As the owner of a 645D (which I didn't pay much more for than current prices, some 6 years ago), I actually feel mildly comforted by this video, so thanks! :-) I *think* it's easier to see the MF vibe, when you have some OOF foreground as well, but I also think it's easier to see when you use the longer focal lengths. What is almost certainly definitely true though, is that in a studio, models, used to FF cameras everywhere, do the modelling just that little bit more when the 645D comes out! Probably.
At the 4:55 mark in the video I recognised the "random nikon d800/200 f2 shot" since it's mine, 😆. I was at a parade using both the D800 and my Pentax 645D and got some great shots with both before leaving. Really enjoying your video, BTW.
Thanks, Eddy, for making this video. I've always been wondering about how the 645D performs against the K-1 especially in replicating that "medium format look". This video answers exactly that.
Regarding the "MF look", first of all well done on choosing equivalent focal lengths and f-stops. Not everyone gets that right. Second, I believe the "look" is a combination of a relatively wide angle of view with a relatively blurred background. The same amount of background blur achieved with a telephoto lens does not achieve the "look" because of the inherent perspective compression. Since you a) chose equivalent shooting parameters, it was predetermined that you'll get the same "look" (modulo lens characteristics), and b) chose a normal focal length (no wide angle perspective "distortion" yet), it was clear that you wouldn't get the typical "MF look" which to me is caused by a relatively wide AOV + relatively blurred background. P.S.: Good on you for calling it "baby-MF" which is the same term I use for this cropped MF format. At DPReview you'll be told that "MF does not refer to a specific format and it just fine to refer to the crop-MF formats as 'MF'" but of course that is an unhelpful dilution of terminology and its only point appears to be to allow Fujifilm (they don't care about Pentax) to get away with selling "MF cameras" that really just are "baby-MF cameras. There are some actual film size MF digital cameras and they'll produce the "MF look" more easily because they up the ante regarding angle of view (while achieving the same background blur). P.P.S: You won't get the same "subject pop" from the K-1 & FA 43/1.9 Ltd combination as from your 645D because the 43/1.9, as fun and nice a lens it is, is just not great wide open. It is easier to construct a better lens on a larger format and the 55/2.8 for the 645D also costs quite a bit more. If you get the chance, try the newer HD FA* 50mm or 85mm f/1.4 lenses on your K-1. These lenses are great, even wide open.
Thanks for that. Indeed I tried to match some kind of focal length and depth, because I had the 55/2.8 and 43/1.9 it seemed the closest pairing from the two systems I had. Should I have used a DFA50 I'm not sure what MF lens to use on the 645? I do have a 200/4 for the 645 and agree that the results or MFV (Med Form Vibe) are harder to produce from that optic due to compression perspective as you point out. But I have had MANY images taken with the DFA55 that produced 'that vibe' and I have quite a few taken with the K-1+43, so knew anyway that this would be a fun comparison to make. I took so many more images, but the video was already at 40mins from the small samples I took. Really the 43mm was performing very nicely, the shots I took with it at 2.8, 5.6 etc were not really shown in the video but it's IQ is not really in question, it does great imo. There is even a couple shots at f2 and it was holding up pretty nice imo. (but yes I get your point, DFA50 it is not). All these shots were with the DFA55 which I think have that MFV on a few of them, others not so much, and I think that is pretty much my summary point. www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=95230640%40N04&sort=date-taken-desc&text=dfa55&view_all=1 Yes the 645D produces the MFV, but its occasional and the right settings need to come together to produce it. But I have seen the MFV on M43, APS-C and FF as well, but the ratio feels less, much harder, almost fluking it more.
I wish "baby" medium format camera makers would at least increase the height of the sensor to be 1:1. Then it would at least bridge the gap a little bit and it seems really cost effective to do so. They wouldn't need to change any other part of the camera body or lens lineup to make this change. I've also always thought micro four thirds should make their sensors 1:1 as well and it'd bridge the gap much closer to APSC and compensate for some of the drawbacks of m43.
Regarding the colours: It is a very good idea to use the X-rite color target, but you should have white balanced both images using one of the gray scales on the target. Unless you are doing this, you are mainly comparing different in-camera approaches to white balancing and different white balance neutral points of the respective camera profiles.
I have tried that in the past, but Xrite falls over every time even though it makes the profile successfully. It does very weird things :S But I also DID want to compare each cameras approach to white balancing as I thought that would be useful info for folk. calibrite.com/us/software-downloads/ This particular note about win 11 issues was interesting I thought (I'm on win 11). The K-1 had no problems profiling, and neither did the 645D at the time, but clearly its not working right. And it wasn't working properly either when I was on win 10 last year, says its successful but the colours are mental after applying. I think I googled it and PF has some other users experiencing the same issue with no work around.
Great video thank you for putting the work into it. It took me a while to realize that medium format wasn't just about shallow DOF, especially since most lenses for the systems are pretty slow and have less bokeh than the ultra fast full frame lenses available. Heck even some of my micro four thirds lenses have a shallower depth of field than my Pentax medium format lenses. I have cameras with all types of sensors and each system has its own use case, there's no perfect camera, otherwise I wouldn't be constantly buying new toys.
Yeh, I think the words often left out of the conversation with MF is 'depth, space, isolation', which are all irrespective of bokeh and DoF per se. You see it more easily in 67 groups, how a car or object is really popping from the scene yet the scene itself is not obliterated by bokeh or oof (you can still easily see background and foreground context and details). I think you'll might find the effect more pronounced perhaps with the GFX system as they also have some very fast glass as well. But all in all, digMF is still not that much more than a good FF camera paired with a GOOD lens, for a medium format look its one of those things I think that is not consistent enough image to image and especially when being viewed on smaller screens (loses its impact). For me the cons of digMF outweigh the pros (at this point in time in the tech race). Possibly the GFX100II being the first MF camera I'd entertain further down the line as it feels like the first iteration to not be massively crippled in real world practical case usage.
Finally got brave to view this one Eddy after lusting after medium format for years i am pretty sure you have cured me. I know hubby is thinking you are awesome having saved him thousands lol.
lol! Yeh, look really... having a 645D and K-1 sometimes feels like I am doubling up. Without a doubt the K-1 is more versatile, but the magic can really happen with the 645D but it doesn't always feel like it happens every time. I am torn, sometimes I play those sick disturbing games in my head... like... "if one of my cameras had to die, which would I rather bite the dust? K-1 or 645D!?".... I don't have an answer! And I think a 645Z is like the two cameras merged into one. Hehe...
from what i can see from the comparison there is some noticeable difference similar when you take full frame and apsc from same distance. Compared to Medium format there is a crop in full frame, in medium format there is a sense of more space in the frame and I have started liking medium format
Indeed. Head over to my website (link in About tab), go to 'Blog' and look for a recent entry called 'APS-C vs Medium Format', and see how you go with the little 'test'.
Wow. Respect for doing this vid, Eddy. Fascinating to see the similarities and differences. You are in serious danger of making me save up for the K1 mk2. (used probably!) I was looking at the Fuji (for size, jpegs, and fun). But the K1 just seems still to be amazing. (Plus I have the 43 and 77 which you keep telling me I cannot use on my KP, lol!) I also wonder whether this vid might put a lot of people off the 645D? My father in law had 3 of the 67's and the images he got from those was spectacular. But they were heavy, lol.
Hehe. If someone was into landscape, or slow shooting, already had 2 of the three amigos... I would utterly urge them to get a used K-1. In fact, the three amigos and Takumar 50/1.4(8e) are really the only thing keeping me shooting with a K-1 and not just completely migrating to another system. Good glass matters, these days I hunt for the glass and get the body that can drive it well. Glass is forever, bodies come and go.
@@wreford07 You might even be able to run with with AF on the Sony system via the Monster Adapter! But I dunno... expensive adapter and I bet used K-1's will continue to be cheap as chips and value for money.
Very interesting video, you must have put a lot of work into it. I think all your observations are pretty valid, the thing I would question most is the IQ test for sharpness, which can't be valid unless you're using the same lens for both, which clearly you can't! However, within the limitations of what you can use to do these tests I think you did fantastically well.
Yep that is valid. A bit like a studio DPreview IQ test, a bit meaningless when different lenses are used on different systems. Nonetheless, you do get something, the DFA55 is no slouch and neither is the FA43 when stopped down to its strongest f number, they are both plenty sharp in their own rights. Pixelshift is badass tho :) Thanks for commenting and I'm glad it was entertaining if nothing else.
This was a really interesting video Eddy. I watched that DP review bit you referred to in the beginning, and I have to agree with your assessment of what they did. I think you nailed "the vibe" "the medium format look" down. It's that pop, not bokeh. I think you also nailed down what contributes to it. I think it has a lot to do with distance from subject at the right aperture. It's funny you used the 43 limited on the K1. I've been interested in that lens and have viewed a lot of images from it. It really can create that pop. My theory would be that it has a lot to do with the focal length and how using that focal length encourages you to frame subject matter. I thoroughly enjoyed your take on "the vibe" and agree with your conclusions. It's there, but it's elusive, and you don't automatically get it just by shooting medium format, but you're more likely to get it than you would be on full frame. The colors on the 645D are better. Hands down. IQ has a bit of an advantage, but other than that, I'm also taking the K1 all day. Great video, thanks for throwing it together, and it didn't feel like you rambled at all. Everything was relevant and needed to be gone through to make trying to break this down worthwhile.
Thank you for the lovely remarks. If we refer back to my Takumar 50/1.4 (8 element vs 7) video, I show that the 8 element does this neat party trick whereby when stopped down it is providing oof background quality that seemingly is more associated with a wider aperture. For example, F5.6 on the 8 element is providing bokeh more akin to like what the 7 element does at f4. What the end result gives is incredible IQ that wraps around the subject matter, with a kind of surreal level of background separation that is kinda surprising and not expected. A 'medium format vibe'. I think many Pentaxians refer to this 'party trick' as 'pixie dust', and along with the Takumar 50(8e) I have also seen this phenomena with all three FA Ltds (but it could perhaps be strongest with the 8e). If you want to go further down this rabbit hole then you could watch Theoria's vid on such lens optical traits that render depth particularly well (and often CA badly as a side affect); th-cam.com/video/aQm4C3iCk-I/w-d-xo.html NB; it's actually noteworthy to mention that some of these older vintage lenses that CA badly were actually engineered for monochrome film, so CA wasn't an issue or something they tried to rectify. Nowadays a lot of effort goes into to correct CA, whilst also tidying up edges and corners but also still giving good pop. The result is very big, heavy and expensive glass, but they do succeed in their tasks. The FA Ltds I think do a fantastic job considering their size and weight, you have to roll with the punches sometimes tho and realise where they can let the user down. So yeah... I think this video if anything is testament specifically to the FA43 and its optical recipe and not just any ol' prime tossed on the K-1. What a combo.
Great comparison! I use a lot of different cameras, D850, Z6II, Gfx50s, Leica M8...and a couple of others. My absolute favorite is the M8. The iQ is unique with its colors and rendering. Kodak ccd and no aa-filter is really good. This is where 645d is coming in, Kodak ccd, no aa- filter and a medium format sensor. I'm planning to sell Gfx50s and get a 645d. Have you used, or compared these two cameras?
Thanks Erik. I have not compared GFX against the 645D, sad to say. My gut tells me the following things would be apparent; - Colours are better on the 645D (however you cannot Xrite Colour Passport CCD sensor shots, so accuracy is not necessarily better). - 645D experience is... painful. You'll likely have less dynamic range to play with and waiting 3-4 secs to see your image revealed on the back of the LCD screen is something you need to be ok with. - Pentax 645 glass generally tops out at f2.8, whereas with Fuji you do have some faster options. - Fuji will have better AF, or tools to help get the job done quicker and easier. - ISO is a problem with the 645D, it can become a tripod camera for a lot of scenarios where handholding is possible on other systems. Topping out at 1600 ISO, and you might not want to shoot higher than 400, coupled with no IBIS and fastest aperture at f2.8... do the math and you'll realise a monopod or tripod practically becomes a necessary accessory even in fair to ok lighting situations. I think you have to be a bit of a nutter to entertain a 645D in 2023 🤪 If colours, rendering and slow deliberate work are your thing then yeh this is still a relevant camera today. I'll never forget the first time I imported RAWs into LR, I was double checking they were not Jpgs as they were so vibrant and rich! I never had that kind of RAW response from any other camera... 🥰
Really nice video Eddy! I have now a close idea about the performance of both cameras, and that is very important to me, because I was considering sell my K1 II to buy a 645D/Z but. After this video, I think will keep my beloved K1ii, I just bought recently the HD FA 43mm Ltd and I'm in love with that óptic, the "Three Amigos" combined with the K1/K1ii sensor is a superb combination... Again, thanks man for this...best regards for your channel. 🤜🤛
Regarding IQ, the larger format sensor camera should be better. The fact that it isn't in this comparison is owed to the fact that the 645D sensor is so much older than the K-1 sensor. I bet, as you also speculated, that the 645Z would give the K-1 a much harder run for its money.
I'd love a 645Z, if nothing more than to just have the LCD screen to quicken up the shoot. Some of these test shots were time consuming on the 645D, shoot, chimp (wait 3 secs), confirm slightly soft focus on target, nudge focus ring a smudge, shoot again, repeat x5 lol. Urgh... My own conclusion is that I think certain optics for FF, they can assist with rendering that MFV. The three amigos do an ok job, I think the Tak50/1.4(8e) possibly does it more than any other optic I have tried. In my other video where I compared the 8e against its 7 element version, I show that a f5.6 shot from the 8e can 'hold' onto bokeh or oof quality like what the 7e would be doing at something like f4. When comparing the two shots taken at the same aperture, the 7e would look more 'stopped down' or 'normal', the 8e almost looking like it was shot wider open (but then where focus was actually placed clearly was not). I showed this effect time and time again, even also in the video where I compare the 8e against the two 50/1.2's. That ability to grab onto the subject matter, wrap it in sharpness yet render the bokeh at a level that feels a little out of context to what you'd expect I think also contributes to the MFV. I've done a few posts in my time 'guess if this is MF or not' and many have failed thinking a K-1+8e shot was MF, hehe. But... it is a case by case scenario, you gotta get that subject matter, light, aperture, distance, all these things together to get that look. It happens more with the 645D due to its sensor (of course) but it is not guaranteed. It leaves me feeling like it is a lot of coin to put down for a system that still is only a kinda 'occasional' MFV vs always having it with every shot and its blatant. 645Z is still a crippled K-1 as well, and its way more expensive than the D, so I dunno if I'd ever fund it realistically. K-1 is a super camera, Pentax really knocked that one out of the park. If a successor comes I hope they don't screw it up!
I prefer the 645D photos. Especially the rock in the water. But I think it's better not reveal which is which in these types of comparisons, at least until the end. I always assumed the lens design lending a different perspective to 6x6 and higher was the reason for the MF look, which I saw quite clearly when I shot a Rolleiflex in my college photography classes. Compared to my 35mm negatives, the 6x6 negs are in a different league. Of course, the Pentax, Fuji and Hasselblad baby MF are using ~33mm x ~44mm sensors, which are closer to 35mm than 6x6, which has a 56mm x 56mm image. So FF (24x36) is 864mm sq., baby MF (33x44) is 1452mm, film 645 (56x42) is 2352mm sq., 6x6 MF (56x56) is 3136mm sq., and 6x7 (56x67) is 3752mm sq. "sensor" area.
I think if you would have preferred not to know which was which till the end... then that kinda proves the point. It's narrow and not as obvious as you state are clearly observable between 35mm negatives and 6x6 negs. I do have a fun 'slider reveals' blog post on my website where you can play exactly this game. YT can be funny about urls being shared in comments, but if you go to my 'About' tab here>find my website>click on 'Blog' and look for a fairly recent entry called 'APS-C vs Medium Format' (dated 4/29/23) you can have a bash there :) For me the baby medium format is just not worth it over FF, it's too close to call, and MF is basically a nerfed camera in every regard (especially the 645D!). I want a more pronounced effect, something that really becomes obvious when being nerfed to such a degree. It's good the new GFX100II is closing that gap and hopefully the shooting experience is more in line with FF cameras a few years back etc, but still that cost, weight (glass!) will always be a significant con to many. Thanks for commenting.
@@SummersSnaps well how I got here is that my birthday is coming up and I decided to buy myself a camera. Opportunities to buy a 645D andor a GFX 50S presented themselves so I started researching. Thanks to you, I think I will forego the 33x44 sensors and research the slightly larger 36x49 sensors from the mid 2000s... if I can find a complete system for less than $1500 I might just get it. All of this is for personal projects. For pro work I use a Sony a9, which I do not vibe with at all it's just the best tool for my work currently due to a variety of factors. So some of the limits of these older and slower systems will actually be wonderful to struggle against, hopefully! 12 out of 26 : /
@@ftlbaby I can relate, sometimes the work cameras are not stuff we get excited over but they deliver the results! Other times we want to feel like photographers again. Good luck with your hunt!
6*7 is not Largeformat, up to 6*9 its still mediumformat (all Formats that fit on 120 Film, so also the panoramic formats Linhof also offers but thats a special case)
@@SummersSnaps Unfortunately Pentax stopped Digital Mediumformat, i was waiting for a new version with Shake-Reduction and Astro Tracer and Pixel Shift
As the owner of a 645D (which I didn't pay much more for than current prices, some 6 years ago), I actually feel mildly comforted by this video, so thanks! :-)
I *think* it's easier to see the MF vibe, when you have some OOF foreground as well, but I also think it's easier to see when you use the longer focal lengths.
What is almost certainly definitely true though, is that in a studio, models, used to FF cameras everywhere, do the modelling just that little bit more when the 645D comes out!
Probably.
Yeh, there's no mistaking you mean serious business when the 645D comes out, hahaha.
Thanks for putting the work into making this! Really interesting stuff.
Thanks for watching!
The K 1 is nice. The 645 is natively “nicer” - to me - when the images are side by side.
Thank you Eddy. Great comparison. Love your work, spot on.
Cheers Crow!
At the 4:55 mark in the video I recognised the "random nikon d800/200 f2 shot" since it's mine, 😆. I was at a parade using both the D800 and my Pentax 645D and got some great shots with both before leaving.
Really enjoying your video, BTW.
for me the colors of the 645d popped right off the screen. I love ccd sensors
What are your thoughts on this video and its comparisons? Useful?
Thanks, Eddy, for making this video. I've always been wondering about how the 645D performs against the K-1 especially in replicating that "medium format look". This video answers exactly that.
Regarding the "MF look", first of all well done on choosing equivalent focal lengths and f-stops. Not everyone gets that right. Second, I believe the "look" is a combination of a relatively wide angle of view with a relatively blurred background. The same amount of background blur achieved with a telephoto lens does not achieve the "look" because of the inherent perspective compression. Since you a) chose equivalent shooting parameters, it was predetermined that you'll get the same "look" (modulo lens characteristics), and b) chose a normal focal length (no wide angle perspective "distortion" yet), it was clear that you wouldn't get the typical "MF look" which to me is caused by a relatively wide AOV + relatively blurred background. P.S.: Good on you for calling it "baby-MF" which is the same term I use for this cropped MF format. At DPReview you'll be told that "MF does not refer to a specific format and it just fine to refer to the crop-MF formats as 'MF'" but of course that is an unhelpful dilution of terminology and its only point appears to be to allow Fujifilm (they don't care about Pentax) to get away with selling "MF cameras" that really just are "baby-MF cameras. There are some actual film size MF digital cameras and they'll produce the "MF look" more easily because they up the ante regarding angle of view (while achieving the same background blur).
P.P.S: You won't get the same "subject pop" from the K-1 & FA 43/1.9 Ltd combination as from your 645D because the 43/1.9, as fun and nice a lens it is, is just not great wide open. It is easier to construct a better lens on a larger format and the 55/2.8 for the 645D also costs quite a bit more. If you get the chance, try the newer HD FA* 50mm or 85mm f/1.4 lenses on your K-1. These lenses are great, even wide open.
Thanks for that.
Indeed I tried to match some kind of focal length and depth, because I had the 55/2.8 and 43/1.9 it seemed the closest pairing from the two systems I had. Should I have used a DFA50 I'm not sure what MF lens to use on the 645? I do have a 200/4 for the 645 and agree that the results or MFV (Med Form Vibe) are harder to produce from that optic due to compression perspective as you point out.
But I have had MANY images taken with the DFA55 that produced 'that vibe' and I have quite a few taken with the K-1+43, so knew anyway that this would be a fun comparison to make.
I took so many more images, but the video was already at 40mins from the small samples I took. Really the 43mm was performing very nicely, the shots I took with it at 2.8, 5.6 etc were not really shown in the video but it's IQ is not really in question, it does great imo. There is even a couple shots at f2 and it was holding up pretty nice imo. (but yes I get your point, DFA50 it is not).
All these shots were with the DFA55 which I think have that MFV on a few of them, others not so much, and I think that is pretty much my summary point. www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=95230640%40N04&sort=date-taken-desc&text=dfa55&view_all=1
Yes the 645D produces the MFV, but its occasional and the right settings need to come together to produce it. But I have seen the MFV on M43, APS-C and FF as well, but the ratio feels less, much harder, almost fluking it more.
I wish "baby" medium format camera makers would at least increase the height of the sensor to be 1:1. Then it would at least bridge the gap a little bit and it seems really cost effective to do so. They wouldn't need to change any other part of the camera body or lens lineup to make this change. I've also always thought micro four thirds should make their sensors 1:1 as well and it'd bridge the gap much closer to APSC and compensate for some of the drawbacks of m43.
Regarding the colours: It is a very good idea to use the X-rite color target, but you should have white balanced both images using one of the gray scales on the target. Unless you are doing this, you are mainly comparing different in-camera approaches to white balancing and different white balance neutral points of the respective camera profiles.
I have tried that in the past, but Xrite falls over every time even though it makes the profile successfully. It does very weird things :S
But I also DID want to compare each cameras approach to white balancing as I thought that would be useful info for folk.
calibrite.com/us/software-downloads/
This particular note about win 11 issues was interesting I thought (I'm on win 11). The K-1 had no problems profiling, and neither did the 645D at the time, but clearly its not working right. And it wasn't working properly either when I was on win 10 last year, says its successful but the colours are mental after applying. I think I googled it and PF has some other users experiencing the same issue with no work around.
Great video thank you for putting the work into it. It took me a while to realize that medium format wasn't just about shallow DOF, especially since most lenses for the systems are pretty slow and have less bokeh than the ultra fast full frame lenses available. Heck even some of my micro four thirds lenses have a shallower depth of field than my Pentax medium format lenses. I have cameras with all types of sensors and each system has its own use case, there's no perfect camera, otherwise I wouldn't be constantly buying new toys.
Yeh, I think the words often left out of the conversation with MF is 'depth, space, isolation', which are all irrespective of bokeh and DoF per se. You see it more easily in 67 groups, how a car or object is really popping from the scene yet the scene itself is not obliterated by bokeh or oof (you can still easily see background and foreground context and details).
I think you'll might find the effect more pronounced perhaps with the GFX system as they also have some very fast glass as well.
But all in all, digMF is still not that much more than a good FF camera paired with a GOOD lens, for a medium format look its one of those things I think that is not consistent enough image to image and especially when being viewed on smaller screens (loses its impact). For me the cons of digMF outweigh the pros (at this point in time in the tech race). Possibly the GFX100II being the first MF camera I'd entertain further down the line as it feels like the first iteration to not be massively crippled in real world practical case usage.
Finally got brave to view this one Eddy after lusting after medium format for years i am pretty sure you have cured me. I know hubby is thinking you are awesome having saved him thousands lol.
lol! Yeh, look really... having a 645D and K-1 sometimes feels like I am doubling up. Without a doubt the K-1 is more versatile, but the magic can really happen with the 645D but it doesn't always feel like it happens every time.
I am torn, sometimes I play those sick disturbing games in my head... like... "if one of my cameras had to die, which would I rather bite the dust? K-1 or 645D!?".... I don't have an answer!
And I think a 645Z is like the two cameras merged into one. Hehe...
from what i can see from the comparison there is some noticeable difference similar when you take full frame and apsc from same distance. Compared to Medium format there is a crop in full frame, in medium format there is a sense of more space in the frame and I have started liking medium format
Indeed. Head over to my website (link in About tab), go to 'Blog' and look for a recent entry called 'APS-C vs Medium Format', and see how you go with the little 'test'.
@@SummersSnaps fantastic video though.
Great video. Very informative. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Thank you Rodney.
Wow. Respect for doing this vid, Eddy. Fascinating to see the similarities and differences. You are in serious danger of making me save up for the K1 mk2. (used probably!) I was looking at the Fuji (for size, jpegs, and fun). But the K1 just seems still to be amazing. (Plus I have the 43 and 77 which you keep telling me I cannot use on my KP, lol!)
I also wonder whether this vid might put a lot of people off the 645D?
My father in law had 3 of the 67's and the images he got from those was spectacular. But they were heavy, lol.
Hehe. If someone was into landscape, or slow shooting, already had 2 of the three amigos... I would utterly urge them to get a used K-1. In fact, the three amigos and Takumar 50/1.4(8e) are really the only thing keeping me shooting with a K-1 and not just completely migrating to another system. Good glass matters, these days I hunt for the glass and get the body that can drive it well. Glass is forever, bodies come and go.
Interesting. And if you switched systems, would you sell the 3 amigos or try to run them manually on that new system?
@@wreford07 You might even be able to run with with AF on the Sony system via the Monster Adapter! But I dunno... expensive adapter and I bet used K-1's will continue to be cheap as chips and value for money.
@@SummersSnaps sorry, but Sony never. lol
Very interesting video, you must have put a lot of work into it. I think all your observations are pretty valid, the thing I would question most is the IQ test for sharpness, which can't be valid unless you're using the same lens for both, which clearly you can't! However, within the limitations of what you can use to do these tests I think you did fantastically well.
Yep that is valid. A bit like a studio DPreview IQ test, a bit meaningless when different lenses are used on different systems. Nonetheless, you do get something, the DFA55 is no slouch and neither is the FA43 when stopped down to its strongest f number, they are both plenty sharp in their own rights. Pixelshift is badass tho :)
Thanks for commenting and I'm glad it was entertaining if nothing else.
This was a really interesting video Eddy. I watched that DP review bit you referred to in the beginning, and I have to agree with your assessment of what they did.
I think you nailed "the vibe" "the medium format look" down. It's that pop, not bokeh. I think you also nailed down what contributes to it. I think it has a lot to do with distance from subject at the right aperture. It's funny you used the 43 limited on the K1. I've been interested in that lens and have viewed a lot of images from it. It really can create that pop. My theory would be that it has a lot to do with the focal length and how using that focal length encourages you to frame subject matter. I thoroughly enjoyed your take on "the vibe" and agree with your conclusions. It's there, but it's elusive, and you don't automatically get it just by shooting medium format, but you're more likely to get it than you would be on full frame.
The colors on the 645D are better. Hands down. IQ has a bit of an advantage, but other than that, I'm also taking the K1 all day.
Great video, thanks for throwing it together, and it didn't feel like you rambled at all. Everything was relevant and needed to be gone through to make trying to break this down worthwhile.
Thank you for the lovely remarks.
If we refer back to my Takumar 50/1.4 (8 element vs 7) video, I show that the 8 element does this neat party trick whereby when stopped down it is providing oof background quality that seemingly is more associated with a wider aperture. For example, F5.6 on the 8 element is providing bokeh more akin to like what the 7 element does at f4. What the end result gives is incredible IQ that wraps around the subject matter, with a kind of surreal level of background separation that is kinda surprising and not expected. A 'medium format vibe'.
I think many Pentaxians refer to this 'party trick' as 'pixie dust', and along with the Takumar 50(8e) I have also seen this phenomena with all three FA Ltds (but it could perhaps be strongest with the 8e).
If you want to go further down this rabbit hole then you could watch Theoria's vid on such lens optical traits that render depth particularly well (and often CA badly as a side affect); th-cam.com/video/aQm4C3iCk-I/w-d-xo.html
NB; it's actually noteworthy to mention that some of these older vintage lenses that CA badly were actually engineered for monochrome film, so CA wasn't an issue or something they tried to rectify.
Nowadays a lot of effort goes into to correct CA, whilst also tidying up edges and corners but also still giving good pop. The result is very big, heavy and expensive glass, but they do succeed in their tasks.
The FA Ltds I think do a fantastic job considering their size and weight, you have to roll with the punches sometimes tho and realise where they can let the user down.
So yeah... I think this video if anything is testament specifically to the FA43 and its optical recipe and not just any ol' prime tossed on the K-1. What a combo.
@@SummersSnaps I'll jump in this rabbit hole a bit. Thanks for all of the info.
@@matthewp7428 It's a rabbit hole some might disagree with, but it does kinda feel like it resembles my observations.
Nice video. Thanks for putting this together.
Thanks Lee.
Great comparison! I use a lot of different cameras, D850, Z6II, Gfx50s, Leica M8...and a couple of others. My absolute favorite is the M8. The iQ is unique with its colors and rendering. Kodak ccd and no aa-filter is really good. This is where 645d is coming in, Kodak ccd, no aa- filter and a medium format sensor. I'm planning to sell Gfx50s and get a 645d. Have you used, or compared these two cameras?
Thanks Erik. I have not compared GFX against the 645D, sad to say. My gut tells me the following things would be apparent;
- Colours are better on the 645D (however you cannot Xrite Colour Passport CCD sensor shots, so accuracy is not necessarily better).
- 645D experience is... painful. You'll likely have less dynamic range to play with and waiting 3-4 secs to see your image revealed on the back of the LCD screen is something you need to be ok with.
- Pentax 645 glass generally tops out at f2.8, whereas with Fuji you do have some faster options.
- Fuji will have better AF, or tools to help get the job done quicker and easier.
- ISO is a problem with the 645D, it can become a tripod camera for a lot of scenarios where handholding is possible on other systems. Topping out at 1600 ISO, and you might not want to shoot higher than 400, coupled with no IBIS and fastest aperture at f2.8... do the math and you'll realise a monopod or tripod practically becomes a necessary accessory even in fair to ok lighting situations.
I think you have to be a bit of a nutter to entertain a 645D in 2023 🤪 If colours, rendering and slow deliberate work are your thing then yeh this is still a relevant camera today. I'll never forget the first time I imported RAWs into LR, I was double checking they were not Jpgs as they were so vibrant and rich! I never had that kind of RAW response from any other camera... 🥰
@@SummersSnaps thank you for a detailed answer. I ordered a 645d and a 80-160 FA lens to begin with. Looking forward to test it.
Really nice video Eddy! I have now a close idea about the performance of both cameras, and that is very important to me, because I was considering sell my K1 II to buy a 645D/Z but. After this video, I think will keep my beloved K1ii, I just bought recently the HD FA 43mm Ltd and I'm in love with that óptic, the "Three Amigos" combined with the K1/K1ii sensor is a superb combination...
Again, thanks man for this...best regards for your channel. 🤜🤛
I think you have photography sorted with that trio on that body. The grass is always greener and all that.
Regarding IQ, the larger format sensor camera should be better. The fact that it isn't in this comparison is owed to the fact that the 645D sensor is so much older than the K-1 sensor. I bet, as you also speculated, that the 645Z would give the K-1 a much harder run for its money.
I'd love a 645Z, if nothing more than to just have the LCD screen to quicken up the shoot. Some of these test shots were time consuming on the 645D, shoot, chimp (wait 3 secs), confirm slightly soft focus on target, nudge focus ring a smudge, shoot again, repeat x5 lol. Urgh...
My own conclusion is that I think certain optics for FF, they can assist with rendering that MFV. The three amigos do an ok job, I think the Tak50/1.4(8e) possibly does it more than any other optic I have tried. In my other video where I compared the 8e against its 7 element version, I show that a f5.6 shot from the 8e can 'hold' onto bokeh or oof quality like what the 7e would be doing at something like f4. When comparing the two shots taken at the same aperture, the 7e would look more 'stopped down' or 'normal', the 8e almost looking like it was shot wider open (but then where focus was actually placed clearly was not). I showed this effect time and time again, even also in the video where I compare the 8e against the two 50/1.2's. That ability to grab onto the subject matter, wrap it in sharpness yet render the bokeh at a level that feels a little out of context to what you'd expect I think also contributes to the MFV. I've done a few posts in my time 'guess if this is MF or not' and many have failed thinking a K-1+8e shot was MF, hehe.
But... it is a case by case scenario, you gotta get that subject matter, light, aperture, distance, all these things together to get that look. It happens more with the 645D due to its sensor (of course) but it is not guaranteed. It leaves me feeling like it is a lot of coin to put down for a system that still is only a kinda 'occasional' MFV vs always having it with every shot and its blatant. 645Z is still a crippled K-1 as well, and its way more expensive than the D, so I dunno if I'd ever fund it realistically.
K-1 is a super camera, Pentax really knocked that one out of the park. If a successor comes I hope they don't screw it up!
Thank you for doing this Eddy
No worries, thanks for commenting, hit Like & Subscribe! :)
I prefer the 645D photos. Especially the rock in the water. But I think it's better not reveal which is which in these types of comparisons, at least until the end. I always assumed the lens design lending a different perspective to 6x6 and higher was the reason for the MF look, which I saw quite clearly when I shot a Rolleiflex in my college photography classes. Compared to my 35mm negatives, the 6x6 negs are in a different league. Of course, the Pentax, Fuji and Hasselblad baby MF are using ~33mm x ~44mm sensors, which are closer to 35mm than 6x6, which has a 56mm x 56mm image. So FF (24x36) is 864mm sq., baby MF (33x44) is 1452mm, film 645 (56x42) is 2352mm sq., 6x6 MF (56x56) is 3136mm sq., and 6x7 (56x67) is 3752mm sq. "sensor" area.
I think if you would have preferred not to know which was which till the end... then that kinda proves the point. It's narrow and not as obvious as you state are clearly observable between 35mm negatives and 6x6 negs.
I do have a fun 'slider reveals' blog post on my website where you can play exactly this game. YT can be funny about urls being shared in comments, but if you go to my 'About' tab here>find my website>click on 'Blog' and look for a fairly recent entry called 'APS-C vs Medium Format' (dated 4/29/23) you can have a bash there :)
For me the baby medium format is just not worth it over FF, it's too close to call, and MF is basically a nerfed camera in every regard (especially the 645D!). I want a more pronounced effect, something that really becomes obvious when being nerfed to such a degree. It's good the new GFX100II is closing that gap and hopefully the shooting experience is more in line with FF cameras a few years back etc, but still that cost, weight (glass!) will always be a significant con to many.
Thanks for commenting.
@@SummersSnaps well how I got here is that my birthday is coming up and I decided to buy myself a camera. Opportunities to buy a 645D andor a GFX 50S presented themselves so I started researching. Thanks to you, I think I will forego the 33x44 sensors and research the slightly larger 36x49 sensors from the mid 2000s... if I can find a complete system for less than $1500 I might just get it. All of this is for personal projects. For pro work I use a Sony a9, which I do not vibe with at all it's just the best tool for my work currently due to a variety of factors. So some of the limits of these older and slower systems will actually be wonderful to struggle against, hopefully! 12 out of 26 : /
@@ftlbaby I can relate, sometimes the work cameras are not stuff we get excited over but they deliver the results! Other times we want to feel like photographers again. Good luck with your hunt!
You'd look a whole other badass if you wore the right shades my man
🤣
apprciate 🥰
k1 is a dream camera, its better than k1 ii
After stating you had little expertise in the subject, you then proceed to thoroughly nail the subject content.
Too kind, thank you.
Well done Eddy, I hate to say it but I prefer the K1.
6*7 is not Largeformat, up to 6*9 its still mediumformat (all Formats that fit on 120 Film, so also the panoramic formats Linhof also offers but thats a special case)
Yep, apologies if I said as such, would be a mistake on my part.
@@SummersSnaps Unfortunately Pentax stopped Digital Mediumformat, i was waiting for a new version with Shake-Reduction and Astro Tracer and Pixel Shift
Pixel peeping nonsense in action, completely irrelevant for real photograpers.
@@brugj03 Okay.