Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait? Locked

Started May 4, 2014 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
Will be nice but hot

qianp2k wrote:

A true 4K monitor is like this one

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/professional_displays/dp_v3010.do

Will make for a nice dispaly but if you are actully planning to edit/compute at 4096x2560 pixels (10.5 mp) you might find it only works well in the winter due to the heat being given off my the video card needed to run it. To do much more than display (or watch a prerecorded movie) will require a dang large investment in computing power beyond what consumer friendly/available today or in near future...unless you restrict to very low refresh rates (sub 15fps perhaps)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
Also a good point

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

But not everyone wants to print, no mention billboard size. How large of your real estate can hold those big prints?

I see your point. Also really makes the virtues of cell phone only photography more obvious. A lot to be said for..."good enough for what I do" practicality. Keeps cost down too...added bonus. Likely the reason higher quality photography (top end of the spectrum) is on the decline and market share is getting to be such a tough nut to crack.

Printing is really an old-fashion and dying technology that will be replaced by high-end display in a decade.

Also a good point for your type of IQ requirements. Keeps the bar down and saves in both processing time and money...unless you start chasing display resolution. A lot to be said for limiting output medium. A lot of pluses to that type of workflow/expectations. Certainly makes advances in sensor tech less and less relevant for some.  Who needs more anyways.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Also a good point

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

But not everyone wants to print, no mention billboard size. How large of your real estate can hold those big prints?

I see your point. Also really makes the virtues of cell phone only photography more obvious. A lot to be said for..."good enough for what I do" practicality. Keeps cost down too...added bonus. Likely the reason higher quality photography (top end of the spectrum) is on the decline and market share is getting to be such a tough nut to crack.

Printing is really an old-fashion and dying technology that will be replaced by high-end display in a decade.

Also a good point for your type of IQ requirements. Keeps the bar down and saves in both processing time and money...unless you start chasing display resolution. A lot to be said for limiting output medium. A lot of pluses to that type of workflow/expectations. Certainly makes advances in sensor tech less and less relevant for some. Who needs more anyways.

Just do a survey in this forum, how many actually are working in billboard business?  I don't deny there are some of them there but not many, not me, not you that I am sure about.  But in other side, you can enjoy high resolution photos on today's monitor but inconvenience to shift photos around.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 702
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

Mikael Risedal wrote:


thats not true , you can work easily with 14stops DR pictures and lift for example shadows below middle grey and expose so high lights are intact and present the results in prints as you can do with for example HDR

Do you really not understand that a piece of paper reflecting light has no where near as much DR as light transmitted through the medium such as a computer monitor or TV screen? If you do not understand, search transmitted vs reflected light.

do not you not understand that in 8.5-stop you can change the outcome and visualize what you want

I do understand, and the key point...as you point out...is within the 8 1/2 stop DR of the print.

qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: Will be nice but hot

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

A true 4K monitor is like this one

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/professional_displays/dp_v3010.do

Will make for a nice dispaly but if you are actully planning to edit/compute at 4096x2560 pixels (10.5 mp) you might find it only works well in the winter due to the heat being given off my the video card needed to run it. To do much more than display (or watch a prerecorded movie) will require a dang large investment in computing power beyond what consumer friendly/available today or in near future...unless you restrict to very low refresh rates (sub 15fps perhaps)

Don't underestimate the progress of technology.  At this moment the bottleneck is display not display card.  The latter can be made smaller and smaller once the demands there.  Now not many 4K/8K monitors there but manufacturers will pour resources into and certainly can make display cards smaller enough to consume very little electricity to reduce heat.

I don't believe there is much pressure on still images compared to videos on display cards so as long as display cards there to support such resolution it will not generate lots of heat unless you are running 4K/8K videos.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
true

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

A true 4K monitor is like this one

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/professional_displays/dp_v3010.do

Will make for a nice dispaly but if you are actully planning to edit/compute at 4096x2560 pixels (10.5 mp) you might find it only works well in the winter due to the heat being given off my the video card needed to run it. To do much more than display (or watch a prerecorded movie) will require a dang large investment in computing power beyond what consumer friendly/available today or in near future...unless you restrict to very low refresh rates (sub 15fps perhaps)

Don't underestimate the progress of technology. At this moment the bottleneck is display not display card.

Not true. I have no problem finding all numbers of displays that can handle higher rez data...now, just as 10 years ago...finding a card that can drive it (at good refresh rates)a t less than hairdrier temps and noise is still the bottle neck.

I don't believe there is much pressure on still images compared to videos on display cards

True...Pre-recorded video is not that much more tasking than simply displaying stills

so as long as display cards there to support such resolution it will not generate lots of heat unless you are running 4K/8K videos.

Not true...when you talk about editing stills (in GPU intensive ways) and video...the jump in required temp, noise, and required power is pretty extreme. Not as bad as pure gaming, but still up there. Clock speed go from 300MHZ to 900MHz+ and temps commonly go from 36c to 75c+. If you don't think so...then you haven't tried editing/rendering 4k video.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
True again

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

But not everyone wants to print, no mention billboard size. How large of your real estate can hold those big prints?

I see your point. Also really makes the virtues of cell phone only photography more obvious. A lot to be said for..."good enough for what I do" practicality. Keeps cost down too...added bonus. Likely the reason higher quality photography (top end of the spectrum) is on the decline and market share is getting to be such a tough nut to crack.

Printing is really an old-fashion and dying technology that will be replaced by high-end display in a decade.

Also a good point for your type of IQ requirements. Keeps the bar down and saves in both processing time and money...unless you start chasing display resolution. A lot to be said for limiting output medium. A lot of pluses to that type of workflow/expectations. Certainly makes advances in sensor tech less and less relevant for some. Who needs more anyways.

Just do a survey in this forum, how many actually are working in billboard business?

Most photos come from a cell and make it no farther than Facebook.  In that regard your suggestion that resolution and DR aren't all that important is certainly valid for a large group. No denying that. I can absolutely see why IQ advances, of a certain nature, would be of little real use.

I don't deny there are some of them there but not many, not me, not you that I am sure about.

Not you most certainly as you have stated so. Nothing wrong with that at all.  I though go a bit further than that but certainly not weekly. I do print far more than most here, so I see why my experiences and requirements will obviously differ from yours. Yours are still valid points in relative terms. No need for you to buy a saddle when you don't ride.

But in other side, you can enjoy high resolution photos on today's monitor but inconvenience to shift photos around.

Always pros and cons

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 702
Re: True again

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

But not everyone wants to print, no mention billboard size. How large of your real estate can hold those big prints?

I see your point. Also really makes the virtues of cell phone only photography more obvious. A lot to be said for..."good enough for what I do" practicality. Keeps cost down too...added bonus. Likely the reason higher quality photography (top end of the spectrum) is on the decline and market share is getting to be such a tough nut to crack.

Printing is really an old-fashion and dying technology that will be replaced by high-end display in a decade.

Also a good point for your type of IQ requirements. Keeps the bar down and saves in both processing time and money...unless you start chasing display resolution. A lot to be said for limiting output medium. A lot of pluses to that type of workflow/expectations. Certainly makes advances in sensor tech less and less relevant for some. Who needs more anyways.

Just do a survey in this forum, how many actually are working in billboard business?

Most photos come from a cell and make it no farther than Facebook. In that regard your suggestion that resolution and DR aren't all that important is certainly valid for a large group. No denying that. I can absolutely see why IQ advances, of a certain nature, would be of little real use.

I don't deny there are some of them there but not many, not me, not you that I am sure about.

Not you most certainly as you have stated so. Nothing wrong with that at all. I though go a bit further than that but certainly not weekly. I do print far more than most here, so I see why my experiences and requirements will obviously differ from yours. Yours are still valid points in relative terms. No need for you to buy a saddle when you don't ride.

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

But in other side, you can enjoy high resolution photos on today's monitor but inconvenience to shift photos around.

Always pros and cons

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
Display

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 702
Re: Display

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
easy

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links).

Have you looked at the Dmax. Epson printers using K-3 inks and the special black and white mode in the driver can get up to Dmax 2.3 or even a bit higher under carefully controlled conditions. That was 2 years ago. Pretty easy to look up. Not sure a link would work as your not really looking at the print examples nest to the RAW Tiff on a 10 bit system. Have to think about that.

Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops).

I've seen the D800 prints by Lik on fuji personally. Pretty impressive. I think you may be confusing apples with oranges a bit as I never said the actual print DR equals that of the sensor.

I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

Of course it is...I never said the actual measured DR of print (or monitor) is higher than the DR a moden sensor can capture. I said that the DR of print medium has increased (higher Dmax's) and that it is much easier, more accurate, and more representative. Much better results now when you compress the dynamic range and tonal range (proper tonal curves) so that the whole dynamic range captured is represented in print. Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false. When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 702
Re: easy

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links).

Have you looked at the Dmax. Epson printers using K-3 inks and the special black and white mode in the driver can get up to Dmax 2.3 or even a bit higher under carefully controlled conditions. That was 2 years ago. Pretty easy to look up. Not sure a link would work as your not really looking at the print examples nest to the RAW Tiff on a 10 bit system. Have to think about that.

Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops).

I've seen the D800 prints by Lik on fuji personally. Pretty impressive. I think you may be confusing apples with oranges a bit as I never said the actual print DR equals that of the sensor.

I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

Of course it is...I never said the actual measured DR of print (or monitor) is higher than the DR a moden sensor can capture. I said that the DR of print medium has increased (higher Dmax's) and that it is much easier, more accurate, and more representative. Much better results now when you compress the dynamic range and tonal range (proper tonal curves) so that the whole dynamic range captured is represented in print. Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false.

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

MarkLand Senior Member • Posts: 1,845
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

Hi Nikos,

Great thread, obviously several of us like to consider this option.  Your photos are mostly very good and you clearly make use of HDR effects so I am curious, are you hoping to reduce processing time associated with HDR?

My opinion is that, since you have the means and it seems that it would help to keep your motivation at a high level - do it and enjoy!  Remember that glass tends to hold value only while the manufacturer supports the format....

-Mark

-- hide signature --
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
reflect?

roustabout66 wrote:

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

Print doesn't capture but reflects It is also true that you can also accurately and in a very pleasing way (no posterization) represent 13 stops of DR in print. As Dmax has improved...so has the ability to represt DR in print. The proof can be seen at 406 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611. I can also see it on my wall (dif in Papers of different Dmax...same scene).

Again...you seem convinced I said the DR of Print is 13 stops. I never said that...I think

And checked http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53619791

"extended" DR might be a better term when speaking of print (often applied to HDR imaging).

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,671
Re: Display

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops.  The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 702
Re: reflect?

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

Print doesn't capture but reflects It is also true that you can also accurately and in a very pleasing way (no posterization) represent 13 stops of DR in print. As Dmax has improved...so has the ability to represt DR in print. The proof can be seen at 406 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611. I can also see it on my wall (dif in Papers of different Dmax...same scene).

Again...you seem convinced I said the DR of Print is 13 stops. I never said that...I think

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I get the idea that you said a print can show "represent" 13 stops...your words.

"Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false."

You just keep making outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever. As a moderator of this forum you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that in my opinion. What you are saying is not true and you know it. Some of the newbies here probably actually think your comments are accurate. If you are saying 13 stops being crunched down to the 6 to 8 1/2 stops of the medium equals "represent" say so and admit I am correct as far as the limitation of print media. Otherwise, if a paper print can "represent" 13 stops DR I will ask for the third time, show a link.

roustabout66 Contributing Member • Posts: 702
Re: Display

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

rrccad Forum Pro • Posts: 10,519
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?

Dave Luttmann wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Tim Devine wrote:

You could pickup a Sony a7R to tide you over. You'll need an adapter, but at least you can use your existing investment in lenses. The DR bump is quite noticeable, at least over the 5D II I have.

But MF is MF....

-Tim

+1.

To OP:

Unless you absolutely need 50mp and MF, you have some best lenses with such varieties and flexibilities in the world that you don't find in Pentax MF lens's lineup. I am sure Pentax has some very nice prime lenses but it doesn't have TS-E lenses.

Also suggested A7R. All your EF lenses work very well on A7R thru adapter. You will find it's much easier to use your TS-E lenses on A7R than on 5D III thanks to EVF and 7x/14x magnification that you can directly do it in EVF (imagining under bright noon sunlight) without having to toggle between OVF and LV as you'd do in 5D III.

If you really need 50mp, Sony 54 mp FF sensor likely will be announced by next year and will be implemented in A7R II.

tilt shift lens for Pentax 645:

http://www.dvdtechnik.com/?p=res&pn=&cur=usd&id=89&p_t=view&mid=127

Don't believe $715 Ukraine-made TS-E lens can close to Canon 24 TS-E II and 17mm TS-E. Its FF eq 35mm FL is not ideal in landscape also. Not in the same league.

The optics are by Zeiss, so it should be OK. The Canon TS-E are a bit special, however.

I've used their optics on a Pentax 6x7. Very good glass. I would say that this lens on the 645Z would have advantages over the smaller, lower rez and lower DR Canon regardless of lens choice. I just wanted to point out that there are T/S options to those without any knowledge or expereince with the Pentax MF system claiming otherwise.

I could be wrong, but this one isn't the digital series of super rotator tilt shifts.

these are adapted from Kiev-Arsenal medium format lenses, not Zeiss. with a 5.3um pixel pitch on the new 645 you may see it strain to keep up to the resolution.

now these ones:

http://www.hartblei.de/en/sr40if.htm

are delicious, however not suitable for MF systems only FF/APS-C

 rrccad's gear list:rrccad's gear list
Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS M Canon EOS 7D Mark II +2 more
Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
See you did

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

Print doesn't capture but reflects It is also true that you can also accurately and in a very pleasing way (no posterization) represent 13 stops of DR in print. As Dmax has improved...so has the ability to represt DR in print. The proof can be seen at 406 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611. I can also see it on my wall (dif in Papers of different Dmax...same scene).

Again...you seem convinced I said the DR of Print is 13 stops. I never said that...I think

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I get the idea that you said a print can show "represent" 13 stops...your words.

Exactly. Very diffrent from "capture" 13 stops

"Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false."

Also very different from saying the DR of print is now 13 stops.

You just keep making outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever. As a moderator of this forum you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that in my opinion. What you are saying is not true and you know it. Some of the newbies here probably actually think your comments are accurate.

they are accurate. You simply misinterpret.

If you are saying 13 stops being crunched down to the 6 to 8 1/2 stops of the medium equals "represent" say so and admit I am correct as far as the limitation of print media. Otherwise, if a paper print can "represent" 13 stops DR I will ask for the third time, show a link.

I gave you the address where a High DR capture (13 EV plus) is "Represented" in print quite well. Let me know if I was wrong.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Mako2011
MOD Mako2011 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,148
Turn them away

roustabout66 wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

You print more than most, yet you still claim the print medium is capable of exceeding 8 1/2 stops or even 12 stops. Where is the evidence of that? Where is a link proving that?

No, I said print is capable of displaying the detail (at both ends) of a high DR capture...even in cases in excess of 12 stops (paper and lighting paly a big part). Advances in Paper and printing technology/processing have made it a bit more common. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Also the actual DR of print has been increased in same cases. Fuji crystal papers would be an example. MOAB SlickRock metallic (vs simple gloss paper) is another example even consumer grade photo printers can get more DR from. KODAK PROFESSIONAL Inkjet Photo Paper, Metallic / 255g would be another paper that has an expanded DR vs older paper types. Seeing the comparison in person is really the only way to note the increase in an obvious way.

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Each end is not the problem, it's all that stuff in the middle. So you do not have any evidence (links). Only your own personal experience (feeling) to prove print medium is significantly better than 8 1/2 stops (or more importantly 12 stops). I have not tried the metallic yet, but I have a Fuji crystal print 20x30 and the DR of my Canon sensor is easily more than that print.

It is not relevant that prints are 6, 7, or 10 stops. The important part is having enough DR at the capture level in order to compress to print.

Besides, I sell prints....try selling your digital file.

I sell prints too Dave...have for over 40 years. I have also worked in one of the largest photo finishers in the Midwest, so I know that most of the "facts" in this thread are pure 100% propaganda.

So you're saying that a print can only "represent" 6 to 8 EV of DR/detail and there is no point in capturing more at the sensor for output other than 10 bit monitors, perhaps? What do you suggest we do with all the extra detail in the file? When someone comes to you with a D800/A7 file do you say...sorry, can't print that in a representative way and turn them away? When you take a picture of a DSC Labs 72-dB 13-Step GrayScale chart (with a High DR camera), what parts of the chart are not represented in the print?

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads