I'm currently demoing a Pentax 645D with 55mm ƒ/2.8 and comparing it with my Canon 5D MKII and 24-105mm ƒ/4. I'm testing the 645D because my aim was to make 40" x 40" square, long exposure landscape prints.
After comparing the two I'm less sure about the purchase. At 30" x 30" the Pentax is better, but the 5D MKII can still holds it's own. When printed the difference is even less obvious.
I'm wondering if instead I only print to 30" x 30" and purchase some Carl Zeiss primes for my Canon. To those who know more about the ZE Zeiss lenses, would you expect it to make a decent difference in quality over what I'm currently using and at these print sizes?
I'm also personally not very keen on the Pentax camera body, not sure why, just don't really like it.
Below is a test shot I made in a paddock which I've enlarged to 30" x 30", sharpened and zoomed out to 50%. Pentax is on the left, Canon on the right:
The tree on the pentax shot looks significantly better.
Comparing at 50% doesn't really help you though. Why don't you uprez the canon to the same resolution as the Pentax and then compare?
If you don't see a difference in print then you're probably best off buying nothing. The 24-70 is pretty sharp at ideal apertures, so you're not going to gain much (aside from pop/contrast) from the Zeiss primes.
Don't know if you have to necesarily have to go to Zeiss to get better glass. You could get some of Canon's tilt/shift lenses like the 17 or 24mm which both are very sharp and would be great for landscape. You could also to a vertical shift and stich the image together for a high resolution square image. Pretty much all of Canon's primes would be better than your zoom also so any of them would be an option, then there are Rokinon's 35mm, 14mm and now 24mm that are very sharp, manual focus lenses. You can get alot of nice glass for your 5d for the price of the Pentax.
John makes some very valid points. Try shooting this with some really cracking glass on the Canon. That'd be the best bang for buck improvement I think. In the sample you show above however, the 645D's superiority is clear.
Thrice, these are upressed to the same 30" size and both at 50% zoom. It actually gives a decent indication of how they look in print. However, like I said, the difference is less noticeable in print. I did a blind test with my fiancee and she struggled to tell the difference until she was quite close.
Alundeb, I'm also waiting to see this new Nikon. If it narrows the gap between medium format and 35mm I would be happy with the savings.
JohnBrose, I'll be doing long exposures of around 5 minutes and the light tends to change far too much to do stitching. you're very right about the glass. I could purchase a whole system from Canon for the Pentax price.
Of course this all depends to on if I decide not to print up to 40", the difference is far greater at that size. Personally I'd love to get the Hasselblad 500C/M, not sure why I just love that camera, but I'm not sure how it would compare.
Oops forgot to mention that. Film would be nice to shoot but I'm guessing Kodak T Max won't be around much longer. Not sure if the quality would hold up that large either (but then I have no idea). I'd probably put something like the Mamiya DM-22 on there.
pahrens wrote:
.../snip/...
Below is a test shot I made in a paddock which I've enlarged to 30" x 30", sharpened and zoomed out to 50%. Pentax is on the left, Canon on the right:
.../snip/...
Exactly what does this mean? I have no idea what I'm looking at. The Pentax image (left) looks a lot better to me.
Sorry...the Pentax shot looks craploads sharper even when resized down like this and that should be visible when you print as well, even if you stand further away.
You also see more gradations of grey in the tree.
If it doesn't fit your hands, that's a good reason not to get it, but the ergonomics are from the very highly rated Pentax DSLRs (if you haven't tried TAv mode, try it) and it's probably the closest you'll get to the better ergonomics and LCD you'll see in any digital MF body unless you cough up for the Hassy H4D...
the viewfinder of the Pentax is great BTW, better than Nikon or Canon, so bright and present. Image quality is not a great step between the Pentax and Canon. Also the Pentax lenses are of good quality and priced very high, for me at least
At least from the images shown here, the Pentax comes out not just slightly but far ahead of the Canon (to me, it looks like nearly twice the resolution). If these results are repeatable and stitching is impractical, the Pentax looks like a lot better choice for large prints.
Even with better glass on the 5DII, the Pentax will still have the advantage in quantity of pixels. Doesn't the Pentax also (like many MF digital sensors) not have an anti-aliasing filter? That also adds a significant effective resolution boost, and for natural/non-periodic subjects (especially processed to black and white), the color moiré problems should not be a serious issue.
Upgrading the glass for your 5DII can be a significant improvement, but I doubt it will come close to bridging the big fundamental resolution gap between the two camera sensors.
This is a great example of why I LOVE larger sensors and also why I hate AA filters. It reminds me of the sharpness that I used to get with my P21 MFDB. I want a DSLR that can render high frequency detail and not look smudgy.
espressogeek wrote:
This is a great example of why I LOVE larger sensors and also why I hate AA filters. It reminds me of the sharpness that I used to get with my P21 MFDB. I want a DSLR that can render high frequency detail and not look smudgy.
What kind of sharpening processes do you use for AA-flitered cameras?
I often have trouble seeing differences in some of the "x vs y" tests posted so often on the internet. But with this one it only took a quick glance to know that the one on the left was the Pentax. Even at the small size there's a big and very obvious difference between the two in terms of both detail and tonal gradations.
A friend of mine has the Pentax and I've seen some of the outstanding results he gets with it. If I already had lenses for the Pentax I'd sell my 1DsIII in a heartbeat and buy the Pentax. But I'd also have to buy at least three new lenses for it and that puts the total cost well out of reach.
In respect of all the good advice given here, comparing resolution is one approach only, another of course is to look at the print by itself and sometimes you can discover that you are quite happy with the result from the lesser system.
I agree, I think the 5D image would look fine as it is in print. The reason for viewing at 50% is it gives a closer approximation to the final printed image, based on my prepress experience.
I think it would be worth waiting a week to see what Nikon releases. One of the reasons to consider the Zeiss lenses, according to my Zeiss source, is that at least the newer releases, such as the 21, 35 f/1.4, 25 f/2, are intended to outresolve sensors up to around 100MP (full frame, I assume). I'm sure some of the Canons, such as the TS-E 24 II will do so as well.
I'm sorry, but I also have to chime in. In my opinion, there is almost no comparison between the two shots. The Pentax shows more fine detail, there are more tonal graduations compared to the Canon (the blacks looks crunched), and the Canon seems to look like a rather blurry mess.
I'm a bit confused as to how you cannot see that, when it seems rather apparent to most of us here, judging by the responses so far. If indeed there is no difference to your eyes, then perhaps sticking with the Canon (or the upcoming Nikon) would be better?
