majorly on the entire group. Go over to Thom Hogan's site he has far more data and articulates the issues Nikon faces far better than I can.
Further to my last comment. After further reading into this matter, I am now not that much concerned about the users of the images, but I am now VERY concerned that Getty themselves, with this new arrangement, have taken the place of the general public as the abuser of photographers.
dcdigitalphoto: How does including an image in a page which earns money through advertising not class as commercial use? By using it in a page you're promoting your business because your business revolves around posting pages that have advertising on them.
Aside from that, who in their right mind would embed an image directly in an advertisement, especially if Getty includes their own advertising in it.
To my mind, if a site engaged in commercial activity has images on their site to "pretty up" their site and make it more attractive, then those images are being used for commercial purposes as far as I am concerned. The exception would be using an image when commenting on a news item and even then I would regard that as sailing close to the wind in some cases.
vFunct: This can make money for the photographer if the photographs are newsworthy, which tend to get millions of hits.
If the photos are more of the godawful crap you see on that godawful 500px site, then no, you're not going to make money as no one cares about those ugly godawful 500px photos.
I agree 101% with your comments. Well said!!!
My first reaction to this news was that Getty have thrown in the towel, and along with the U.K. government's intention to legalise and institutionalise copyright theft of photographers' work, this news is the beginning of the end. It is sending the signal that it is open season on photographers' work.
However, reading the remarks, just before mine, of Roland Karlsson it may not be so bad. Mr Karlssson appears to be displeased with what Getty are doing. In my view Getty are doing the right thing; if they are to give folks access to content WITHOUT charging them a fee, they have to instill in the users of these images the notion that the images do have some value and that accessing Getty's library without payment must come with some strings attached. If Getty did it any other way, the way many of the iPhone/Facebook generation would like it done, that is totally unhindered access, it would be sending the wrong signals.
I still have concerns but not as many as I initially did.
plevyadophy: This is a stupid move for a medium format cam maker. Whilst CMOS sensors offer higher ISO settings, CCD sensors are BY FAR superior in image quality at low to moderate ISO settings and medium format should be about quality and NOT bragging rights on a spec sheet.
Hassy would have been better employed commissioning Sony to use their talents to design an improved CCD sensor.
First Hassy buy discontinued Sony cams and pimp them up and sell them at silly prices and now this CMOS thing. It's really sad to see what Hassy is becoming .................. a shadow of its former self.
I hope Phase One ignore this spec sheet CMOS bragging rights nonsense and stick to CCD sensors
Oh well, it looks like the world is coming to an end. :o(
I really don't understand why these guys are being so silly; chasing the popular (ill-informed) vote rather than sticking to THE best and leaving the rabble to try and raise their standards