PentaxWorld - the World of Pentax Users!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length


 


 D645z review from LL



0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

September 23, 2014, 01:31:11 AM
Read 8652 times

Offline Pacerr

  • Administrator
  • *

  • 1,535
    Posts

H2  -  I'm not gettin' any smarter in my old age -- I'm just finally beginnin' to run out of really stupid things to do. Doesn't mean I'm not tryin' though.

No trees were killed or injured in the sending of this email, but billions of electrons were really, really agitated.

September 23, 2014, 03:34:39 AM
Reply #1

blackcloudbrew

  • Guest
Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2014, 03:34:39 AM »
Thanks for posting this. I'd already read it. Quite good.

September 23, 2014, 07:35:55 PM
Reply #2

Offline lensoreat

  • Administrator
  • *

  • 1,791
    Posts

Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2014, 07:35:55 PM »
the more i do of this photography stuff, the more i agree with one of his comments : 

"4:3 vs. 3:2
One aspect of most digital medium format cameras and backs worth noting, including the Pentax 645z, is that the native image aspect ratio is 4:3 rather than the wider 3:2 aspect ratio of both APS-C and so-called Full Frame 35mm. I have always found 3:2 to be either too wide, or not wide enough. This is, of course, a matter of personal taste, but I find myself cropping most 35mm images to something closer to 4:3, or even square.  "

September 24, 2014, 12:12:13 AM
Reply #3

blackcloudbrew

  • Guest
Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2014, 12:12:13 AM »
Yes, I remember that remark. Without getting into a long discussion of aspect ratios, this is yet another reminder to me that I need to really experiment with these until I 'get it.' I've run into the practical aspects of this printing my film images. I have an 8x10 piece of paper and an image that covers more than the paper, i.e., how I shoot my image in camera (film or digital) may not be how I can print it. I've gotten so used to digital images posted online that I can crop to any size or shape at will. However, printing that same image presents printing problems. Anyway, one of these days, I will study this full and 'get it.'

September 24, 2014, 03:59:34 AM
Reply #4

Offline lensoreat

  • Administrator
  • *

  • 1,791
    Posts

Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2014, 03:59:34 AM »
Yes, I remember that remark. Without getting into a long discussion of aspect ratios, this is yet another reminder to me that I need to really experiment with these until I 'get it.' I've run into the practical aspects of this printing my film images. I have an 8x10 piece of paper and an image that covers more than the paper, i.e., how I shoot my image in camera (film or digital) may not be how I can print it. I've gotten so used to digital images posted online that I can crop to any size or shape at will. However, printing that same image presents printing problems. Anyway, one of these days, I will study this full and 'get it.'
you have film versions of the medium format , ( that , according to the article , used to be called large format ?)   is that camera still a 4/3 ratio, bcb ?   or is yours the 6x7 camera ?   that would seem to me to be the ideal ratio.
dave

September 24, 2014, 04:43:25 AM
Reply #5

blackcloudbrew

  • Guest
Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2014, 04:43:25 AM »
I have three medium format cameras 6x7, 645, and 645n. Medium format generally uses 120 film and ranges between 645 (6x4.5cm) to 6x12 (cm), large format start a 4x5 (inches) and goes up to 8x10 (inches) and more. I now have a close to working 4x5 camera a Graphic View II circa mid 1950's that I'm putting back in service for a photo class I'm taking. Not wanting to get into large format though. It's really expensive. About ratios with all of these? Don't know and not going to bother with it just yet.

September 24, 2014, 04:58:38 AM
Reply #6

Offline lensoreat

  • Administrator
  • *

  • 1,791
    Posts

Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2014, 04:58:38 AM »
I have three medium format cameras 6x7, 645, and 645n. Medium format generally uses 120 film and ranges between 645 (6x4.5cm) to 6x12 (cm), large format start a 4x5 (inches) and goes up to 8x10 (inches) and more. I now have a close to working 4x5 camera a Graphic View II circa mid 1950's that I'm putting back in service for a photo class I'm taking. Not wanting to get into large format though. It's really expensive. About ratios with all of these? Don't know and not going to bother with it just yet.
you develop those films yourself ?   and nah, why worry about the ratios on those cameras,  those are natively pretty perfect i bet. 

September 24, 2014, 05:05:04 AM
Reply #7

blackcloudbrew

  • Guest
Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2014, 05:05:04 AM »
Yes, all the black and white films I develop at home. (haven't tried the 4x5 yet but I have the tools for it.) There are differences in the formats, 645 was always touted as the 'perfect size for 8x10 printing.' 6x7 is similar to that, why, well it's about aspect ratios and I'm sure Hank could write a book on the subject. Let's just say that 100+ years of shooting and printing film images built up a whole lotta smart stuff. We sorta keep this in mind with digital but not really.

September 25, 2014, 02:06:09 AM
Reply #8

Offline Pacerr

  • Administrator
  • *

  • 1,535
    Posts

Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2014, 02:06:09 AM »
> " ...and I'm sure Hank could write a book on the subject.

OK, Cliff Claven sez:

Start here - tell any classic artist that he MUST confine his composition to only two or three canvas/frame ratios. Ka-boom! Hey, The subject should determine the composition, right?

But industrial technology demands compromises in the name of economy and efficiency. So a few standard format ratios will do just fine for you unwashed peasants and paper to print on will only be made in certain standard sizes -- oh, and there's those standardized, made-in-China, Wally-mart frames too.

Photographers conformed. Amazing, but they did. The first DIY "prints" were glass plate affairs or tin-types made to whatever size suited the camera maker. Once commercial film got involved however, it was inevitable that standardization would follow. The market forces (not those pesky artists who do their own thing anyway) soon settled on a few universal ratios for film and paper -- and therefore for viewfinders, too. Inch vs. metric paper sizes just adds to the confusion.

People being a really big subject for early commercial photos, and 4:5 or 4:6 ratios fitting the need pretty well, those became a common, economical standard for film and photography. Keep in mind that the nature of early printing was in the form of direct film/paper contact prints as well so negatives had to be fairly large. This is also why the idea that one must compose in the viewfinder started. Made sense then; it doesn't today except as an exercise in aesthetic discipline. Even standard postage sizes and rates had an effect on format economy when picture post cards became popular.
 
The square, 4x4 and 6x6 cm format used by twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras offered encouragement for optimum cropping but always lead to "wasting" a certain amount of film and costly processing for any other than square crops which irritated the economists among us. It also required a larger camera body than seemed desirable. The arrival of the rectangular format that suited the movie screens and the tremendous impact of equipment size, processing costs and increased demand for a LOT more film for movie photography soon set the metrics for all film and directly lead to the common 35mm format and its 3:2 image ratio. IMO, the 16:9 format is for TV only.

It's interesting to observe how digital imagery has potentially eliminated practical size and composition constraints originally imposed by film, and yet we still conform to the composition ratios driven by the economics of film standardization. And we often quote the purist dogma that composition and 'cropping' must properly happen in the viewfinder -- irrespective of where that format originated.

I never much cared for the 6x4 or 6x7 format and rarely use 'em, preferring the 1:1, 7:5 and 10:8 for most of the things I "see" through a lens. Stuff I really like often gets a free-hand crop which would inevitably lead to costly time and/or $$ for custom matting and framing . . . and being the lazy, 'cheap smack' that I am, that rarely happens.  :-\
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 02:22:17 AM by Pacerr »
H2  -  I'm not gettin' any smarter in my old age -- I'm just finally beginnin' to run out of really stupid things to do. Doesn't mean I'm not tryin' though.

No trees were killed or injured in the sending of this email, but billions of electrons were really, really agitated.

September 25, 2014, 07:16:06 PM
Reply #9

Offline lensoreat

  • Administrator
  • *

  • 1,791
    Posts

Re: D645z review from LL
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2014, 07:16:06 PM »
so, is the viewfinder significantly larger in this camera ?   how does it compare to something like the finder in the olympus om , which is the biggest viewfinder in a 35mm  film camera .

and here:  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-medium.shtml
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 07:47:11 PM by lensoreat »