Originally posted by barondla This forum is full of people also owning FF bodies. Many say they would rather shoot digital medium format. It was one of the things that convinced me to try dmf. Conventional wisdom says FF is about equivalent to mf. Not my experience. Enjoy the camera.
Thanks,
barondla
Great! I like it. One point of interest in a great big stadium.
---------- Post added 11-20-20 at 05:34 AM ----------
Originally posted by barondla This forum is full of people also owning FF bodies. Many say they would rather shoot digital medium format. It was one of the things that convinced me to try dmf. Conventional wisdom says FF is about equivalent to mf. Not my experience. Enjoy the camera.
Thanks,
barondla
Well, OK, I will just say this. I own the 645Z, 645D, K-1, K-3, K-5, K-20, and K-10 plus 645N and MZ-S film cameras. Over time I have basically settled down to using the K-1 and 645Z, occasionally the 645D or one of the APS-C cameras. I like the 645D from an image quality standpoint, but it is a slow camera to shoot with. K-1 IQ is so good that for all practical purposes in my use it is just as good as the 645Z. Now if National Geographic hires me to do a series of large animal posters, of course I am going with the Z, but every time I look in my mailbox there is no offer from National Geographic. Therefore, my use of the K-1 or 645Z is mainly lens related. The Pentax-D FA 645 90mm f 2.8 is so good that it makes you really sorry you spent $10,000 to buy one little Leica lens, and using the 90mm causes me to select the 645Z. On the other hand, the medium format Mamiya 645 A 120mm f 4.0 macro 1:1 is so good that I choose the K-1 to use it because it is not adaptable to the 645Z. So my choice of the K-1 or the 645Z is not really much related to image quality but to other factors.