Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-12-2010, 02:27 PM   #661
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
Steve

I did the same math as you when I had an opportunity to purchase a used CFV back for my Hasselblad; with most of my shooting B&W to pay for the back with film savings (colour only) the interest on the back would cover much of the film cost. However the more you shoot the quicker the economics reverse. I am afraid that too many have bought into the idea that film is so expensive. By the way my wife has recently purchased an Epson 4880 so I do have the opportunity of digital printing at home however it is still for me less costly to shoot and print film in the darkroom.

If I only shot colour and did not use both large and medium format film in addition to 35mm and DSLR then the math might be totally different. One size does not fit all which when you think of it this is also Pentax's thinking in coming out with the 645D!



Perhaps instead of comparing the 645D to the more expensive MF digital or the full frame DSLR or even film which still has places it shines we should be thinking of the Pentax as what it is and not what it is not.

Creampuff

How is Steve's looking at the economics of whether it is cost effective or not for him to switch from film to digital useless? I have read comments on other MF digital forms recommending certain individuals to stay with film due to the volumes or lack that they shoot. It is certainly the way I would look at a purchase for myself. It is what each of us has to do to decide if we are going to buy something. For some the 645D will be the way to go, some might upgrade the K7 some might stay with film and others might think MF film and a K7 is the better route. People look at costs to determine if a K7 is worth more to them that a KX. It would cost me 3 rolls every two weeks just to pay the interest on the camera. If I was shooting professionally the time it would take to pay for the 645D would be relatively short.

I too am excited about the 645D and what this could mean for Pentax however it is not the camera for me same as the 67 was never for me in the film days. For those who do want to buy one I do hope it is not only very sucessful but comes to your region real soon.

03-12-2010, 02:34 PM   #662
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: BorŚs, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
It would be pretty weird if it didn't outperform the D3X and 1Ds3/5DII by a decent margin. The MF DSLRs are all about resolution and image quality. That said, give me the 1-series any day for shooting sports.
03-12-2010, 03:19 PM   #663
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,185
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
If you think this thru, you'll end up with a digital rear lens cap
I know - we're getting there! For certain situations, i.e., wireless tethered in odd positions like mounted low on a motorcycle or car, it will be great.
03-12-2010, 04:02 PM   #664
Site Supporter
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,581
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
Steve

I did the same math as you when I had an opportunity to purchase a used CFV back for my Hasselblad; with most of my shooting B&W to pay for the back with film savings (colour only) the interest on the back would cover much of the film cost. However the more you shoot the quicker the economics reverse. I am afraid that too many have bought into the idea that film is so expensive. By the way my wife has recently purchased an Epson 4880 so I do have the opportunity of digital printing at home however it is still for me less costly to shoot and print film in the darkroom.

If I only shot colour and did not use both large and medium format film in addition to 35mm and DSLR then the math might be totally different. One size does not fit all which when you think of it this is also Pentax's thinking in coming out with the 645D!



Perhaps instead of comparing the 645D to the more expensive MF digital or the full frame DSLR or even film which still has places it shines we should be thinking of the Pentax as what it is and not what it is not.

Creampuff

How is Steve's looking at the economics of whether it is cost effective or not for him to switch from film to digital useless? I have read comments on other MF digital forms recommending certain individuals to stay with film due to the volumes or lack that they shoot. It is certainly the way I would look at a purchase for myself. It is what each of us has to do to decide if we are going to buy something. For some the 645D will be the way to go, some might upgrade the K7 some might stay with film and others might think MF film and a K7 is the better route. People look at costs to determine if a K7 is worth more to them that a KX. It would cost me 3 rolls every two weeks just to pay the interest on the camera. If I was shooting professionally the time it would take to pay for the 645D would be relatively short.

I too am excited about the 645D and what this could mean for Pentax however it is not the camera for me same as the 67 was never for me in the film days. For those who do want to buy one I do hope it is not only very sucessful but comes to your region real soon.
Thank you redrockcoulee.

For what it is worth I also feel that the 645D is a great camera, and I hope that it is a resounding success for Pentax. I just don't feel it is the right camera for most of us on this forum.

03-12-2010, 04:16 PM   #665
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteQuote:
I just don't feel it is the right camera for most of us on this forum.
Is that a fact ? I thought most here have $10,000 burning a hole in their pocket for a 645D body that does not work with the 24 million full frame K-mount lenses out there.
03-12-2010, 06:55 PM   #666
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
Is that a fact ? I thought most here have $10,000 burning a hole in their pocket for a 645D body that does not work with the 24 million full frame K-mount lenses out there.

I'll probably update my 6x7 gear with the 645D . . . in about 10-15 years.
03-12-2010, 11:56 PM   #667
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I'll probably update my 6x7 gear with the 645D . . . in about 10-15 years.
This is my plan as well, but maybe in 5-7 years I already have the 6x7 --> 645 adapter.
03-13-2010, 03:59 AM   #668
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
I'd like to point to my post https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/952034-post32.html.

The apertures are as follows (left -- right / top down):

Pentax f/8 -- Leica f/2.5
Pentax f/4 -- Leica f/5.6

Pentax SMC P-A 645 Macro 120mm/4.0
Leica APO Macro Summarit-S 120/2.5 (CS)

The three lines for Pentax are at 10, 20, 40 lp/mm, the four lines for Leica are for 5, 10, 20, 40 lp/mm. Just compare the lowest corresponding lines (40 lp/mm). The Pentax width goes to 33mm, Leica to 27mm only. So, imagine a virtual right edge in the Pentax graph at 27mm.

The 40MP sensor needs about 50% MTF at 80 lp/mm (or 80% MTF at 40 lp/mm) for full exploitation of its potential.


In my earlier comparison of Pentax 645D vs. Leica S2 I didn't yet have found lens data to compare.

Seems like the real power of the S2 is in its glass. The Pentax MTF figures above are very good, the S2's are not from this planet.

03-13-2010, 05:28 AM   #669
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
I can see people shooting weddings, or fashion or landscapes with a camera like this, but it really isn't targeted against the Canon 1Ds. Most of those shooters can gun through a thousand frames in a weekend.

Just a comment to Steve: there are many photographers who didn't grow up in the dark room era and aren't comfortable with making their own prints. I happen to be one of them. My dark room is photoshop and so for me to use medium format comfortably, I would really have to have my prints developed and scanned in by someone else. Not that I am running out to buy a 645D, I am not, but it is people like me, who don't have that comfort level with a dark room, but want more control over their prints who will buy it.
03-13-2010, 02:06 PM   #670
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by MetaD Quote
I find it interesting that Pentax specifically says the 645D camera is not designed for the professional market, meaning studio pros for fashion and product. They point out the expense of pro-level support, like on-demand repairs, rentals and one-on-one sales negotiation.

Other big pro-markets include photojournalism and weddings. These niches are pretty much dominated by Nikon and Canon DSLRs which are optimized for sports and fast shooting.

Pentax identifies the 645D as a tool for landscape photography for serious amateurs and hobbyists. To this end they have produced a weather-resistant design (very cool!). If they aren't still using 4x5 film, a serious landscape photographer is probably looking at a high-res FF DSLR. In the 645D price range, that would be Canon, Nikon D3x, Sony 850/900, Leica M9 (without AA filter!).

My Nikon D90 is 12M pixels, which prints 9.5x12 inches at 300 dpi, and easily goes 50% larger with excellent quality. Those previously mentioned FF DSLRs have something like 24M pixels which is 13x18 inches. This Kodak sensor is 40M which is 18x24 inches at 300 dpi.

My printshop does great, very inexpensive images up to 12x18 inches on the Frontier laser printer. To go larger than that, I need to order prints from the Lightjet which goes to 50 inches wide. (Wow! but they are rather more expensive.)

The 645D question is, "Who prints larger than 12x18"?

Maybe the answer comes from Michael Reichmann, who claims that 645 digital essentially replaces 4x5 film.
Iíve made several prints larger than 12x18. Plus, since my compositional skills arenít top notch, the ability to crop is often important.
Besides there is a reason that even the commercials for Nikon D3X and Canon 1Ds Mark IV are made with Medium format, instead of the cameras themselves.
Just look at the detail in 100 % crop from the Leica, the IQ is incredible. Wide dynamic range, plus rich graduation and good texture reproduction, are usual trademarks of medium format.
Pros might just have a deal with a local camera agent, or buy a second back-up 645D.

Ned Bunnell, President of Pentax USA: "The 645D will initially be available only in Japan. Right now, we have no firm plans to bring this camera to the U.S. However, we are evaluating the type of sales and support program that would be required to ensure the 645Dís success in our market."

QuoteOriginally posted by climbertrev Quote
Seems to me, as a Pentax fan, (well - they definitely dare to be different!), that they have watched the market and seized the opportunity.
MF for less than half the opposition, portable and with WR - an outdoors photographers dream - even reworking some previous classic lens (Pentax 645 120mm f/4 Macro) - NOTE KR approved!
Well beyond my wildest dreams however (25% of my annual salary).
Let's hope that the IQ is excellent (not normally a problem with Pentax) and that the developmental lessons they have learned from this camera will "trickle-down" to APS-C.
Yeah, theyíve really come through on some important aspects. Below the 10 K mark. Expanded Iso 100-1600. Sealed, dust protection, 1/4000s shutter speed, horizontal level indicator,
etc.




QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
IMHO, the "low ISO headroom" leads to confusion and nothing else.

In reality, these "studio" cameras beat every high ISO monster you can come up with. In both noise and dynamic range.

Compare the best of league for MF, FF and APS-C (Phase One P65+, Nikon D3x, Nikon D5000/Pentax K-x) on DxO (click onto "SNR 18%", and then "Print" in the upper left corner of the chart).

You'll see that what is called ISO 800 on the MF is more like and performs like ISO 400.
You'll see that the MF camera stops at ISO 800 and uses an "extended" setting for ISO 1600 and 3200 where 4 pixels are binned into 1 pixel (Phase One's Sensor+ patent).
You'll see that the Sensor+ patent has no positive effect as is does nothing else as you would do when downsampling to 50% size in postprocessing.
You'll see that push-processing the MF camera to true ISO 6400 (underexpose 2 stops and pushprocess 2 stops) yields the same low light performance as the best FF in its class and considerably better than APS-C can do.
You'll see that the full theoretical advantage of (uncropped) MF over FF (which is 1.4 stops or 4.2 dB) is not delivered. But a fraction of it is.


To summarize: MF cameras have equal or better low light capabilities than Full Frame and better than APS-C. But MF cameras are build to render high pixel count resolutions. This advantage goes away with high ISO settings which is why MF shooters don't typically care about high ISO. So, the ISO stops where it can still beat FF in terms of effective resolution.
Yeah, thanks. Iíve read similar to that extend before.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The only serious FF competitor to MF probably is the 25 MP Nikon D3x with top DR.

However, it is not easy to create tack sharp images at 40MP. A 35mm viewfinder and AF system are probably in trouble here and the required lens resolution at 50% MTF of 108 lp/mm is challenging (film lens MTF curves were typically specified up to 40 lp/mm only). Mirror and shutter must be dampened as well.

A 100% crop from a 40MP MF photo normally still looks tack sharp all over the place. Look at one of my earlier posts. I've never seen this from a FF camera.



QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
It's a slide-in place for a polarizer or other filter. The knob is to secure the drawer, the wheel is for rotating the polarizer. It's like the one in the old A*600/5,6 645 telephoto
Wow that is pretty cool.

The new knob on backside of the cam for AF-s, continues, and manual focus is a help too

QuoteOriginally posted by openyourap Quote
Very nice! Large diameter polarizers cost a tonne, and vignette when things get ultra-wide!

Could we have one of these in the next DA wide please?




QuoteOriginally posted by Steve Beswick Quote
I do all of these things myself, so the cost is negligible. Also the time arguement is pointless, as I usually don't bother scanning anything. I make my prints the "old film" way, in a darkroom, with an enlarger and chemistry. Doing so is both faster and more fun, at least for me.



I am comparing a price that is more than I paid to a hypothetical future price. If I wanted to be really honest I would say what I paid for the Mamiya, which is roughly $130, and use the list price for the 645D which is going to be over $10,000 with a " normal" lens when it is first available.



I didn't realize this forum was full of nothing but the filthy rich of the world. I was also unaware that Pentax is right up there with Leica and Hasselblad. I guess I'm the only person on this forum that still sees the importance in doing a value equation when considering a multi-thousand dollar purchase.

Just to make sure we are clear, even if I was Bill Gates rich I still don't think I would spend the money on the 645D. Digital MF is simply not worth the money for 99+% of photographers.



Funny, I get easily 10 times more keepers on average out of my lowly P3n than I do out of my K10d. I think that you will find many others on this forum that feel the same.
Medium Format film, has always been breathtaking. For some the appeal from digital will be convenient though.
I do agree though that one usually get more keepers out of film. But I think that with medium format, most people buying the 645D or Leica; will know how to get the potential out of it.
It would be a loss on me though
03-13-2010, 02:11 PM   #671
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I can see people shooting weddings, or fashion or landscapes with a camera like this, but it really isn't targeted against the Canon 1Ds. Most of those shooters can gun through a thousand frames in a weekend.
Believe it or not, some wedding shooters shoot 3000 frames *per wedding* and then provide 1000 to their customers. I think they're insane and the customers are insane to think they can sort through 1000 pictures w/o going nuts
03-13-2010, 02:34 PM   #672
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,135
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I can see people shooting weddings, or fashion or landscapes with a camera like this, but it really isn't targeted against the Canon 1Ds. Most of those shooters can gun through a thousand frames in a weekend.

Just a comment to Steve: there are many photographers who didn't grow up in the dark room era and aren't comfortable with making their own prints. I happen to be one of them. My dark room is photoshop and so for me to use medium format comfortably, I would really have to have my prints developed and scanned in by someone else. Not that I am running out to buy a 645D, I am not, but it is people like me, who don't have that comfort level with a dark room, but want more control over their prints who will buy it.
Rondec

I think that you and Steve are both totally correct: one needs to view their own needs, skill sets, available funds and photographic interests to determine for themselves which format or media is right for them. There are high end wedding photographers who shoot exclusively film and have their film processed and scanned for them and then do everything else in Lightroom/PhotoShop. But they are able to pass the cost to their clients (and they claim there is a large time savings by not shooting digital to begin with). People like yourself would most likely not be well served by going MF film and having it scanned rather than directly digital. But some digital photographers have embraced film as well. It is neither difficult or expensive for black and white, I never did want to do colour.

Your first paragraph is totally correct with the exception that a thousand shots per day might be more accurate. Different cameras for different types of photography. It looks like the 645D would be a great replacement for DSLRs in weddings for those functions that medium format film used to be used, formals for example.

Most of all I believe that Pentax just bought themselves 10s of millions of dollars in advertising by releasing the 645D and as long as the camera does not dissapoint we are all going to benefit from it, even those who choose to stay with film in that format or those who decide to stay with DSLRs.

Now Pentax needs to come out with an inexpensive full frame DSLR, a DA camera with lightning fast AF, a replacement for the D200, a camera smaller and less expensive than the the KX and a way of using both AA and lithium batteries in the same camera, and have interchangeable grips between all the different formats and many new lenses all with huge price drops and all of us on the list will be happy (for now).

Off to process some film shot with MZ5n, a 60 year old Rolleichord and a Holga panoramic pinhole.
03-13-2010, 10:52 PM   #673
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote

Ned Bunnell, President of Pentax USA: "The 645D will initially be available only in Japan. Right now, we have no firm plans to bring this camera to the U.S. However, we are evaluating the type of sales and support program that would be required to ensure the 645D’s success in our market."
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/951919-post76.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/953252-post78.html
03-14-2010, 03:58 AM   #674
Site Supporter
Steve Beswick's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,581
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Just a comment to Steve: there are many photographers who didn't grow up in the dark room era and aren't comfortable with making their own prints. I happen to be one of them. My dark room is photoshop and so for me to use medium format comfortably, I would really have to have my prints developed and scanned in by someone else. Not that I am running out to buy a 645D, I am not, but it is people like me, who don't have that comfort level with a dark room, but want more control over their prints who will buy it.
Scanners are really cheap now, and anybody can successfully develop their own B&W film.

More importantly, in one paragraph you have summed up everything that is wrong with the current photography ecosystem, form manufacturer to photographer. Back "in the old days" when everything was done with film and chemistry each shot cost something. Now you could argue the same is true with digital, and I would agree with you, but the per frame cost is not nearly as obvious as it used to be. The side effects of this are two fold:
1. There is a whole new generation of so-called art photographers who might as well just be using a video camera everywhere they go and then pulling stills out of the footage later.
2. In one word, digital breeds laziness. It is so easy to take a shot, decide it's crap, and delete it on the spot. Some of the time this is no big deal, but it can lead to missed opportunities, due to something moving, the light changing, etc. Also, what if you are out in the desert and the heat makes your light meter go crazy, or for that matter you have a K10d so your light meter isn't worth a damn to begin with? Just take fifty shots to get 2 or 3 you say? That doesn't sound very practical.

The other issue, and I know it's been said before but it bears repeating, is the upgrade issue. Back in the film days if you wanted to get better IQ with the lenses you have then you simply spent the few dollars extra on better film. Now you have to spend many hundreds of dollars on a new camera, and then you need a couple of weeks to get comfortable with it. What if you can't buy a camera with a better sensor that has feature "x" that you love? quite simply, you are screwed. Worse yet, what if people stop making newer, better cameras in your lens mount of choice? Your once top of the line lens collection will be next to worthless in a heartbeat. If you don't believe me just ask anybody with a FD mount collection.

Edit: There is a lot more I could say on the subject, but it's 4:01 AM, and I am going to bed.
03-14-2010, 04:13 AM   #675
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,265
Film scanners? Cheap? Where ?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
645d!!! insulinguy Pentax News and Rumors 1 10-12-2010 07:36 AM
645D now available in the UK robbiec Pentax News and Rumors 3 09-21-2010 03:01 AM
Using the 645D... HawaiianOnline Pentax Medium Format 13 03-23-2010 07:17 PM
645D or something else? GordonZA Pentax News and Rumors 7 03-09-2010 02:24 PM
Who would consider a 645D? Elton Pentax Medium Format 11 09-28-2007 07:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:21 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top