Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Breaking News

Breaking News Updates, innovations, equipment: moderated!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 14th, 2014, 10:40 PM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default Pentax Ricoh 645Z et voilà !

Here it is!
http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pen...announced.html
Can't wait to have one in hand!
I'll come back later to comment… ; )

<EDIT>On official British website</EDIT>
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 15th, 2014, 12:54 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

It sure don't look to be MF in real film terms with a sensor that size...
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 15th, 2014, 01:42 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Here it is!
http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pen...announced.html
Can't wait to have one in hand!
I'll come back later to comment… ; )

<EDIT>On official British website</EDIT>
Hi Nicolas,

Looks exciting! Nice specifications, although I wonder about the high ISO claims (may be important for the Japanese home market). Such high ISOs will have virtually no Dynamic Range, so hardly usable for high quality imaging. It does look like ISO 800 would be a usable ISO with limited quality loss.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Phase One's Capture One Raw converter would support the PEF/DNG Raw format of the 645Z?

I also think that would allow Phase One to sell more licenses and upgrades for Capture One than they could ever sell camera backs to the more price sensitive market segment that the Pentax 645Z caters for. The more expensive Phase digital backs also need support from a dealer network and pay for upgrade programs and loan/backup equipment. The Pentax offering is aimed at a different market segment.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 15th, 2014, 02:00 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
It sure don't look to be MF in real film terms with a sensor that size...
And then?

The facts are that, even if you don't, the industry does recognize these sensor as "MF", Pentax Ricoh, Phase and Hasselblad does… The "MF" is not only bodies but also lens, and these new cameras (Pentax Ricoh, Phase and Hasselblad) does offer the possibility to use "old time" MF lens…

When I was young (a long time ago!) my very first camera was a Brownie Flash from Kodak. It was using 6x6 cm "real" film… was it qualified as a MF camera? I seriously doubt !

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 15th, 2014, 02:07 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
Hi Nicolas,

Looks exciting! Nice specifications, although I wonder about the high ISO claims (may be important for the Japanese home market). Such high ISOs will have virtually no Dynamic Range, so hardly usable for high quality imaging. It does look like ISO 800 would be a usable ISO with limited quality loss.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Phase One's Capture One Raw converter would support the PEF/DNG Raw format of the 645Z?

I also think that would allow Phase One to sell more licenses and upgrades for Capture One than they could ever sell camera backs to the more price sensitive market segment that the Pentax 645Z caters for. The more expensive Phase digital backs also need support from a dealer network and pay for upgrade programs and loan/backup equipment. The Pentax offering is aimed at a different market segment.

Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart
I agree with you (did I ever disagree? LoL!)
With the 645D I gave achieved very nice image at 800 ISO with great enlargement :

So if with the 645Z I can shoot at 1200 i'll be the king!

LR 5 has done large improvements and even for older files shot with the 1DS3, the quality is almost the same than wit C1 with even more power on highlight recovery. But I again agree with you about Phase's C1, also, when a photographer wants to buy a new camera system, I doubt that the raw converter is the main aspect to make its decision…
Phase marketing should be aware of that!

I'll post later my analysis on the new features of the 645z… (and there are some pretty neat ones!)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old April 15th, 2014, 03:59 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Hi Bart
So if with the 645Z I can shoot at 1200 i'll be the king!
I don't have good enough test files from the Phase One IQ250 with the same sensor but most likely different electronics, but my guess for the Pentax 645Z is that ISO 800 or 1250 is the highest useful ISO setting, after which one just underexposes (and gains more specular highlight headroom) and boosts exposure in post-processing for more.

Quote:
LR 5 has done large improvements and even for older files shot with the 1DS3, the quality is almost the same than wit C1 with even more power on highlight recovery.
While I agree that LR has become better (with 'Process 2012'), it also compresses the highlights very much. That in my opinion takes a lot of sparkle and life out of images. One is almost forced to start with a -100 for the Highlights control to correct that. Capture One 7.xx usually produces cleaner edges and lines without stair-stepping artifacts, which allows more output enlargement and more Topaz Clarity and Detail enhancement.

I'm also a bit worried about the future of a subscription free Lightroom. I think software subscriptions are bad for continuity of our business. Having access to our intellectual properties in the future, not subject to internet connection for subscription verification, and not having to pay until eternity to allow access ... But that's a different subject for another thread.

Quote:
I'll post later my analysis on the new features of the 645z… (and there are some pretty neat ones!)
Looking forward to that ...

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old April 15th, 2014, 09:05 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,133
Default

Hi, Nicolas,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post

When I was young (a long time ago!) my very first camera was a Brownie Flash from Kodak. It was using 6x6 cm "real" film… was it qualified as a MF camera? I seriously doubt !
Sure, but if not, why? The film it used was the same size as 120/220 film (but on a more compact spool).

A lovely machine, very important to the spread of photography among the general public. It was known in the US as the Brownie Hawkeye (Brownie Hawkeye Flash Model in the package with a flash gun).


Interesting that the nameplate says "Made in France" (in English!).

Thanks for letting us see this jewel.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old April 15th, 2014, 09:44 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Hi Doug
Made in France is (still) mainly used for exported items ; )

As for the Brownie, I adored it!
And yes, why not calling it a MF camera, but then the quality of the image is not comparable to modern digital cameras with 44x33 mm sensor… This is just to say that being or not being a true "MF" is not a quite relevant argument… IMHO…
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old April 15th, 2014, 09:56 AM
Theodoros Fotometria Theodoros Fotometria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Corinth, Greece
Posts: 438
Default

The price is a real surprise... I can see people in Phamyia and Hassy with a frozen smile on their face... Will they survive? ...I doubt it!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old April 15th, 2014, 11:24 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
It sure don't look to be MF in real film terms with a sensor that size...
Hi Paul,

We're in a new era. Cell phones are now the "point and shoot" cameras, fixed-lens cameras like the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX-1 are respected by serious Photographers more than ever and the DSLR in its present form is expensive and heavy for the real estate it offers. We get, in may uses, the matching or better function from mirrorless cameras. MF offers more real estate in the sensor plane but has been limited to well-healed professionals and jobs where low light work was nt needed. The new Pentax 645Z is poised to change all that.

To the term Medium format or MF: I think, just like the word, "photography", writing with light, applied to recording on silica, the term, "MF" applies to the system of lenses, (giving certain focus plane characteristics) and a sensor, (approaching 60 X 64.5mm, 60x60 or 60 x 70mm), having more real estate to receive whatever lines/mm the lens system might project. An extra $2,000 over the already expensive Canon 1DX or Nikon D4 professional bodies gets one into a remarkably competent camera with more real estate in the image plane. So enthusiasts might go for the Pentax 645Z and many wedding professionals might join, as it gives an edge over DSLR equipped competitors.

Of course, the sensor plane of the MF lenses is incomplete in all but the most costly, so-called, "MF" digital cameras. That is likely to be a temporary limit. No doubt, Sony or Dalsa will produce a larger sensor at economical pricing and so these MF cameras will realize even greater real estate and therefore consequent potential to be printed with great detail and marvelous tonalities intact, even at large print sizes.

Still, this is an historical forward movement, a major change in the professional landscape. Right now, classical leaders in "MF" digital cameras have the advantage of higher shutter speed in leaf shutters for daylight outdoor strobe use in weddings and fashion shoots. The Pentax is limited to 1/160 sec, I believe.

Also there are major workflow advantages to the array of lenses for which Hasselblad has built in lens corrections for illumination, distortion and CA.

For a lens-equipped professional, their current 40-50 MP MF backs will serve them well for some time. Going to Pentax, will be for the few wanting, increased ISO sensitivity, more focus point selection, the screen at the back or some other personal preference. Where someone thinks s/he "needs" 65-80 MP, again the Phase one, Leaf and Hasselblad sales are not threatened. So, for a while, Phase One and Hasselblad will survive.

However, it's obvious, that sooner or later, (I think by 2017), we'll see 60mm x 645 mm MF, (well, Nicolas, not quite that just then, but at least 60 x45 mm), in Pentax bodies

What's also possible with the price of sensors for "MF" dropping, to allow "MF" cameras to be built economically by anyone like Olympus and Sony, (leveraging on the more advanced electronic systems for focus and/stabilization already used in their current line up of cameras) - not a lot of research/retooling needed! Or, perhaps, 3rd party lens MFRS may seek to penetrate this newly expanded market.

Thus begins a new era.........even if red blobs or leaks are discovered over the next few weeks!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old April 16th, 2014, 06:28 AM
Theodoros Fotometria Theodoros Fotometria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Corinth, Greece
Posts: 438
Default

Talking about IQ250 being an MFDB, while "Z" being a camera, I wonder what sales Pentax would achieve if they decided to sell an MFDB specified like the "Z" for all Contax, Mamiya, H1/2/2F/4X, V and the like... Maybe a version of their 25mm lens too for Contax could be a good idea... This would bring tears on many current makers, would increase profits for Pentax considerably, would provide a cheap solution for view and tech cameras with high ISO capabilities and would give the MF market a new boost ... not that the competition would love such a decision from Pentax, it could make them very angry indeed... Could even make Sony aim for a 54x40.5 sensor for them to have a second version of the back...

I wouldn't like to be a P1 shareholder having in mind that it would cost them insignificantly to make such a decision at no time... Maybe I would even expect them to try and resurrect Contax and have a single line of lenses for both cameras...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old April 16th, 2014, 08:04 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,133
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post

However, it's obvious, that sooner or later, (I think by 2017), we'll see 60mm x 645 mm MF in Pentax bodies
60 mm x 45 mm maybe?

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old April 16th, 2014, 08:21 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
Hi, Asher,



60 mm x 45 mm maybe?

Best regards,

Doug
Hi Doug
I think Asher is wishing such a sensor (60mm x 645 mm) for panoramic shots ; )
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old April 16th, 2014, 09:05 AM
Theodoros Fotometria Theodoros Fotometria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Corinth, Greece
Posts: 438
Default

I think Asher meant 54x40.5mm (as is the FF for digital MF) and just used the "old saying" of film where people called 6x6 what was the 56x56mm neg... "645" was simply a "typo" implying 4:3 ratio... I think!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old April 18th, 2014, 01:51 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

Thanks for that info Asher, I appreciate it...

Shouldn't this camera be stated as having a cropped MF sensor then? Because the image this sensor creates is a small one compared to what a true MF film camera can put out. This camera is misrepresented using the 645 denomination...it is not a 645!

If Theodorus is right does this camera's sensor size equate to a 4:3 size?
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old April 18th, 2014, 03:18 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
Thanks for that info Asher, I appreciate it...

Shouldn't this camera be stated as having a cropped MF sensor then? Because the image this sensor creates is a small one compared to what a true MF film camera can put out. This camera is misrepresented using the 645 denomination...it is not a 645!

If Theodorus is right does this camera's sensor size equate to a 4:3 size?

Paul,

You're correct in pointing out that the sensor is not yet full 645 size. Pentax doesn't claim it's 645, AFAIK.

True 645 would have a 4:3 ratio (1.333, whereas this is a little longer at 1.36). It should do a good job of replacing that film format, if that's what one wishes to do. The lenses should cover a full 645 format.

I'm excited about the prospect of getting one of these cameras!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old April 18th, 2014, 06:40 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post

I'm excited about the prospect of getting one of these cameras!

Asher



If you'd send one to me I'd be excited too...
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old April 18th, 2014, 07:25 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Abbott View Post
Thanks for that info Asher, I appreciate it...

Shouldn't this camera be stated as having a cropped MF sensor then? Because the image this sensor creates is a small one compared to what a true MF film camera can put out. This camera is misrepresented using the 645 denomination...it is not a 645!

If Theodorus is right does this camera's sensor size equate to a 4:3 size?
I can attest that the files produced by the Pentax 645D (and Z) have a ratio of 4:3
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old April 18th, 2014, 09:56 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

I have commented a comparison between the specifications of the 645D and the Z, but as one cannot (for security reasons) embed html here, I'm forced to invite you to follow this link
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 18th, 2014, 10:33 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
I have commented a comparison between the specifications of the 645D and the Z, but as one cannot (for security reasons) embed html here, I'm forced to invite you to follow this link
"RAW Development: Development options: Select single image, Select multiple images, Select a folder Development parameters: File format (JPEG/TIFF), Aspect ratio, JPEG recorded pixels, JPEG quality, colour space, Distortion correction, Lateral chromatic Aberration correction, Peripheral illumination correction, Diffraction correction, Colour fringe correction, White balance, Custom image, Digital filter, HDR, Sensitivity, High-ISO NR, Shadow correction"


Nicolas,

All this is very useful! Can you explain how you'd use the RAW development? Can one have a "set" for say indoor, overhead sun and perhaps shade. What about lens information for CA, illumination and distortion? Does the camera have a lookup table for all compatible Pentax lenses? Or, perhaps the above paragraph on RAW refers to what can be achieved in the processing software Pentax provides?

Thanks for your insights!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old April 18th, 2014, 11:54 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
"RAW Development: Development options: Select single image, Select multiple images, Select a folder Development parameters: File format (JPEG/TIFF), Aspect ratio, JPEG recorded pixels, JPEG quality, colour space, Distortion correction, Lateral chromatic Aberration correction, Peripheral illumination correction, Diffraction correction, Colour fringe correction, White balance, Custom image, Digital filter, HDR, Sensitivity, High-ISO NR, Shadow correction"


Nicolas,

All this is very useful! Can you explain how you'd use the RAW development? Can one have a "set" for say indoor, overhead sun and perhaps shade. What about lens information for CA, illumination and distortion? Does the camera have a lookup table for all compatible Pentax lenses? Or, perhaps the above paragraph on RAW refers to what can be achieved in the processing software Pentax provides?

Thanks for your insights!

Asher
Asher,
this is in camera development which I don't use as I shoot raw (PEF) directly.
This feature exists already in the D but not so sophisticated. Yes they are there are lot of correction for lens (provided that you use Pentax lens).
They are all usable when shooting JPG.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old April 19th, 2014, 12:27 AM
Paul Abbott Paul Abbott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: W. Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,562
Default

Thanks, Nicolas...
__________________
http://paulyrichard.wordpress.com/ "In fact I don't believe there is such a thing as a definitive picture of something. The land is a living, breathing thing and light changes its character every second of every day." - Fay Godwin "All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice." - Elliott Erwitt
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old April 19th, 2014, 01:50 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
I can attest that the files produced by the Pentax 645D (and Z) have a ratio of 4:3
That is 7264x5440 pixels (native)

And that obviously 44x33 mm sensor has a 4:3 ratio also…
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old April 19th, 2014, 05:47 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
That is 7264x5440 pixels (native)

And that obviously 44x33 mm sensor has a 4:3 ratio also…
Hi Nicolas,

I'm confused a bit, the Pentax specifications on their webpage state 8256 x 6192 pixels (= 4:3)in the PEF/DNG Raw formats, and a sensor array size of 43.8 x 32.8 mm (~=4:3). I've also pre-coded those numbers in my free DOF output quality tool since the official 645Z press release was officially published.

You mention a different number of pixels (may be a typo?) and a slightly different size in millimetres. I also see different numbers on different Ricoh/Pentax (USA versus European) websites with 645Z specifications.

Currently only the sensor array size is published with different sizes, the pixel numbers have been changing a bit as well but they seem stable now. Where do the different numbers come from? I'd welcome it if all the official websites use the same numbers, which probably means those from the head office, i.e. 43.8 x 32.8 mm, and 8256 x 6192 pixels.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old April 19th, 2014, 06:37 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,321
Default

Bonjour Bart,

7264x5440 is the size of the PEF file from the 645D, not Z.
And this is from my computer. Not from any spec on any website ; )
And yes, I rounded the sensor size from 43.8 x 32.8 (mm) to 44x33 - sorry for that ; )
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old April 19th, 2014, 09:10 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Bonjour Bart,

7264x5440 is the size of the PEF file from the 645D, not Z.
And this is from my computer. Not from any spec on any website ; )
And yes, I rounded the sensor size from 43.8 x 32.8 (mm) to 44x33 - sorry for that ; )
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
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old April 19th, 2014, 09:32 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post
I've also pre-coded those numbers in my free DOF output quality tool since the official 645Z press release was officially published.
Bart,

Kudos on this contribution to everyone's image planning. It's about time we had a convenient tool to aid choices in lens and sensor for a particular output result. This deserves a new thread as it's so valuable and perhaps there might be feedback or ideas for future additions/refinements.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old April 19th, 2014, 09:33 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Hi Nicolas,

Yes the pixel counts are now uniform (it used to say 8265 x 6192, which was a bit strange since it is not a multiple of 8 or 16, which is customary due to JPEG compression block size).

The size in millimetres is still stated as 44 x 33 mm on:
http://shop-fr.ricoh-imaging.eu/pentax-645-z.html
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/specifications/PENTAX-645-Z.html
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/specifications/PENTAX-645-Z.html
http://www.ricoh-imaging.fr/en/medium-format-digital/url_rewriting_body_specifications/PENTAX-645-Z.html


Oh là là.

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old April 19th, 2014, 09:47 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Bart,

Kudos on this contribution to everyone's image planning. It's about time we had a convenient tool to aid choices in lens and sensor for a particular output result. This deserves a new thread as it's so valuable and perhaps there might be feedback or ideas for future additions/refinements.
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
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Review: Ricoh GR: SUNSET BLVD: Fast Urban Landscapes! Autopano Giga Stitched + Filters too!! Asher Kelman New Pro-Class Compact GR Ricoh Experience(s) 4 December 24th, 2013 07:50 AM
Asher Kelman''s Review of Ricoh GR: Part One: Introduction Asher Kelman New Pro-Class Compact GR Ricoh Experience(s) 10 November 28th, 2013 12:14 AM
Pentax K10D with older Pentax or Sigma lenses Jim Dulc All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 5 April 13th, 2008 12:12 PM
Pentax K10D and older Pentax or Sigma lenses without an A setting Jim Dulc Imaging Technology: Theory, Alternatives, Practice and Advances. 0 January 27th, 2008 09:49 AM
My Meeting with Pentax Today... Benjamin Kanarek All other DSLR's and Four Thirds, 4/3 6 May 16th, 2007 02:56 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!