[netrex]

Reviewed by Nick Devlin.



"In the hand, the 645D is the MFSLR Revolution. The body melds perfectly into my grip, and feels just like a high-end 35mm dslr."



http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax_645d___a_first_review.shtml



I'll be visiting Oslo at the end of this month, and I plan to visit Fovi, they used to be the importer of Pentax in Norway, now they just sell and repair Pentax (it's where I buy most things Pentax these days). But if I'm lucky, they'll have a 645D in so I can have a look at it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Buying it something I won't be able to do though. also, my Pentax K-5 arrives tomorrow \o/

[miro]

thanks for sharing.

I like the following statement.

"In 2010, every camera on earth can take a better picture than 98% of photographers will ever need. "

[miro]

ANother funny but true sentence in this review.

"Now, to be fair, Canon pretty much took over the professional 35mm digital world without a single wide-angle that was worth dog-spit in the corners, so who am I to criticize Pentax?"

[Guest]

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1289900591' post='4195']

ANother funny but true sentence in this review.

"Now, to be fair, Canon pretty much took over the professional 35mm digital world without a single wide-angle that was worth dog-spit in the corners, so who am I to criticize Pentax?"[/quote]



Now, to be fair, Canon has made some pretty impressive wide-angle lenses recently... long after they took over the professional 35 mm digital world... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />



17 mm TSE vs 14-24 f/2.8: http://tinyurl.com/28obw5b

14 mm f/2.8 Mk2 vs 14-24 f/2.8: http://tinyurl.com/2c68g3e

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Alexander ' timestamp='1289731421' post='4159']

Reviewed by Nick Devlin.

[/quote]

Ugh... another lengthy LL knock-knock joke. I really have no sympathy towards people who think they can just make claims like in the pre-internet film days without properly conducted tests or showing of evidence. I lost the little respect I had when they last published their bogus ISO claims... now I see LL as being equal to KR.



Taste of subject matter aside, don't we just love to see shots of this type at ISO800?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/contributors/memorial_wall-0604.jpg







And why shoot a static subject like this at 1/320 and ISO 800 with a 37-70mm equivalent lens?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/contributors/645_Article_1_-_Veggies_-0160.jpg





I understand that it's necessary to keep the shutter speeds a bit above what's typically necessary if viewing 100% crops (which they didn't show for the above shot) but 2 stops above what's necessary is just bad technique. Especially when considering this comment:



"I could detect no mirror-induced softness in images shot in the 1/15th danger zone."



Anyway, that's a lie (well plain stupidity, most probably). This is the sort of thing I was referring to by my pre-internet film-day comment earlier on.





"For myself, I have come to see using MF digital in the field as akin to the commitment involved in using 4x5 film cameras. Yes folks, it's that hard to make it work well. "



For a guy who shoots P&Ss mostly maybe. Good technique doesn't change whether it's APS-C, FF or DMF. You still need to do the basics: choose the best aperture for the scene, correct focus, stable tripod, dampen the wind, MLU/LV and after around 10 secs timed/remote release. To say it's difficult as using 4x5 is just moronic and shows his lack of good technique when shooting general things... wonder if he kept a loupe to the LCD and altered the exposure based on the distance scale on the 645D lol





And get this...



"The following aesthetic abomination is thus presented for your pixel-peeping pleasure..."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/contributors/Brick_wall_overall.jpg





Great... in addition to shooting something completely uninteresting, get the technique wrong in the process to make the shot completely worthless. He must live in a different universe where field curvatures and focus shifts don't exist.



And see this:



"I have now had a significant number of shots of static landscape subjects, focussed at 200-600' from the camera, optimally exposed on a stable tripod, at a prime working aperture, in which absolutely nothing is sharp - i.e. in focus."



Any person who uses the terms sharpness and focus interchangeably doesn't know what they're doing. It's the sort of thing you often hear at dpreview... e.g. HelP my cAmErA is sOfT. I mean, what kind of a person can't put a camera on a stable tripod, stop it down and still get "nothing in focus"? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Sigh...



I wish they started having some respect for their readers...



GTW

[Sylvain]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1290058442' post='4226']

(...)

I lost the little respect I had when they last published their bogus ISO claims... now I see LL as being equal to KR.

GTW

[/quote]



I've been a long time reader of LL and have come to think it's becoming increasingly useless.

It seems to me Mr Reichmann likes to hear himself talk a lot, likes to use Latin expressions and misspelled or incorrectly used Français en italique. I remember writing him about several omissions in his assessment of Canon 1dmkIII AutoISO, a topic I 'studied' some time through hands on, manual reading, user reports and all he could reply to my extensive mail detailing how custom functions could be set was a rather laconic:" Reading the manuals is no at all like shooting with the cameras. Visit a store and see for yourself."



Right. And don't get me started with his all time buddy Jeff Schewe.



That being said,

Redde Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, et quae sunt Dei Deo, LL still hosts a bunch of very good articles.



Oh, was this post just a rant?

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='thw' timestamp='1290040482' post='4224']

Now, to be fair, Canon has made some pretty impressive wide-angle lenses recently... long after they took over the professional 35 mm digital world... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



17 mm TSE vs 14-24 f/2.8: [url="http://tinyurl.com/28obw5b"]http://tinyurl.com/28obw5b[/url]

14 mm f/2.8 Mk2 vs 14-24 f/2.8: [url="http://tinyurl.com/2c68g3e"]http://tinyurl.com/2c68g3e[/url]

[/quote]



It might be correct that Canon has made some impressive wide angles, but it seems that these two are not the cases <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />... Despite the fact that comparison across the systems (+ comparison of primes and zooms regarding the IQ on the edges) is always dangerous, I have to say that they're both a tad softer than the 14-24mm (and 14mm Canon has a heavy CAs even at higher f-stops).



Anyway, this is a "Pentax" thread and I don't want to spoil it...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Kind regards,



Serkan

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1290078761' post='4242']

I've been a long time reader of LL and have come to think it's becoming increasingly useless.

It seems to me Mr Reichmann likes to hear himself talk a lot, likes to use Latin expressions and misspelled or incorrectly used Français en italique. I remember writing him about several omissions in his assessment of Canon 1dmkIII AutoISO, a topic I 'studied' some time through hands on, manual reading, user reports and all he could reply to my extensive mail detailing how custom functions could be set was a rather laconic:" Reading the manuals is no at all like shooting with the cameras. Visit a store and see for yourself."



Right. And don't get me started with his all time buddy Jeff Schewe.



That being said,

Redde Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, et quae sunt Dei Deo, LL still hosts a bunch of very good articles.



Oh, was this post just a rant?

[/quote]



I'm not following them for a long time but I agree concerning the approach and attitude. I find them a bit conceited. But OTOH at least they're representing an alternative to the detailed technical reporters. They mostly support their subjective comments with image samples. Reading assertive reports like "this sensor produces max dynamic range of 9 f-stops" is not much of their style, and I fing it good.



By the way, I think the dynamic range of 645D at that ISO is remarkable (first image posted by GTW).



Kind regards,



Serkan

[Guest]

[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1290078761' post='4242'] It seems to me Mr Reichmann likes to hear himself talk a lot, likes to use Latin expressions and misspelled or incorrectly used Français en italique. And don't get me started with his all time buddy Jeff Schewe.[/quote]



Just to be clear... that article was neither written by Reichmann nor Schewe. It was written by some guy called Nick Devlin.



BTW, they just posted their report on a MF shootout:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/2010_mini_medium_format_shoot_out.shtml

with some disparaging criticisms about the 1Ds3.



And Mr Reichmann himself commented:



"Between them Mark and Nick have about sixty years of serious / professional photographic experience. Both are regular contributors to this site, and I have a very high opinion of their photographic perspicacity and technical acumen. So, while not gospel by any means, you can regard what they write about photography and equipment with a considerable degree of trust"



Just to assure us how reliable their opnions are... LOL

[Sylvain]

[quote name='thw' timestamp='1290083642' post='4248']

Just to be clear... that article was neither written by Reichmann nor Schewe. It was written by some guy called Nick Devlin.



[/quote]



Sure, I read the whole article too and I didn't make it very clear I wasn't actually referring to that specific article but I just indirectly tried to say that birds of a feather flock together. Enough with proverbs & idioms <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />, I'm out.