Pentax 645D vs D800 Image Quality

awaldram · Mar 7, 2012

ET2 said:
awaldram said:

As for DXO comments re Raw nr, They do not offer any evidence as to their conclusions nor do they show any understanding of the issue at hand.

Click to expand...

Pardon me but I will take Dxomark words over yours.

The problem is DXO don't offer any words just a statement (just like you), I don't expect you to take my word .

I find the science behind sensor design fascinating and have researched it, My conclusions are based on that research .

What you believe is irrelevant as you have proved you don't understand the subject matter at all.

ET2 said:
ET2 said:

As to the FF vs APS-c argument I've never said FF isn't superior again you living in cloud cuckoo land I have repeatedly said (last 5 years)

Click to expand...

Just in the last post you told us K-5 is better at ISO 25,600 than D700, by quoting Dxomark, then in the very next post, after I showed Dxomark specifically single out Pentax for RAW NR over ISO 3200, you told us Dxomark don't "have understanding of the issue"(why were you quoting them to prove a point?).

There snr chart is accurate enough the fact they've coloured the discs solid or white depending on the processing used doesn't alter the facts of the chart.

You missing it again I wasn't 'proving a point' but showing you facts the k5 @25600 has nearly a stop less noise than the d700.

ET2 said:
Now you are saying you never said FF isn't superior (even though in the last post you did say K-5 is better at ISO 25600 than D700).

Again you miss the obvious, Under very specific conditions the k5 sensor is superior to the d700 , How does that add up-to any conclusion on the superiority of one format over another..
This is your problem you get 2+2 and make 22 instead of 4 like the rest of us.

ET2 said:
Your entire history is filled with these inconsistent ramblings. "Comparative shots with proper control" are needed, you say, and in the very next post, you say 645D smokes D800 at base ISO, without any comparative shots to back up that claim.

So your saying Nikons studio shots were not under controlled and repeatable environments.?

The fact they can't hold a candle to random 645d images when given every advantage does show the ccd sensor superiority.
If the 645d was worse you could say lets see studio shot vs studio shot.

My point re your examples was it not really fair on the d700 or d800 as YOU have no control over the image YOU linked the example and do not know how the images were processed.

Tell me what demosiacing was used as this will have a massive affect on perceived noise levels ??

Was it eahd, hphd, vng4, dcb, ahd, amaze or fast.

Those jagllies on the d700 image are IMO a direct result of dodgy processing and not indicative of the cameras capabilities

I I've said you don't understand what you link and then just speel complete rubbish , trying to use insults and rudeness to cover you inability to sustain your ridiculous viewpoint. I'm surprised at your persistence in the face of everyone laughing at you.

You have no idea of context

I said the d700 has a stop advantage over the k5 or d7000 from iso200 to 800

I also said the k5's advantage at iso 256000 was of no practicable use.

Now put the two together and how can reach the conclusion I'm saying FF isn't superior to APC-c

As I've said before its impossible to make a valid point to you as you seem to have a limited understanding of English or your clouded by your own prejudices.

Topgun has it right Tech for tech A larger sensor will hold sway over a smaller sensor.

CCD will always have cleaner images at base iso .

Most of your statements are just wrong in your rush to prove you erroneous conclusions i.e d700 has lower noise than K5 @256000 you must expect to be corrected.

The mistake you make is assuming anyone besides you cares if the 645d , d800 ,Sony , Pentax , D7000 ,cmos ,ccd , FF , MF or APS-c is BEST.

We (yes really we as in everyone besides you) know there is no best for everything and for some things one technology or make may be better than another but not for everyone all the time.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

ET2 · Mar 7, 2012

awaldram said:
awaldram said:

Your entire history is filled with these inconsistent ramblings. "Comparative shots with proper control" are needed, you say, and in the very next post, you say 645D smokes D800 at base ISO, without any comparative shots to back up that claim.

Click to expand...

awaldram said:
So your saying Nikons studio shots were not under controlled and repeatable environments.?

Do you know what comparative means? It means you will need shots from 645D in the same studio environment with the same subject and lighting. You don't have it. So to sum t up, in one post awaldram claims we need comparative shots (when I posted D700 and D800 shots that were indeed comparative; D800 is better), and in the next post he proclaims 645D smokes D800, even though he he has no proof for that claim, and no comparative shots.

awaldram said:
I find the science behind sensor design fascinating and have researched it, My conclusions are based on that research .

LOL. Pardon me if I don't take your "research" seriously.

awaldram said:
You missing it again I wasn't 'proving a point' but showing you facts the k5 @25600 has nearly a stop less noise than the d700.

It doesn't. It's just RAW NR applied on K-5. D700 is better at high ISO. Anyone who denies that is just outright idiot.

Duplo · Mar 7, 2012

topstuff said:
I cannot believe a small group of people are arguing over this nonsense.

I hate to break it to you, but you are one of them and by writing this post so am I

topstuff said:
It really is pretty sad. It really, really does not matter how many cr@ppy photos of chairs or bicylcles people post in an effort to prove a point, you are achieving nothing.

Niether is telling everyone how a camera (D800E), from which none very few have seen a production RAW file, is going to perform versus a different format.

topstuff said:
The 645D and D800 simply CANNOT be easily compared. Trying to do is the activity of a fool. I can only conclude that the participants here do NOT actually take photos for a living but would rather talk about the tech. If that rocks your world, then that is a shame.

It is a little easier than APS-C vs. 35mm, as the format size is a little closer, but I agree with your overall point of view.

topstuff said:
Lets get back to basics. 645D and D800 are NOT comparable simply because:

1. 645D sensor is 1.7 times larger than D800. I dont give a cr@p if the 645D sensor is not the same size as MF film. The sensor is still much larger than 35mm FF.

The Pentax 645D roughly 1,68 times the surface area of 35mm and a crop factor of approx 1,27

35mm has roughly 2,25 the surface area compared to APS-C and a conversion factor of approx 1,52.

topstuff said:
2. The lenses are therefore different and in relation to the sensor have different DOF characteristics, which means that an image subjectively can look quite different.

Agreed.

I have always argued that it different formats are difficult to compare and that they have a different set of pros and cons.

topstuff said:
3. 645D is CCD while D800 is CMOS. The images from these different sensors look different . Period.

I am going to use the word sensor below, but it really is the ruselt of the basic sensor, AA filters, microlenses, imaging pipeline, other hard and software an even lenses that factors in, so speaking of sensor designs in its own, is a little difficult for me.

There is subtle differences between different CMOS sensors and between different CCD sensors or their implementations.

Take the 10MP CCd in the K10D, Km, K200D, Nikon D200, Nikon D80, each had a slightly different look.

The 16Mp CMOS in the K-5, D7000, and a lot of other cameras has slightly different characteristica too, even though they share the same basic design.

CCD vs. CMOS is not clear cut to me, I prefer certain CMOS designs over many CCD designs and certain CCD designs over most CMOS designs.

i.e. I adore the sensor found in the original D3 at base ISO, some gorgeous files, I even prefer them over the D3x in print for many applications and certainly over any of the smaller CCD sensors.

The 645D is amazing, but I actually prefer the more recent CCDs in the phase one IQ series backs.

topstuff said:
Any discussion that clearly ignores these points is a waste of bandwidth.

Most discussions around a camera that one have not yet seen a production file from is exactly that too

topstuff said:
And in answer to the OP, take it from a real practitioner who looks at digital images all day - they are NOT the same. End of debate.

Personally i will reserve judgement until I have handleda say a couple of hundred and better yet 1000 files from it from real work assignments to pass judgement, but I do expect the 645D to remain on top.

topstuff said:
I know, maybe I can open a thread comparing an iphone to a Pentax k-01, or comparing a washing machine to a tumble dryer.

You could, but youwould need to find an appropriate forum for that.

topstuff said:
Debating if a 645D is "better" than a D800 is like asking someone if Ice Cream is better than Mushrooms. They are different. There is no answer.

Agreed, but you do state in several threads that the 645D is better, so you are doing the same comparison as everybody else.

The 645D will indeed be better for certain jobs, but for others the D800e will and for others again the K-5 is the better tool. It all depends.

For any given print size, I would expect the 645D to be better at base iso in a landscape or studio situation, but I would also expect the difference to be smaller than between the D800e and say pretty much any APS-C camera.

That said, i may end up using a D800e and not a 645D, but it all comes down to how the evaluation of a production camera comes out, when used in my day to day photography assignments.

topstuff said:
Can we move on now?

Definitely

--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://www.duplophotography.com/
http://www.duploworld.com

Roland Karlsson · Mar 7, 2012

ET2 said:
Johnny isn't a neutral observer. 645D scores about the same as K-5 on dxomark. D800 will easily do better than both (if the sensor tech in D800 is same as K-5). As I said, wait for studio shots on IR. It's too early to claim anything.

This confuses me. 645D runs in circles around both APS-C and FF DSLRs. At least according to the comparometer at IR. So - how can D800 be better? And at what?

ET2 said:
I find this double standard funny. So D800 isn't as good as 645D because 645D has a larger sensor than D800, but K-5 is just as good as D800, even though K-5 sensor is smaller than D800 (and the resolution difference between 16 MP vs 36 MP is far larger than 36 MP vs 40 MP).

ET2 said:
Could it be that you are just biased, so both K-5 and 645D are good, but D800 just not so good, in your world?

Has anyone said something to that account?

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Duplo · Mar 7, 2012

Wise words.

I mainly do rent in of MFDB when necessary, but hopefully a D800e will cut down on it and make things more managable, especially on more remote locations.

NhanPiano said:
I already have a Pentax 645D, but plan on getting a D800E for on-location shoots. Best of both worlds woohoo! Actually, the D800E will be used for on-location shoots where its faster frame rate and autofocus will come in handy for action shots. The 645D still reins supreme in the studio. Its frame rate of 1fps is fine because I have to wait for the studio strobes to recycle anyway. Still waiting to try out the new Pentax 645 FA 90mm f/2.8 lens.

Ed
http://www.EdwardNguyenPhotography.com

--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://www.duplophotography.com/
http://www.duploworld.com

ET2 · Mar 7, 2012

Roland Karlsson said:
ET2 said:

Johnny isn't a neutral observer. 645D scores about the same as K-5 on dxomark. D800 will easily do better than both (if the sensor tech in D800 is same as K-5). As I said, wait for studio shots on IR. It's too early to claim anything.

Click to expand...

This confuses me. 645D runs in circles around both APS-C and FF DSLRs.

Resolution wise, yes, it does. The scores aern't that good on Dxomark, especially DR at base ISO.

Roland Karlsson said:
Roland Karlsson said:

I find this double standard funny. So D800 isn't as good as 645D because 645D has a larger sensor than D800, but K-5 is just as good as D800, even though K-5 sensor is smaller than D800 (and the resolution difference between 16 MP vs 36 MP is far larger than 36 MP vs 40 MP).

Click to expand...

Roland Karlsson said:

Could it be that you are just biased, so both K-5 and 645D are good, but D800 just not so good, in your world?

Click to expand...

Has anyone said something to that account?

Yes.

awaldram · Mar 7, 2012

ET2 said:
awaldram wrote:

It doesn't. It's just RAW NR applied on K-5. D700 is better at high ISO. Anyone who denies that is just outright idiot.

You cant have it both ways either the K5 is top dog and DXO results are valid or DXO results are flawed and the k5 is a sham.

This might help you come to some understanding

"For most of its time in the digital SLR Market, Pentax has taken a very light-handed approach to noise reduction. Result: RAW-looking JPEG images that were often far grainier at high ISO than the competition. Obviously, the powers that be at Pentax must have been thinking something along the lines of “our photographers are smart, let's let them decide how much/little noise reduction they want in post-processing and not set arbitrary noise reduction into our cameras.” This is how things remained until last year and the K-x.
Overnight, Pentax went from also-ran in image quality into APS-C format leader

On release , the Pentax K5 was ranked 6th out of all the 122 cameras ever tested by DXO Mark. If that wasn't impressive enough, in APS-C format, the nearest rival, the Sony A55, is ranked 19th, with everything in between being either a larger format dSLR or a medium format digital back. In the digital SLR realm, the K5 (with a DXO Mark score of 82) beats everything but the full frame Nikon D3s (tie at 82) and D3x (score of 88)."

Continue reading on Examiner.com DXO Mark posts scores for Pentax K-5, result: unbelievable quality - Cleveland Photography | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/photography-in-cleveland/dxo-mark-posts-scores-for-pentax-k-5-result-unbelievable-quality#ixzz1oRNW7Qhh

Love it or hate it Pentax with their Hi-iso processing slam dunked every other manufacturer who are still playing catch-up or employing shills like yourself to belittle their achievement.

You attempting the same with the 645d V D800 as you did with the k5 Vs d7000 pointless as were smarter than that, But fun to watch you flounder.

or maybe
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM

"Here, we can see the Pentax K-5 clearly produces the cleanest looking RAW files, though it appears to be applying some noise reduction at higher ISOs (above ISO 1,600), which cannot be turned off. The noise reduction applied is pretty subtle, though, nothing like the heavy-handed approach used in earlier Sony SLRs."

See it so subtle IR can only state the think NR is applied to explain the massive noise advantage the k5 has.

Of cause if they had any digital engineers they would know exactly what was going on, but like all review sites can't afford digital engineers to run reviews.

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

ET2 · Mar 7, 2012

awaldram said:
ET2 said:

awaldram wrote:

It doesn't. It's just RAW NR applied on K-5. D700 is better at high ISO. Anyone who denies that is just outright idiot.

Click to expand...

You cant have it both ways either the K5 is top dog and DXO results are valid or DXO results are flawed and the k5 is a sham.

Dxomark rates D700 1 stop better than K-5 at high ISO. The results for Pentax are invalid over ISO 3200 due to RAW NR. That's too according to Dxomark. You are the one who is trying to have both ways. When it suits you, the sensor size becomes irrelevant. When it doesn't, 645D becomes better because of the sensor size.

ET2 · Mar 7, 2012

awaldram said:
On release , the Pentax K5 was ranked 6th out of all the 122 cameras ever tested by DXO Mark. If that wasn't impressive enough, in APS-C format, the nearest rival, the Sony A55, is ranked 19th, with everything in between being either a larger format dSLR or a medium format digital back. In the digital SLR realm, the K5 (with a DXO Mark score of 82) beats everything but the full frame Nikon D3s (tie at 82) and D3x (score of 88)."

This is not due to high ISO score. That's due to DR score at base ISO of the Sony sensor. And that's not unique to K-5. D7000 scores 80 points , so does D5100 and A580. Nex-7 scores 81 points. All these scores are within margin of error.

645d ranks lower than all these APSC cameras on dxomark DR score.

But D700 still beats all these cameras by a stop at high ISO (dxomark).

And given that D800 has the same (or similar) Sony tech that is in K-5/D7000, it's going to obliterate all previous Dxomark scores by MF and FF cameras.

ET2 · Mar 7, 2012

awaldram said:
Of cause if they had any digital engineers they would know exactly what was going on, but like all review sites can't afford digital engineers to run reviews.

Yes, no one (dxomark, IR) knows anything ... Onlyh Pentax fanboy awaldram has figured it out that they are are all wrong and there is no NR over ISO 1600 on K-5 as noted by Dxomark.

awaldram · Mar 7, 2012

ET2 said:
awaldram said:

Of cause if they had any digital engineers they would know exactly what was going on, but like all review sites can't afford digital engineers to run reviews.

Click to expand...

Yes, no one (dxomark, IR) knows anything ... Onlyh Pentax fanboy awaldram has figured it out that they are are all wrong and there is no NR over ISO 1600 on K-5 as noted by Dxomark.

You really are a prat.

goodbye

--
My PPG
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/andrewwaldram
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
1x.com
http://1x.com/artist/awaldram/wall

Jorgen E · Mar 7, 2012

Prices i Sweden:

645D: 103000 SEK

D4: 54000 SEK
D800(E): 25000 SEK (28000 SEK)

The results from the 645D better be REALLY good, given its pricetag.
Especially condidering what you might get instead

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

topstuff · Mar 7, 2012

Hey - 645D is a lot cheaper than a Leica S2 !

Also cheaper than equivalent Hasselblad or Mamiya.

It is actually seen by pros as offering good value !

Roland Karlsson · Mar 7, 2012

ET2 said:
Resolution wise, yes, it does. The scores aern't that good on Dxomark, especially DR at base ISO.

OK

ET2 said:
Yes.

Strange - it is not likely that K-5 is as good as a D800.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Alex Sarbu · Mar 7, 2012

Jorgen E said:
Prices i Sweden:

645D: 103000 SEK

D4: 54000 SEK
D800(E): 25000 SEK (28000 SEK)

The results from the 645D better be REALLY good, given its pricetag.
Especially condidering what you might get instead

And they are.

Alex S

Jorgen E · Mar 7, 2012

Alex Sarbu said:
Jorgen E said:

Prices i Sweden:

645D: 103000 SEK

D4: 54000 SEK
D800(E): 25000 SEK (28000 SEK)

The results from the 645D better be REALLY good, given its pricetag.
Especially condidering what you might get instead

Click to expand...

And they are.

Really good. Yes, without a doubt.
Better than D800E. Perhaps. Probably.

But, how much better -- at FOUR times the price of a D800E ?

How many enthusiasts and lower tier pros will be better off, buying a 645D instead of a D4, a D800 and a D800E (or, perhaps, a couple of good lenses instead of the D800)?

Well, I guess we'll see soon...

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

Alex Sarbu · Mar 7, 2012

Jorgen E said:
Alex Sarbu said:

Jorgen E said:

Prices i Sweden:

645D: 103000 SEK

D4: 54000 SEK
D800(E): 25000 SEK (28000 SEK)

The results from the 645D better be REALLY good, given its pricetag.
Especially condidering what you might get instead

Click to expand...

And they are.

Click to expand...

Really good. Yes, without a doubt.
Better than D800E. Perhaps. Probably.

Certainly.

Jorgen E said:
But, how much better -- at FOUR times the price of a D800E ?

Digital medium format is expensive. In fact it was Pentax, with this 645D, who made it somewhat more affordable (and hopefully, they'll continue to do so).

Jorgen E said:
How many enthusiasts and lower tier pros will be better off, buying a 645D instead of a D4, a D800 and a D800E (or, perhaps, a couple of good lenses instead of the D800)?

Who cares?

Who cares what everyone else is using, if you need the image quality offered only by the medium format? This is not a contest, where the popular choice wins; if so, I guess a phone camera would be the best.

Jorgen E said:
Well, I guess we'll see soon...

See what?

Alex S

Jorgen E · Mar 7, 2012

Alex Sarbu said:
Alex Sarbu said:

Well, I guess we'll see soon...

Click to expand...

See what?

We'll see how close in IQ a technologically very modern 24x36 CMOS sensor, with 42 kP/mm2, will come to a technologically older CCD sensor, with 27,5 kP/mm2.

And after that, we'll see how many potential MF customers who will settle for the IQ offered by the 75% cheaper -- and vastly more versatile -- camera.

We'll see how many there are that STILL will need the utmost IQ, even it means paying four times the price.

I don't know the answers, and neither do you, but that's "what we'll see".

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

Alex Sarbu · Mar 7, 2012

Jorgen E said:
Alex Sarbu said:

Jorgen E said:

Well, I guess we'll see soon...

Click to expand...

See what?

Click to expand...

We'll see how close in IQ a technologically very modern 24x36 CMOS sensor, with 42 kP/mm2, will come to a technologically older CCD sensor, with 27,5 kP/mm2.

So far, no "full frame" was able to get near a cropped medium format sensor.

By the way, I have a technologically very modern APS-C CMOS sensor in my camera, with the same pixel density as the one in D800.

Jorgen E said:
And after that, we'll see how many potential MF customers who will settle for the IQ offered by the 75% cheaper -- and vastly more versatile -- camera.

I'm sure the D800 will sell very well. Tell me something new...

Jorgen E said:
We'll see how many there are that STILL will need the utmost IQ, even it means paying four times the price.

If they need it, they'll pay for it.

And it's not four times the price; it's 3.3 times (3 times if we're talking about the D800e). We're not all living in Sweden

Jorgen E said:
I don't know the answers, and neither do you, but that's "what we'll see".

I doubt the D800 will have any significant impact on the 645D. First, show me a FF camera which can match the medium format image quality - then we'll talk.

Alex S

tcom · Mar 7, 2012

Jorgen E said:
Alex Sarbu said:

Jorgen E said:

Prices i Sweden:

645D: 103000 SEK

D4: 54000 SEK
D800(E): 25000 SEK (28000 SEK)

The results from the 645D better be REALLY good, given its pricetag.
Especially condidering what you might get instead

Click to expand...

And they are.

Click to expand...

Really good. Yes, without a doubt.
Better than D800E. Perhaps. Probably.

From the D800E samples I saw so far, I have no doubt that at low ISO, the 645D beats the D800E, and I do not talk about resolution or DR, but about color rendition and microcontrast.

Jorgen E said:
But, how much better -- at FOUR times the price of a D800E ?

That is the big problem in photography, when already on a high level of IQ, it does cost a lot of money to get it slightly better.

Jorgen E said:
How many enthusiasts and lower tier pros will be better off, buying a 645D instead of a D4, a D800 and a D800E (or, perhaps, a couple of good lenses instead of the D800)?

There is no point in comparing these cameras. A pro needing a fast camera for lowlight and/or sports will take the D4 as the three others are simply not up to the task. If this is not required it depends on what someone is expecting from photography. I can well imagine that the D800(E) delivers good enough photos for most users, even if this image quality will not reach the level of the 645D, at base ISO.

Personally, I came to the conclusion that a camera is a just tool. I select the camera which is better suited to cover a given event. I am shooting K-5, 645D and D3s at the moment (sold the D700 a few weeks ago). When I do not get the results I want, I can only blame myself, the difference between a good and a bad photo is vastly decided behind the camera.

Today, I covered the International Motor Show of Geneva which will open tomorrow to the public. I decided to cover the event with the D3s and AFS 14-24/2.8, AFS 35/1.4 and AFS 85/1.4. For those interested, the results are under http://www.pbase.com/tcom/salonauto2012

--
Dominique

International Press Association
http://ipaimpress.com/author/dominique/

http://www.pbase.com/tcom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschreckling/

Pentax 645D vs D800 Image Quality

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts