[Zygonyx]

Don't forget the "load" factor btw tilt-screen and the rest of the camera...
You don't use MF like P&S, do you ? ...
I will avoid 645DII for several reasons, amongst them the fear to break the screen.

[Cannikin]

IMO fear of breaking an articulated screen is ridiculous. Any impact hard enough to snap a metal joint would shatter glass long before that happened. In fact, I would wager an articulated screen would have a higher chance of surviving a major impact than a fixed screen by the very nature of its design: applying a force will cause it to flip out, mitigating much of the impact, while a fixed screen can do nothing but directly absorb all the kinetic energy.

Can anyone find any report of an articulated screen having snapped off? I can't, but I definitely can find plenty of reports of fixed LCDs being shattered.

[RonHendriks1966]

I own current 645D : I doubt you can take neat shots with this 50 Mpix sensor handheld using live view

But you can go to a concert in a park, hold the 645D with FA150mm above your head, tilt the screen downwards and make a need shot. Go back on the grass and enjoy your beer, girlfriend and music


Well I guess on a Sunny day you can make handheld shots using liveview, otherways I also don't think so.

[Zygonyx]

But you can go to a concert in a park, hold the 645D with FA150mm above your head, tilt the screen downwards and make a need shot. Go back on the grass and enjoy your beer, girlfriend and music


Well I guess on a Sunny day you can make handheld shots using liveview, otherways I also don't think so.

So yes, we agree there
But your concert shot has a lot of probability to be "artistically" blurred

[gazonk]

Well I guess on a Sunny day you can make handheld shots using liveview, otherways I also don't think so.

I've seen a lot of Hasselblad photographers doing hand held waist level photography (at least on sunny days ) - would this be different?

[Zygonyx]

IMO fear of breaking an articulated screen is ridiculous. Any impact hard enough to snap a metal joint would shatter glass long before that happened. In fact, I would wager an articulated screen would have a higher chance of surviving a major impact than a fixed screen by the very nature of its design: applying a force will cause it to flip out, mitigating much of the impact, while a fixed screen can do nothing but directly absorb all the kinetic energy.

Can anyone find any report of an articulated screen having snapped off? I can't, but I definitely can find plenty of reports of fixed LCDs being shattered.

No-one has the new body+tilt screen experience, but if you used to 645D shooting, you must see what i mean.

My only point is : for the use of this swivel screen (close to nil in my shooting habits), i wouldn't take that risk for >12 000 bucks...
The more you walk around and use your gear in harsh environmental conditions, the less you actually want articulation of any kind.

Look at Canikon : Pro grade stuff don't get it.

[repaap]

I must say that I agree that what we usually think as pro gear, don't have articulated screens. But there it is. Maybe Pentax/Ricoh want to change this.

it sounds quite convenient for big camera to have tilting screen. when you have put camera in good position lover or higher than normal eye level on a tripod, you can easily check what you have done or going to shoot with out needing to bend over or move your camera. I would not see this screen for shooting over your head in concert or tight spot...could be, but perhaps not.

Also shooting from waist level, it sounds good. In good light(might need some shadowing for too bright light).

[ogl]

Indeed "full 645" digital sensors are a niche within the niche but you don't mention the 36x48 sensors which are in-between and quite well represented.

Do you think that there is any serious difference between 44*33 and 48*36 mm?
Especially, if 44*33 is new generation CMOS sensor. And 48*36 mm is rather old CCD sensor.
I think new CMOS will be better in all ways.

[Mistral75]

Do you think that there is any serious difference between 44*33 and 48*36 mm?
Especially, if 44*33 is new generation CMOS sensor. And 48*36 mm is rather old CCD sensor.
I think new CMOS will be better in all ways.

In addition to the different crop factor (1.25 for 33x44 vs. 1.15 for 36x48), there are differences, within the same CCD sensor generation (same pixel pitch), between 33x44 and 36x48 sensors: more pixels (e.g. 40m for 33x44 and 50m for 36x48), hence more definition and, more important, smoother transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas.

As for the new CMOS sensor, the pictures I have seen so far aren't convincing in comparison with those taken with the "old" CCD sensors but they stemmed from pre-production IQ250 Phase One digital backs with beta firmware. In addition, this IQ250 is the first CMOS sensor ever that Phase One are handling.

In this respect, Ricoh have an advantage since they know very well how CMOS Sony sensors behave in a variety of conditions and have been able to fine tune their firmware accordingly.

[Kunzite]

If you don't have a flash, a thunderstorm will do.

[Na Horuk]

Do we know in what ways the screen tilts? It tilts upward (for waist level shooting, which is also useful for when you put the camera near the floor, so you dont have to lie down). But does it tilt downward as well, so you can lift it above your head?

In this respect, Ricoh have an advantage since they know very well how CMOS Sony sensors behave in a variety of conditions and have been able to fine tune their firmware accordingly.

Thats an interesting idea. Maybe Pentax does in fact have an advantage in MF now - since the current MF cameras are generally using this same sensor (Phase One, Hasselbad). Now it will come down to ergonomics, lenses, features and cost. Things where Pentax is usually pretty strong in.

[ogl]

In addition to the different crop factor (1.25 for 33x44 vs. 1.15 for 36x48), there are differences, within the same CCD sensor generation (same pixel pitch), between 33x44 and 36x48 sensors: more pixels (e.g. 40m for 33x44 and 50m for 36x48), hence more definition and, more important, smoother transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas.

It's far-out line of reasoning. The real life difference is almost close to zero.

Pay attention, that new sensor is 50 MP. Not 40 MP.

---------- Post added 02-07-2014 at 09:36 AM ----------

Do we know in what ways the screen tilts? It tilts upward (for waist level shooting, which is also useful for when you put the camera near the floor, so you dont have to lie down). But does it tilt downward as well, so you can lift it above your head?


Thats an interesting idea. Maybe Pentax does in fact have an advantage in MF now - since the current MF cameras are generally using this same sensor (Phase One, Hasselbad). Now it will come down to ergonomics, lenses, features and cost. Things where Pentax is usually pretty strong in.

Phase One and Hasselblad are very strong too. I would say that Pentax has no any advantage in digital MF. Only PRICE.

[SpecialK]

Looks awesome! And a tilt screen!

Some people hate them, but for my shooting I would love it. Not every shot is from eye-level.

[redrockcoulee]

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.

The super wide lens (40mm) from Hasselblad in the old film only days was also heavy and expensive, in fact the SWC/M (38mm) was less expensive and lighter and it included a camera body attached as well. Just saying that superwide for MF is not new to the digital crop world.

[PeterAM]

I think the duplicator is a very clever product that may fill a niche in the marketplace. I have a Nikon 35mm scanner; haven't used it in several years. Scanning is a huge PITA (unless you are into it) and Nikon no longer supports their scanner products. Flatbeds give marginal results on 35mm, better on MF; still a PITA to get good scans. For those of us that shot/shoot film and have X number of slides/negs around, this might be the way to go. For a scan of a special picture that I want to print and hang, I'll get a drum scan done.