From what I can tell, your color temperature on the edited gfx is a bit warmer in the whites. The whites also may need to be raised (you can see this in the white chocolate). If this is done, I believe you will have more of that 'glowing effect' in the gummies. You may need to calibrate the blues as well in color calibration (if in lightroom)
Funny enough I went back last night and provided some final touches to the Fujifilm image and got it a lot closer. The glowing effect still isn't as pronounced, but I think I'd be the only one who would notice lol 🤣
Yeah I was going to mention the PhaseOne sensor size. Incredible cameras with an incredible cost lol. That said, it would be fascinating to see an even larger sensor. Not sure that it would be a success, but interesting nonetheless.
AFAIK the biggest digital sensor available (like Hasselblad H6D-100c or several PhaseOne) correspond to 6x4.5. If I am not wrong there are NO 6x7 or 6x9 digital sensors.
@@vannoz66 Yup. I don't believe there are any larger than 645 in mass production. Might be some scientific or one off sensors that have been created, but nothing to my knowledge which is available to the general public as a complete package.
Bigger than the 53.9 x 40.4 (medium format full frame) would be awesome but also hilariously expensive. More so than you'd think. Just an FYI a standard wafer used to produce these sensors would be in the range of 150mm, 200mm, or 300mm in diameter. If we are generous and say they are gonna use the biggest standard wafer and going by just surface area numbers then on the 53.9 x 40.4 you might be able to make about 35 of them (discounting making a square in a circular wafer) that is not many, that same wafer can make more than 75 full frame sensors plus if a defect in a full frame sensor is found cool you lost 1 sensor in a wafer, 1 rejected medium format sensor would be like tossing out 2ish full frame ones. So scaling up to 6x7 or 6x9 that problem gets much less good. Anyways would be nice but very unlikely given how much it costs just to make almost 645.
interesting! reviews about photo gear are about perfection most of the time. Lens faults are not seen as adding character and beneficial but seen as unwanted by most photographers that shoot digital or non Leica M camera's. I interpret your early conclusion as it is about preferences and not about perfection/boringness😉.
Hey Colton. I don't shoot with lots of different camera brands (i mean bodies, not lenses) - only a couple - so i'm not in a position to have any 'opinion' on a particular question.... Talking about 'the native look' from any given camera - how relevant is that given the capacities of image-processing software? I'm guessing that pretty much any files can be pushed and pulled to look like any other files (not talking about where there are massive discrepancies in file sizes). I understand that a little more time for Camera A vs. Camera B may be required to achieve any given result (in consideration of SOC). The 'real world' test for me is whether it's possible to look at processed files and reliably identify what camera it came from. What do you think?
I agree. I did a video a while back where I processed files from a medium format camera, a four thirds camera, and an Apsc camera. All different brands. Very few people were able to match up the images to the correct cameras. So I do believe that with the power of image processors, you can do pretty much anything. That said, I do think there are some smaller elements which become characteristics of a camera that can be good to know. Additionally, I think any amount of time saved becomes much more valuable when you're using the tool frequently. If you're saving several minutes between photos because one RAW file is already down the path you want to go, that makes a difference then with each set of photos you edit. Also potentially valuable information for people who prefer not to make many edits. At the end of the day, this info is fun to look at, but doesn't mean as much as people think. If you can get a great shot on a medium format camera, you should be capable of getting a great shot on any other camera from the last 10-20 years.
@@ColtonMatocha That's a good effort, Colton, but i'm sorry, i can't give it to you. The answer i was looking for was 'Sir Alfred Lord Tennyson in the 2nd Test at the Battle of Balaclava, with match figures of 7-26 from the Dowager's end and two innings, out for a Duck in the 1st (caught silly short-leg) and 97 NO (all singles) in the 2nd'. Anyway... we'll have another for you next week so you'll have every chance to make amends. We know you can do it! Cheers.
@@ColtonMatocha Gotta trust that reptilian brain, man - its been around a long time. Anyway... I think so too. And consider that the vid you previously did - we all knew what the cameras were and it was still impossible to be sure. Trolling around, i think there's an awful lot of horse-pucky claimed about gear, with people being so sure they are Right. You find exactly the same thing in Audio circles - works there too for driving sales.
Of course, Pentax. Yes, after editing, Fujifilm gives more natural colors, but Pentax is more beautiful. When I shoot a movie, I actively use not only vintage optics, but also Luts, and if you think in Luts categories, then the Pentax setting allows you not to apply correction and get beautiful photos, I think this is a victory! Most young people want to get beautiful photos straight from the camera, CCD matrices are made for them! I think it's not worth all the complexity, believe your eyes and not the numbers of the dynamic range. If the color from the camera is beautiful, then it is beautiful!
Yeah I agree that the Pentax file definitely is more appealing and requires less editing time to look great! I was surprised how different the files looked, but it would be worth opening them up in another editor to see if there is any difference with how the algorithm handles the files. That said, I see the Kodak CCD files looking great time and time again.
For sure, but that image was noticeably more cream colored than the reality and the entire image was more warm than the Fujifilm. The white balance of the Fujifilm was more accurate to what I saw with my eye.
Yeah I suppose those ranges are more similar! This still worked out pretty well though aside from I think the pentax lens was maybe less sharp than the fujifilm. I've noticed that about this particular lens.
@ from “Pentax Forums”, the 645 zooms from FA and A series are soft wide open. On digital, you probably need to get to F8 or lower for best sharpness. It’s a great source for Pentax related topics.
@What_Other_Hobbies yeah I've used that resource a few times. This was shot at f11 so it should be within the sharper range, but its also possible there's an issue with the lens itself
A few of things; 1) With the WB, were you not choosing to shoot a fixed kelvin in camera at the time you took the strobe shots? What I'm asking is, the initial WB difference, is that a result of both cameras in Auto WB with the strobe, or are you setting both to 5000k and that is still the difference we're seeing? 2) On the corrected Pentax shot, we're seeing a brighter image everywhere, not just the blue gummies, so the white chocolate and brown chocolate surfaces looks brighter as well. Like you said, could be your masking doing that, but also remember that Godox is still budget stuff. I take product pictures for a living (occasionally) and have noticed that even in manual mode (flash and camera) you can get significant exposure shifts between takes simply because the manual power is dumping sometimes a little more or a little less flash power. So whilst it seems like a good approach to use strobes as a way of fixing lighting conditions, using Godox is not ideal and why many higher end product togs will choose another brand. It's annoying when doing bottle work or something where the light needs shifted around the object and multiple takes and composite work involved, but the power of the flash can be a little erratic at times. #godoxlyfe 3) Most product photographers will colour calibrate their cameras AND lenses (each lens separately), but with the PENTAX 645D this is not possible. So whilst CCD colours are fabulous, they are not necessarily accurate and I wouldn't really recommend their cameras for product work needing very realistic colour reproduction. Lenses here will definitely make a huge difference to the outcome as well, it's not so much a battle of CCD vs CMOS till the lens issue is the same.
Yeah I pretty much agree with what you wrote here! To answer your white balance question, both cameras were set to an identical WB Kelvin and that was still the difference I saw in spite of that. There is a way in-camera to further adjust the WB so that might be a solution. But the default appears to create a slightly warmer look even when you set to a specific kelvin. I agree with the Godox statement, but I'd take it a step further and say that the electronic aperture does not perfectly snap into place and there can be some exposure variation between shots. I did go back last night and tweak the images further to get the exposure a lot closer. The gummies on the Fuji improved, but still not quite as "glowy" as the pentax file. In regards to a professional using one of these I think the Fuji would be a no brainer. While the Pentax is my favorite, it has some issues like long processing time that would make it a deal breaker for most professional product photographers. The Fuji has the added benefit of use with a complex tilt shift system which would be a major potential benefit to a product photographer. Such setup isn't available for the Pentax 645D. I still love the 645D, and luckily for me I'm just using it for Art so I can deal with any limitations it has. Though, the Fujifilm brings a lot to the table. I appreciate your thoughtful comment! Thanks for watching!
@@ColtonMatocha - Did you shoot raw? I presume you did and if so, then it is important to know a few things about raw processing. (1) Any white balance & tint setting in camera will be added as meta-data to the photographs but the actual raw data elements will not change - the meta data inform e.g. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) how to open the file. Whatever you adjust in camera changes nothing except how ACR shows the photo. Note that ACR is the only thing that does raw processing in the case of Adobe - it is camouflaged in Lightroom Classic (LrC) and explicitly visible in Photoshop (Ps). You can run ACR stand-alone from Bridge (Br). ACR saves your edit in .acr sidecar files and LrC ignores these. (2) When you open a raw file with the "Adobe Standard" profile selected, then note that this is not one generic file, under that title. Depending on the (supported) camera associated with the image file, ACR opens the matching profile file. Adobe Standard processes towards the Adobe preference of neutral and relatively flat. If that's not your thing then you have to come up with your own variant(s). (3) As "Adobe Standard" and "Camera" profiles are Adobe's pieces of art ;) differences you perceive between the shots from different cameras may actually be profile differences. They may say a lot about the camera you used, or it may be completely meaningless. We don't know. If brand C's images don't have convincing blue tints/tones, then that may be due to the sensor, but it could alternatively just be a profile issue. If you look in LrC's Adobe Standard folder, you'll see somewhere between the 1200 or so files that in some cases there are different profiles for different firmware versions even. Unfortunately the profile files don't have version or original date created in their properties (in Windows) so we cannot see when a profile got updated. But if it were a new version we don;t know if that was because they improved the support for the camera or because better newer raw processing required a modification (in a similar way we may get an update of the catalogue with new LrC versions because improvements require a new data model i the database called catalogue). As to differences between cameras and exposure (4), note that the ISO (iso is a word derived from the classical Greek isos and means same or equivalent - so it is pronounced as "eyeso" - you know you are doing it wrong when it sounds like "I ass oh") never defined "correct exposure" with the "ISO" unit that we think defines sensitivity. But it merely defines equivalence. How it exactly relates to correct exposure is for the photographer to figure out. Calibration for exposure is one thing and for true colours another. When we calibrate we should look at the camera, different ISO settings, potential deviations in shutter between different exposure times, different distances, different aperture values, different lenses , and the light sources. Your not so old Profoto studio pack may have very bad colour temperature consistency (CTC) while a much older studio set from broncolor will have very good CTC. In the last couple years, everybody has improved here and what was unique to broncolor in, say, 1980, now may be done by cheap Godox kit. You have to test shoot (calibrate). Especially when you work towards the edges of colour space and contrast envelope (dynamic range in a single shot) of your technology. (5) And a big deal between cameras is, presuming correct shutter calibration, that the "number" in "f/number" does not inform about how much light comes through the lens. This means that measuring exposure with camera A and lens A' cannot be copied to camera B with lens B' (for A=/=B). In the first place A and B may be apply a slightly different opinion on correct exposure as under (4) but the "number" in f/number only indicates the f/number for the cases that the lens was set to infinity. When you focus closer by, the lens may "focus breathe" and the corollary of this is "aperture breathing". My 105/2.8 macro lens becomes f/4.3 when set to minimum focus distance. (6) A bigger issue that (5) regarding the "number" in f/number is that it does not inform us how fast a lens is. So the f/number gives the relation between focal length at infinity focus and the diameter of the fully opened diaphragm - we call the opening aperture (opening) or entry pupil. But this says nothing about how efficient the glass elements are in relaying the image. Go to DxO Mark website and find a 1.2L prime lens of a somewhat older generation and you'll see that it has a T-value of 1.5. Then look for a 1.4G lens (say, both 85mm) and note that this one also has a T-value of 1.5. This means the light Transmission value for both is identical - they are equally fast. (7) and related to (5) and (6) is that the 1.2L does not necessarily have shallower Depth of Field (DoF) than the 1.4G when both are fully opened. This simply follows from the DoF formula depending not only on focusing distance, effective aperture and effective focal length, but also from a mutt parameter called Circle of Confusion (CoC). This combines some 6 effects. It e.g. relates DoF to how large you display the photo. At the camera end CoC relates film/sensor resolution and lens resolution and the impact of processing to sharpness, hence the CoC. Altering the CoC in the formula has great impact. So as the example 1.2L lens is not so sharp and the 1.4G lens is very sharp, so it is possible that the 1.4G has shallower DoF, even.
Yeah I agree that different tools handle files uniquely. I used LR since that's been the tool of choice for me. But similarly, LR does not play well with Sony RAW files. Totally different experience if you use Sony's Imaging Edge.
Pentax makes damn good lenses. But the Pentax camera bodies are big old worthless dinosaurs. As for Fuji, well ... absolutely NOTHING compares with the best of current Fuji offerings in DX format, and Large Format.
I don't think the 645D is worthless, but it's certainly not state of the art. Fujifilm has definitely done well with their GFX line and I think they've got some great glass also!
The Pentax is just too darn big and heavy for a walk-around. It epitomizes the term "brick" with that ginormous mirror box and at nearly 1.5 kg for the body alone. No doubt one of the reasons I've seen low shutter count sets with two lenses sitting for quite some time at around $1500. The Fuji weighs less than my full frame DSLR.
Yeah the Pentax was definitely designed for studio or specific landscape work. It's certainly an old design that wasn't ever intended to be a versatile walking around camera. But, I will say I've taken it around doing some photo walks or outdoor outings and it wasn't as heavy or bulky as it looks on paper. Definitely a brick, but a brick I enjoy 😅
I'm actually shocked how much more I like the colors of the pentax. Need to get me one of those.
Not the easiest to use camera, but certainly worth the effort!
From what I can tell, your color temperature on the edited gfx is a bit warmer in the whites. The whites also may need to be raised (you can see this in the white chocolate). If this is done, I believe you will have more of that 'glowing effect' in the gummies. You may need to calibrate the blues as well in color calibration (if in lightroom)
Funny enough I went back last night and provided some final touches to the Fujifilm image and got it a lot closer. The glowing effect still isn't as pronounced, but I think I'd be the only one who would notice lol 🤣
Hi Colton! Brilliant video!. I am sure lens have a bit of an effect on the colours. Thanks again for sharing!
Yeah totally agree. I would need to do it again with the same lens somehow. Thanks for watching!
I'd love to see digital cameras with even bigger sensors like 6x7 or 6x9
Phase One has 53.4mm x 40mm cameras but they cost about $50000
Yeah I was going to mention the PhaseOne sensor size. Incredible cameras with an incredible cost lol. That said, it would be fascinating to see an even larger sensor. Not sure that it would be a success, but interesting nonetheless.
AFAIK the biggest digital sensor available (like Hasselblad H6D-100c or several PhaseOne) correspond to 6x4.5. If I am not wrong there are NO 6x7 or 6x9 digital sensors.
@@vannoz66 Yup. I don't believe there are any larger than 645 in mass production. Might be some scientific or one off sensors that have been created, but nothing to my knowledge which is available to the general public as a complete package.
Bigger than the 53.9 x 40.4 (medium format full frame) would be awesome but also hilariously expensive. More so than you'd think. Just an FYI a standard wafer used to produce these sensors would be in the range of 150mm, 200mm, or 300mm in diameter. If we are generous and say they are gonna use the biggest standard wafer and going by just surface area numbers then on the 53.9 x 40.4 you might be able to make about 35 of them (discounting making a square in a circular wafer) that is not many, that same wafer can make more than 75 full frame sensors plus if a defect in a full frame sensor is found cool you lost 1 sensor in a wafer, 1 rejected medium format sensor would be like tossing out 2ish full frame ones. So scaling up to 6x7 or 6x9 that problem gets much less good. Anyways would be nice but very unlikely given how much it costs just to make almost 645.
interesting! reviews about photo gear are about perfection most of the time. Lens faults are not seen as adding character and beneficial but seen as unwanted by most photographers that shoot digital or non Leica M camera's. I interpret your early conclusion as it is about preferences and not about perfection/boringness😉.
Yes! I think when I do these reviews, I tend to look at them from my preferences rather than what is perfect/imperfect. For better or worse lol 😆
Hey Colton. I don't shoot with lots of different camera brands (i mean bodies, not lenses) - only a couple - so i'm not in a position to have any 'opinion' on a particular question.... Talking about 'the native look' from any given camera - how relevant is that given the capacities of image-processing software? I'm guessing that pretty much any files can be pushed and pulled to look like any other files (not talking about where there are massive discrepancies in file sizes). I understand that a little more time for Camera A vs. Camera B may be required to achieve any given result (in consideration of SOC). The 'real world' test for me is whether it's possible to look at processed files and reliably identify what camera it came from. What do you think?
I agree. I did a video a while back where I processed files from a medium format camera, a four thirds camera, and an Apsc camera. All different brands. Very few people were able to match up the images to the correct cameras. So I do believe that with the power of image processors, you can do pretty much anything. That said, I do think there are some smaller elements which become characteristics of a camera that can be good to know. Additionally, I think any amount of time saved becomes much more valuable when you're using the tool frequently. If you're saving several minutes between photos because one RAW file is already down the path you want to go, that makes a difference then with each set of photos you edit. Also potentially valuable information for people who prefer not to make many edits.
At the end of the day, this info is fun to look at, but doesn't mean as much as people think. If you can get a great shot on a medium format camera, you should be capable of getting a great shot on any other camera from the last 10-20 years.
@@ColtonMatocha That's a good effort, Colton, but i'm sorry, i can't give it to you. The answer i was looking for was 'Sir Alfred Lord Tennyson in the 2nd Test at the Battle of Balaclava, with match figures of 7-26 from the Dowager's end and two innings, out for a Duck in the 1st (caught silly short-leg) and 97 NO (all singles) in the 2nd'. Anyway... we'll have another for you next week so you'll have every chance to make amends. We know you can do it! Cheers.
@luzr6613 damn, that was the answer I almost went with before I second guessed myself. 😅
@@ColtonMatocha Gotta trust that reptilian brain, man - its been around a long time. Anyway... I think so too. And consider that the vid you previously did - we all knew what the cameras were and it was still impossible to be sure. Trolling around, i think there's an awful lot of horse-pucky claimed about gear, with people being so sure they are Right. You find exactly the same thing in Audio circles - works there too for driving sales.
Of course, Pentax. Yes, after editing, Fujifilm gives more natural colors, but Pentax is more beautiful. When I shoot a movie, I actively use not only vintage optics, but also Luts, and if you think in Luts categories, then the Pentax setting allows you not to apply correction and get beautiful photos, I think this is a victory! Most young people want to get beautiful photos straight from the camera, CCD matrices are made for them! I think it's not worth all the complexity, believe your eyes and not the numbers of the dynamic range. If the color from the camera is beautiful, then it is beautiful!
Yeah I agree that the Pentax file definitely is more appealing and requires less editing time to look great! I was surprised how different the files looked, but it would be worth opening them up in another editor to see if there is any difference with how the algorithm handles the files. That said, I see the Kodak CCD files looking great time and time again.
Are you not aware that "white chocolate" is actually cream-colored?
For sure, but that image was noticeably more cream colored than the reality and the entire image was more warm than the Fujifilm. The white balance of the Fujifilm was more accurate to what I saw with my eye.
Pentax 645 has a 33-55/4.5 zoom lens which could be similar to the Fujifilm one.
Yeah I suppose those ranges are more similar! This still worked out pretty well though aside from I think the pentax lens was maybe less sharp than the fujifilm. I've noticed that about this particular lens.
@ from “Pentax Forums”, the 645 zooms from FA and A series are soft wide open. On digital, you probably need to get to F8 or lower for best sharpness. It’s a great source for Pentax related topics.
@What_Other_Hobbies yeah I've used that resource a few times. This was shot at f11 so it should be within the sharper range, but its also possible there's an issue with the lens itself
Im hungry now...
Hahaha me too 😅
A few of things;
1) With the WB, were you not choosing to shoot a fixed kelvin in camera at the time you took the strobe shots? What I'm asking is, the initial WB difference, is that a result of both cameras in Auto WB with the strobe, or are you setting both to 5000k and that is still the difference we're seeing?
2) On the corrected Pentax shot, we're seeing a brighter image everywhere, not just the blue gummies, so the white chocolate and brown chocolate surfaces looks brighter as well. Like you said, could be your masking doing that, but also remember that Godox is still budget stuff. I take product pictures for a living (occasionally) and have noticed that even in manual mode (flash and camera) you can get significant exposure shifts between takes simply because the manual power is dumping sometimes a little more or a little less flash power. So whilst it seems like a good approach to use strobes as a way of fixing lighting conditions, using Godox is not ideal and why many higher end product togs will choose another brand. It's annoying when doing bottle work or something where the light needs shifted around the object and multiple takes and composite work involved, but the power of the flash can be a little erratic at times. #godoxlyfe
3) Most product photographers will colour calibrate their cameras AND lenses (each lens separately), but with the PENTAX 645D this is not possible. So whilst CCD colours are fabulous, they are not necessarily accurate and I wouldn't really recommend their cameras for product work needing very realistic colour reproduction. Lenses here will definitely make a huge difference to the outcome as well, it's not so much a battle of CCD vs CMOS till the lens issue is the same.
Yeah I pretty much agree with what you wrote here! To answer your white balance question, both cameras were set to an identical WB Kelvin and that was still the difference I saw in spite of that. There is a way in-camera to further adjust the WB so that might be a solution. But the default appears to create a slightly warmer look even when you set to a specific kelvin.
I agree with the Godox statement, but I'd take it a step further and say that the electronic aperture does not perfectly snap into place and there can be some exposure variation between shots. I did go back last night and tweak the images further to get the exposure a lot closer. The gummies on the Fuji improved, but still not quite as "glowy" as the pentax file.
In regards to a professional using one of these I think the Fuji would be a no brainer. While the Pentax is my favorite, it has some issues like long processing time that would make it a deal breaker for most professional product photographers. The Fuji has the added benefit of use with a complex tilt shift system which would be a major potential benefit to a product photographer. Such setup isn't available for the Pentax 645D. I still love the 645D, and luckily for me I'm just using it for Art so I can deal with any limitations it has. Though, the Fujifilm brings a lot to the table.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment! Thanks for watching!
@@ColtonMatocha - Did you shoot raw? I presume you did and if so, then it is important to know a few things about raw processing.
(1) Any white balance & tint setting in camera will be added as meta-data to the photographs but the actual raw data elements will not change - the meta data inform e.g. Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) how to open the file. Whatever you adjust in camera changes nothing except how ACR shows the photo. Note that ACR is the only thing that does raw processing in the case of Adobe - it is camouflaged in Lightroom Classic (LrC) and explicitly visible in Photoshop (Ps). You can run ACR stand-alone from Bridge (Br). ACR saves your edit in .acr sidecar files and LrC ignores these.
(2) When you open a raw file with the "Adobe Standard" profile selected, then note that this is not one generic file, under that title. Depending on the (supported) camera associated with the image file, ACR opens the matching profile file. Adobe Standard processes towards the Adobe preference of neutral and relatively flat. If that's not your thing then you have to come up with your own variant(s).
(3) As "Adobe Standard" and "Camera" profiles are Adobe's pieces of art ;) differences you perceive between the shots from different cameras may actually be profile differences. They may say a lot about the camera you used, or it may be completely meaningless. We don't know.
If brand C's images don't have convincing blue tints/tones, then that may be due to the sensor, but it could alternatively just be a profile issue. If you look in LrC's Adobe Standard folder, you'll see somewhere between the 1200 or so files that in some cases there are different profiles for different firmware versions even. Unfortunately the profile files don't have version or original date created in their properties (in Windows) so we cannot see when a profile got updated. But if it were a new version we don;t know if that was because they improved the support for the camera or because better newer raw processing required a modification (in a similar way we may get an update of the catalogue with new LrC versions because improvements require a new data model i the database called catalogue).
As to differences between cameras and exposure (4), note that the ISO (iso is a word derived from the classical Greek isos and means same or equivalent - so it is pronounced as "eyeso" - you know you are doing it wrong when it sounds like "I ass oh") never defined "correct exposure" with the "ISO" unit that we think defines sensitivity. But it merely defines equivalence. How it exactly relates to correct exposure is for the photographer to figure out.
Calibration for exposure is one thing and for true colours another. When we calibrate we should look at the camera, different ISO settings, potential deviations in shutter between different exposure times, different distances, different aperture values, different lenses , and the light sources. Your not so old Profoto studio pack may have very bad colour temperature consistency (CTC) while a much older studio set from broncolor will have very good CTC. In the last couple years, everybody has improved here and what was unique to broncolor in, say, 1980, now may be done by cheap Godox kit. You have to test shoot (calibrate). Especially when you work towards the edges of colour space and contrast envelope (dynamic range in a single shot) of your technology.
(5) And a big deal between cameras is, presuming correct shutter calibration, that the "number" in "f/number" does not inform about how much light comes through the lens. This means that measuring exposure with camera A and lens A' cannot be copied to camera B with lens B' (for A=/=B). In the first place A and B may be apply a slightly different opinion on correct exposure as under (4) but the "number" in f/number only indicates the f/number for the cases that the lens was set to infinity. When you focus closer by, the lens may "focus breathe" and the corollary of this is "aperture breathing". My 105/2.8 macro lens becomes f/4.3 when set to minimum focus distance.
(6) A bigger issue that (5) regarding the "number" in f/number is that it does not inform us how fast a lens is. So the f/number gives the relation between focal length at infinity focus and the diameter of the fully opened diaphragm - we call the opening aperture (opening) or entry pupil. But this says nothing about how efficient the glass elements are in relaying the image. Go to DxO Mark website and find a 1.2L prime lens of a somewhat older generation and you'll see that it has a T-value of 1.5. Then look for a 1.4G lens (say, both 85mm) and note that this one also has a T-value of 1.5. This means the light Transmission value for both is identical - they are equally fast. (7) and related to (5) and (6) is that the 1.2L does not necessarily have shallower Depth of Field (DoF) than the 1.4G when both are fully opened. This simply follows from the DoF formula depending not only on focusing distance, effective aperture and effective focal length, but also from a mutt parameter called Circle of Confusion (CoC). This combines some 6 effects. It e.g. relates DoF to how large you display the photo. At the camera end CoC relates film/sensor resolution and lens resolution and the impact of processing to sharpness, hence the CoC. Altering the CoC in the formula has great impact. So as the example 1.2L lens is not so sharp and the 1.4G lens is very sharp, so it is possible that the 1.4G has shallower DoF, even.
For a good comparison I suggest you open the files in Capture One as they tend to have a better interpretation algorithm for Fuji files.
Yeah I agree that different tools handle files uniquely. I used LR since that's been the tool of choice for me. But similarly, LR does not play well with Sony RAW files. Totally different experience if you use Sony's Imaging Edge.
That's more for Xtrans, CMOS is fine.
Pentax makes damn good lenses. But the Pentax camera bodies are big old worthless dinosaurs.
As for Fuji, well ... absolutely NOTHING compares with the best of current Fuji offerings in DX format, and Large Format.
I don't think the 645D is worthless, but it's certainly not state of the art. Fujifilm has definitely done well with their GFX line and I think they've got some great glass also!
The Pentax is just too darn big and heavy for a walk-around. It epitomizes the term "brick" with that ginormous mirror box and at nearly 1.5 kg for the body alone. No doubt one of the reasons I've seen low shutter count sets with two lenses sitting for quite some time at around $1500. The Fuji weighs less than my full frame DSLR.
Yeah the Pentax was definitely designed for studio or specific landscape work. It's certainly an old design that wasn't ever intended to be a versatile walking around camera. But, I will say I've taken it around doing some photo walks or outdoor outings and it wasn't as heavy or bulky as it looks on paper. Definitely a brick, but a brick I enjoy 😅