[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1715996485657623.png (227 KB, 1039x559)
227 KB
227 KB PNG
I saw a good deal on a Pentax 645d on facebook but I decided to sleep on it and this morning I realized that digital medium format is kind of pointless because of the bayer filter. You're losing so much information and subjecting the image to so much processing via demosiacing that it's kind of pointless. You should either just shoot actual medium format film or save yourself a massive amount of money and shoot a modern full frame or Foveon camera.

Am I wrong?
>>
>>4315744
What is a "good deal" to you?
>>
>>4315745
It is $1300 for a body with 16k shutter count and a 75mm f/2.8
>>
>>4315744
regardless if you're right or wrong it sounds like something you're telling yourself because you don't actually want to spend money. If you want to own a medium format camera in your lifetime then make plans for it. If you don't then don't worry about it
>>
>>4315747
For that much you can get a full frame body with the same or higher res with better noise and DR, IBIS, decent AF, and you'll be able to get even faster lenses for it to further increase the gap. MF makes no sense these days unless you're going with one of those modern 100mp bodies, and very few people actually need that (and they're still lacking in other areas compared to FF).
>>
>>4315764
I don't want to spend the money, because I just spent all my money on other camera stuff. To buy this camera I would need to pull that money out of savings and pay myself back. I'm tempted because it is a good price and I'm curious about the camera, a MF CCD is a cool concept.

But I also think legitimately that buy a MF film body just makes more sense. The use case I was most imagining for the 645d is portraits and landscapes and I think both of those would be just as good, if not better on film. I already shoot film and my developing reels, tank and scanner all support 120, it's quite a bit larger than any DMF camera and the bodies are cheaper.

>>4315765
>For that much you can get a full frame body with the same or higher res with better noise and DR, IBIS, decent AF, and you'll be able to get even faster lenses for it to further increase the gap
That's what I said, and I already own one of those full frame cameras. My temptation isn't about image quality. I'm just personally curious about the character of medium format and seeing if it's something I'd enjoy. I also recognize that it's a great deal for that camera if I want one.
>>
>>4315769
there will be more deals out there anyway. Get a 645n and if you ever want a 645d you can use the same lenses between them
>>
>>4315771
You're right I should hold off and that's a good point about the 645n, it may be a better starting place and after using it I may not even be interested in the 645d.
>>
>>4315744
>realized that digital medium format is kind of pointless because of the bayer filter.
Anon even before you get to the filter, digital mf is pointless because the sensor is just an obese FF. It might make sense once they give us true 6x6 sensors but otherwise it’s a larp.
>>
>>4315769
>the character of medium format
Will show best on a proper format like 6x7, not full frame+ lol
>>
>>4315765
>even faster lenses
depends on what you mean by "faster lens"
if you're using it as shorthand for "shallower DoF" then no, 2.8 is already very wide for MF
if you mean actually faster (lower light / higher shutter speed) then the larger format is supposed to compensate for the higher noise — but yeah if we're talking digital MF that's not really true any more because no one makes a 120-equivalent sensor
>>
>>4317286
In terms of depth of field then f/2.8 on the 645D is equivalent to f/2.2 on full frame, so yeah you can get a much shallower depth of field on full frame. In terms of noise advantage DXO don't have anything newer than the X1D-50C and that has less than half a stop better performance than full frame, even if the newest bodies have a full stop advantage then that only requires an f/2 lens on full frame. Even if it was a magical 2 stops, we then have f/1.4 lenses. And on top of that many MF bodies and lenses aren't stabilised.
>>
>>4317409
aw fuck I'm retarded I forgot we were talking about the 645D specifically
speaking of stabilized lenses, the only OS lenses Pentax has ever made are for 645s
the fact they're all "IBIS is gud nuff" for FF/APSC just goes to show how much cope is involved in everything Pentax
>>
>>4317413
>I forgot we were talking about the 645D specifically
Does it really matter, are any of the other "medium format" systems actually larger? I just had a quick look and Fuji and Hassy are the same size.
>>
>>4317416
I was thinking 120 film MF
>>
>>4315744
You made your mistake by assuming how bayer works while possessing an IQ of 83

It has a wider color gamut than any known film stock and outdoes 50 speed films… shot in 6x7. The only downside is occasional aliasing.
>>
>>4317409
Equivalence is a lie
Larger formats are sharper and have cleaner noise character at the same SNR due to less noise per pixel when using coarser pixel pitches or downsampling room with higher resolution (often a mix of both)
Ie: your a7rv looks like dogshit compared to 50mp and 100mp crop mf
>>
>>4317461
DXO takes that into account. As I said MF has about a half stop advantage, that is more than made up for with FF by the availability of faster lenses unless you're shooting at base ISO.
>>
>>4317468
Anyone buying MF is so attached to base ISO they didnt put many higher ISOs on MF cameras originally
>>
>>4317459
Honestly, from this one post I know for a fact you only take shitty photos.
>>
>>4317416
>are any of the other "medium format" systems actually larger?
Phase and the Hasselblad H series.
>>
>>4317476
>they didnt put many higher ISOs on MF cameras originally
They had the same number of ISO settings as 35mm did.
>>
>>4317480
you call a smattering of building corners and gas stations a "portfolio". your crown jewel is a 1/2s exposure tracking a fat guy on a bicycle. you do not have a love of photography, but you would love to be seen as a photographer. for the longest time, your favorite brand was fujifilm. when digi prices inflated, you could finally afford real fuji film, but you quickly switched to buying 5 packs of portra. always overexposed one stop. at this point you think your skill developed, and you blame the film. it surely must have made you slow down and think. however, it's at this point when any semblance of talent you had died and you became stagnant and soulless, emptied of life. you know your earlier photographs were more genuine and you hate to admit to it.

>>4317459
you are most likely jewish and obsessed with getting exactly what your money is worth before you can proceed to enjoy things. and that is all you do with things - enjoy them for yourself rather than seek attention from others with them - because you can scratch that essential human itch by knowing you have superior financial and technical acumen compared to the "goyim". the amount of product trivia you memorize in 15 minutes makes you seem like an expert, but you're not an exceptionally bright mind - not by the standards of your fellow ashkenazim, anyways. you are a fairly standard defense lawyer, dentist, or general practitioner and can't measure up to your cousin ibrahim who served as a member of the house for one term. now your photography, and no photographer would call it that, makes 0 attempt to appeal to others, is disrespectful towards the history your own people built, and has 0 recurrence of common photographic archetypes except in your borderline autojournalistic snapshits. what little you make that is not autojournalistic snapshits is actually good, but for some reason you didn't even upload anything to the internet. nobody outside of your immediate family even knows you own a camera.
>>
>>4317514
>When a midwit tries their very darndest, but completely misses the mark so badly they sound like a 15 year zach.

One of the most cringe posts I've ever read on /p/. I was unsure if pic would ever get beaten, but you did it. At least you have one accomplishment under your belt now! Wow.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAndroid UP1A.231005.007.G998U1UESAFXBC
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1440
Image Height1966
>>
>>4315744
>Pentax 645d
It's not even medium format. It's a crop """medium""" format camera. Why are camera manufacturers like this?
>>
>>4317542
because there is already barely a use case for digital medium format. True medium format would be way too expensive
>>
>>4317542
It's Pentax; what do you want from them?
>>
>>4317549
A medium format camera
>>
File: joke.jpg (140 KB, 800x450)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
>>4317572
>the pentax 645n
>>
>>4315771
I ended up grabbing a 645(non-n). Are f/2.8 lenses necessary since I'll be manually focusing or are the f/4.5 zooms usable with manual focus?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.