[Daniel O]

thats exciting! would love to see some user shots from the new thing if you pull the trigger. whats your current rig?

Hello Wired,
Been using this baby since 2011 and frankly, I like it better than my previous Leica M8. I wish I had kept my Leica primes but my eyesight isn't what it used to be. I also have MS so the larger body, auto-focus, and a quality tripod is a must-have. Hence, the 645D '2014' would be a dream come true!

http://flic.kr/p/jPdH2e
http://flic.kr/p/jPregt
http://sienavine.smugmug.com/IPhone/i-X76MdhJ/0/X3/CA_02061409172912-X3.jpg

---

Last edited by Daniel O; 02-06-2014 at 02:58 PM. Reason: ADDED CONTENT

[meeverett]

So will you have to mount the copier to a board or something to keep it from falling over? Or will they be selling a special mount for it separately?

I'm not really sure, but it does look like it has some kind of holes that could be a tripod mount there in the middle of the rail.

[monochrome]

Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer So will you have to mount the copier to a board or something to keep it from falling over? Or will they be selling a special mount for it separately? I'm not really sure, but it does look like it has some kind of holes that could be a tripod mount there in the middle of the rail.

I sw another photo with the entire rig, including the dedicated flash, mounted to a ballhead on a tripod. IIRC the camera was a K3.

[meeverett]

I was presuming there might be a dedicated optic in it, since it appears quite a bit larger than the old film copier/macro nbellows units I'm used to. I suppose the question then becomes, what is the thread size for the attachment? Stepping down to a 35mm/APS-C format macro should be easy enough, but would stepping up to a 645 macro with its larger filter size lead to cutting off mof part of the image?

I thought there wouldn't really be a need for any kind of optic. Rather, the bellows allowed the apparatus to shrink or grow to accommodate an existing body and lens combination. Considering the first image I saw showed the new 645D mounted to it, I assumed they also intended for it to support the 645 and thus had to make it quite large.

---------- Post added 02-06-14 at 04:38 PM ----------

I sw another photo with the entire rig, including the dedicated flash, mounted to a ballhead on a tripod. IIRC the camera was a K3.

Sounds about right to me. Since I don't have a 645, I'm also glad to hear it might have had a K3 on it; it occurred to me that it might have been a bit naive to assume they'd make an accessory that worked with the full line of Pentax products just because it could.

[jogiba]

A swivel screen is also very useful when taking portraits with the camera on tripod.

Or any below eye level shooting.

[Mistral75]

One other difference worth noting between a dedicated scanner and using a camera as a duplicator is that in the latter, you don't get the advantage of DigitalICE and other damage/dust masking technologies, so there's that to deal with, too.

Aren't they any such tools that one could also use with files coming from a camera?

[Pål Jensen]

Just don't bring the small format mentality to medium format and you'll do fine. And how can you be interested in the system if it is: A) too expensive and B) too big and bulky?

If you want to shoot MFD, man up, buck up and carry the gear!

Because of the wide angle issue. In order to get a decent wide angle you need to spend $5000 and increase the weight by 1Kg!

[Mistral75]

Thank you for your detailed explanation.

[mee]

I trust the slide duplicator is WR.

AW as a matter of fact, provided you keep it indoors.

[tuco]

Because of the wide angle issue. In order to get a decent wide angle you need to spend $5000 and increase the weight by 1Kg!

That's nothing. Sports and wildlife photographers haul around lenses that weigh more. It's MFD not a APS-C mirrorless.

[Pål Jensen]

That's nothing. Sports and wildlife photographers haul around lenses that weigh more. It's MFD not a APS-C mirrorless.

But this isn't about wildlife but wide angle. A super wide angle zoom lens for the FF 645 system weights 500g. The 25mm on a cropped sensor weights more than twice as much. In addition you have a 1.5kg camera not to mention if you want to use telephotos as well where theres no way around size and weight. The cropped sensor make the angle of view of some lenses into something awkward like the 75mm that has the angle of view of a 60mm lens on 35mm FF. I've never wanted a 60mm lens.
The 645's have also been markted as field cameras. Wide angles that weights more than wide angles for even the 67 is not compatible with this. This is a camera ideal for landscapes. The 645 film system could compete with high-end 35mm system in terms of weight. The digital 645 could as well if it was FF. If you want a wide angle a 645 FF may have been no more expensive in total and you might have saved 1kg in weight. 1kg is a lot when it is the last kilo, the one you could have been without.

[Daniel O]

I have never been overly concerned with size and weight of my camera gear and though the 645 isn't a walk-around cam, I would most certainly have it with me on vacation trips. There was nothing more frustrating when I found myself in Tuscany with nothing more than a pocket-cam for documentary style shots while my DSLR was sitting back in the hotel room. I missed some phenomenal opportunities and I vowed never to do that again.

[tuco]

But this isn't about wildlife but wide angle. A super wide angle zoom lens for the FF 645 system weights 500g. The 25mm on a cropped sensor weights more than twice as much. In addition you have a 1.5kg camera not to mention if you want to use telephotos as well where theres no way around size and weight. The cropped sensor make the angle of view of some lenses into something awkward like the 75mm that has the angle of view of a 60mm lens on 35mm FF. I've never wanted a 60mm lens.
The 645's have also been markted as field cameras. Wide angles that weights more than wide angles for even the 67 is not compatible with this. This is a camera ideal for landscapes. The 645 film system could compete with high-end 35mm system in terms of weight. The digital 645 could as well if it was FF. If you want a wide angle a 645 FF may have been no more expensive in total and you might have saved 1kg in weight. 1kg is a lot when it is the last kilo, the one you could have been without.

That's fine. I understand. But here we go already trying to make a MFD small mirrorless size system and complaining that it's not. This new CMOS sensor is new. They happen to make it a crop sensor. Give it time and one day perhaps a FF CMOS 6x4.5 format sensor will come out. You can get that in CCD already.

BTW, in the modern SI metric system, weight = mass x gravity

Units of gravity = meters per second^2
Units of mass = kilograms

Multiply mass x gravity and the units equal:

(kilogram) (meters)/ seconds^2

That is the fundamental units of weight and a far cry from just kilograms. Perhaps someone can explain why metric countries don't use the modern SI metric system when it comes to weight but use the modern system for all the other units.

[lesmore49]

Pentax 645D with wide angle too heavy for field work ?

I carry around my Pentax K-5 with battery grip attached and extra battery in the grip. Attached to the K-5 is a Sigma 150-500. Heavy stuff. I regard it as a field camera/lens.

I often go for treks down winter forest trails with this equipment. I'm old and on the large side. I generally carry the combo using the Sigma's lens handle. I will swap the combo from hand to hand.

I'm sure the time will come when it's too heavy...but until then.

Back in the film days....when I was younger... I used to carry a medium format Mamiya TLR with a Mamiya-Sekor 180mm super telephoto, attached to my heavy aluminum Leitz Tiltall tripod.

My point is....if you want to use particular equipment...whether it is heavy or not...usually you can find a way.

Heavy to one person maybe different to another. All we can do is the best we can individually handle.

[Cannikin]

That is the fundamental units of weight and a far cry from just kilograms. Perhaps someone can explain why metric countries don't use the modern SI metric system when it comes to weight but use the modern system for all the other units.

Because for all intents and purposes, for all objects of a negligible fraction of the Earth's mass (~6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg), weight is directly proportional to mass, in that a 2kg object will have double the weight of a 1kg object. The distinction between newtons and kilograms is insignificant for non-engineering applications near the surface of the Earth. For everyday people, it adds a completely unnecessary step to calculations with units for which there is otherwise a straightforward equivalence.

Or do you also wonder about why people measure some things like sugar or salt in terms of volume, instead of mass, when its involvement in a recipe has nothing to do with volume (e.g. adding a cup of sugar to a pot of water has nothing to do with adding a cup of volume to it)?

As a side note, the mass of an object is impossible to empircally measure directly (unless you can count individual atoms). It can only be determined indirectly through the application of an external force, such as gravity.