Pentax Ricoh 645Z et voilà !

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf

Hi Asher,

We'll potentially get to use it in some of the Pentax 645Z discussions, since the additional pixels allow to print them smaller/denser for smaller output sizes, which also has an impact on the output size of the diffraction pattern, and thus DOF and Focus stacking requirements. For larger output sizes it just means we can print larger with the same resolution.

That's why I want to calculate with accurate dimensions, it allows more accurate planning, with fewer surprises when faced with an unknown/new shooting situation.

Cheers,
Bart

Exactly, Bart!

So I started a new thread here. I've been waiting for something like this. Thanks so much.

Asher

[Nicolas Claris]

Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf

Hi Nicolas,

I understand. I know it's only 0.2 mm on both sides, but it's 1424 pixels worth of sensor surface
But seriously, who knows, it might lead to something interesting to discover when the Raw files get analysed.

Either Pentax is more honest than the competition, or Phase and Hasselblad took some other strategy (they both state their sensor has a few more image pixels, 8280 x 6208 pixels and 44.0 x 33.0 mm), than the Pentax. Maybe Pentax used some more non-imaging pixels (24 full height columns and 16 full width rows) at the edge for image calibration? Could it be used for the claimed higher ISO, is there noise reduction taking place before RAW data is written? Food for thought ...

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Again Bart
I don't know who is more honest among Ricoh/Phase/Hasselblad, but I would be very amazed that the sensors aren't the exact same units…
Maybe a track to follow, Pentax wrote (http://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_...15_005014.html):

Image capture unit
Image Sensor Type: CMOS with a primary color filter, Size: 43.8 x 32.8 (mm)
Effective Pixels Approx. 51.4 megapixels
Total Pixels Approx. 52.99 megapixels

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf

Hi Nicolas,

I understand. I know it's only 0.2 mm on both sides, but it's 1424 pixels worth of sensor surface
But seriously, who knows, it might lead to something interesting to discover when the Raw files get analysed.

Either Pentax is more honest than the competition, or Phase and Hasselblad took some other strategy (they both state their sensor has a few more image pixels, 8280 x 6208 pixels and 44.0 x 33.0 mm), than the Pentax. Maybe Pentax used some more non-imaging pixels (24 full height columns and 16 full width rows) at the edge for image calibration? Could it be used for the claimed higher ISO, is there noise reduction taking place before RAW data is written? Food for thought ...

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart, if this could help the food for thought, 8256:1920=4.3 exactly... Obviously the Pentax being video and LV able, they used a bit less of the sensor so that the number of pixels used would "translate" the video signal more efficiently that using all the pixels... This may mean that LV through the camera's own screen, but also tethered work on an external monitor may project a crisper image.

[Theodoros Fotometria]

Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris

Hi Again Bart
I don't know who is more honest among Ricoh/Phase/Hasselblad, but I would be very amazed that the sensors aren't the exact same units…
Maybe a track to follow, Pentax wrote (http://news.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/rim_...15_005014.html):

See my comment to Bart above, maybe it's the answer to sensor size requirement. Will you be trying the new camera any day soon Nicolas? Do you know when?

[Michael Nagel]

The camera is becoming more and more available. Certainly later than April, but early enough to drop the vaporware thought expressed.

Ming Thein has an interesting review.
His first thoughts.
Review Part 1 and Part 2.

Best regards,
Michael

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Michael Nagel

The camera is becoming more and more available. Certainly later than April, but early enough to drop the vaporware thought expressed.

Ming Thein has an interesting review.
His first thoughts.
Review Part 1 and Part 2.

Best regards,
Michael

Michael,

Great reference! I read that carefully too and was surprised how strongly the D800E did in this pretty careful comparison. That would imply that the A7r would also be close. I'd love to see that camera matched to the 645Z as well. The quality of the prime 35mm and 55mm Zeiss lenses for the Sony A7r might even close the gap to the 645Z a tad.

My heart moves towards the 645Z as a major advance we've waited for but the upstart A7r now makes me think twice. Still, that 90 mm with image stabilization might make a commanding difference together with, I expect better AF than the sony A7r.

Asher