Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-07-2017, 02:30 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,294
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
Would any of you trade your film MF for a k1?
No. I'd like a K-1, but I tend to use film and digital for different things. As an example, I packed along a K-5 kit on a recent work trip, and made some shift panoramas -- 3 exposures each using a 24mm tilt/shift lens. I'd get a similar field of view using the same lens and one exposure on a K-1, or using the 35mm on one of my 645n bodies. I'm going back next week and will bring a 645 kit. Do I wish I had a K-1 instead for this trip? No, because these are the kind of subjects I prefer on film; I consider the versions I made with the K-5 to be studies for what I will do with the 645n loaded with Velvia 50.

I bought into the Pentax 645 system because I thought I would want to get a 645D or Z at some point. But once I saw 645 transparencies I completely fell in love with film again, and now I doubt I'll go MF digital any time soon. Had I known that in the first place I might well have bought into a different MF system. I do like the Pentax system, though. My solution to the problem of film inserts vs. interchangeable backs was to buy two bodies; they're cheap enough. The thing I like least about them is the sound of the film advance mechanism. I love the data imprinting feature (645n or 645nii only), the handling, the viewfinder. Some of the lenses are great values; I get a lot of use out of the humble A150/3.5; nice and small, nice and cheap, good image quality, built-in hood.

08-07-2017, 03:12 PM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
smigol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 422
I have both the K1 and several 67 bodies and lenses.

What I've enjoyed about the 67 is the patience it requires for shooting. You slow down, consider each shot.

What I enjoy about the K1 is the reflex-like ability to shoot with impunity.

Both have their drawbacks.

The film is the limitation of the scan size. If I shoot a high-ISO film, the detail available in the K1 will outshine the film. The reverse is true for a nice slow ISO film - digital tends to break down into posterization of discrete colors while film renders the transition from sharp to soft much smoother.

I process my own film and scan it, so that removes the hurdle of going through a third party for developing. However, this puts the hurdle squarely in my own path, meaning that I must ensure that I have the chemicals, time to do the processing, and getting good scans.
08-07-2017, 03:22 PM   #18
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
but you will not have the same low-ISO capabilities from the 645 as the K-1.
Ummmmm...could you elaborate?

I concur on the rest of your comment. While film may be viewed as the bargain route to photographic excellence in still photography, there is no particular basis for equivalence with the various digital options. This is particularly true for monochrome images produced with a full analog (wet prints) process using low speed emulsions. The two are simply different with the hybrid work flow creating an uneasy middle ground where they speak a common dialect.


Steve
08-07-2017, 04:10 PM   #19
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
It depends on your goals: 1) if you want to accelerate your photography, get the K-1; 2) if you want to slow down your photography, get the 645. Both can make you a better photographer and deliver great images, but the journeys are totally different.

How about this:

Take a month and ONLY shoot with your K-3 (or K-5). Then take a month and ONLY shoot with your MX (or ME).

Good luck!

08-07-2017, 11:50 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,199
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
I am tempted to buy a 645 on film (a decent condition with a set of good lenses 200/ 35/ 75/ 45 would run me dry of around 1 800 Euro' s IF I find bargains;
There are more MF options out there at a better price to be honest.
Myself i bought some bronica 6*6 gear for about a third of that price.

I think it is a totally different ballgame from the K1.
08-08-2017, 12:33 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 273
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote
There are more MF options out there at a better price to be honest.
Myself i bought some bronica 6*6 gear for about a third of that price.

I think it is a totally different ballgame from the K1.


I will try through this message to answer to as many as I can.

0. What appeals to me for the 645 N it' s that it can print the settings on the film; I would like to `keep it in the family` - Pentax (seeing that I' ve invested a lot already in lenses; not as much as many, more than others) . But that lack of interchangeable backs, kind of `eeh` .
1. 645 format totally different from 35 - true and I understand (you have to fill the shot with more subject, and you better do it right- this is just the first thing that is a big step for me, out of many) .
2. I shoot film also (35 mm) and digital crop; reason I don' t have any film photos posted- nothing that caught my eye came out of the `cartridge` (as you could have seen if you had the curiosity of clicking the links from my signature) .
3. I would like to save up for a digital 645 because the samples I' ve seen, are amazing; mind you all, that in the right hands; If I crop those pictures to a 35 mm format, they still look great, but that' s because of the subject and technique. That being said, to have a good set- up for this format and digital, I would invest almost a down payment for a house or car (it' s a hobby, I don' t earn money from it) .Contrary, I' ve also seen a review of the 645z from a guy, the pictures were high- res. snaps that only killed the shutter.
4. Getting a high res. scanner for film is not really worth it for me; considering mainly the fact that I will invest in developing, preview prints, and final prints (I don' t have, nor do I think I want a lab at home; not to mention not allowed- fire hazard) .
5. Biggest disillusion I tell myself, 645 shots are amazing, I need the camera to take such shots. I admire them, I see them, but right now I don' t know if I can recreate them; full break on this hobby and trying to re motivate myself. 645 film seems (for now at least) the cheaper option (that and the fact that k1 doesn' t appeal to me and there' s no successor coming) .


Thank you all, for your shared experience and personal opinions.
One more day and I will have to decide!


Best regards!
08-08-2017, 01:22 AM - 1 Like   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,990
leekil:

but you will not have the same low-ISO capabilities from the 645 as the K-1.


QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Ummmmm...could you elaborate?

I concur on the rest of your comment. While film may be viewed as the bargain route to photographic excellence in still photography, there is no particular basis for equivalence with the various digital options. This is particularly true for monochrome images produced with a full analog (wet prints) process using low speed emulsions. The two are simply different with the hybrid work flow creating an uneasy middle ground where they speak a common dialect.


Steve
That should have been high-ISO, not low.

08-08-2017, 02:40 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,602
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
I will try through this message to answer to as many as I can.

0. What appeals to me for the 645 N it' s that it can print the settings on the film; I would like to `keep it in the family` - Pentax (seeing that I' ve invested a lot already in lenses; not as much as many, more than others) . But that lack of interchangeable backs, kind of `eeh` .
1. 645 format totally different from 35 - true and I understand (you have to fill the shot with more subject, and you better do it right- this is just the first thing that is a big step for me, out of many) .
2. I shoot film also (35 mm) and digital crop; reason I don' t have any film photos posted- nothing that caught my eye came out of the `cartridge` (as you could have seen if you had the curiosity of clicking the links from my signature) .
3. I would like to save up for a digital 645 because the samples I' ve seen, are amazing; mind you all, that in the right hands; If I crop those pictures to a 35 mm format, they still look great, but that' s because of the subject and technique. That being said, to have a good set- up for this format and digital, I would invest almost a down payment for a house or car (it' s a hobby, I don' t earn money from it) .Contrary, I' ve also seen a review of the 645z from a guy, the pictures were high- res. snaps that only killed the shutter.
4. Getting a high res. scanner for film is not really worth it for me; considering mainly the fact that I will invest in developing, preview prints, and final prints (I don' t have, nor do I think I want a lab at home; not to mention not allowed- fire hazard) .
5. Biggest disillusion I tell myself, 645 shots are amazing, I need the camera to take such shots. I admire them, I see them, but right now I don' t know if I can recreate them; full break on this hobby and trying to re motivate myself. 645 film seems (for now at least) the cheaper option (that and the fact that k1 doesn' t appeal to me and there' s no successor coming) .


Thank you all, for your shared experience and personal opinions.
One more day and I will have to decide!


Best regards!
If you aren't developing the film yourself or scanning it in with a high res scanner, your cost will be pretty high.

Why don't you save for a 645D? It won't be as nice as the 645z, but used it seems as though the cost is going to be more in the 2800 dollar range and it sounds as though it would fit your shooting style best.
08-08-2017, 03:32 AM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 273
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If you aren't developing the film yourself or scanning it in with a high res scanner, your cost will be pretty high.

Why don't you save for a 645D? It won't be as nice as the 645z, but used it seems as though the cost is going to be more in the 2800 dollar range and it sounds as though it would fit your shooting style best.


Hello,


I live in Europe. Prices are rather high, because of the import charge and the V.A.T. (if I' d buy from outside the EU) .
Cheapest 645D body I' ve found, was 2 800 Euro' s, and it had around 20k shutters (from what I remember) . Add to that the lenses, filters, ect. , and you understand how this `it' s just a hobby` helps my wallet.


Thanks!
08-08-2017, 04:35 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,199
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
I would like to `keep it in the family` - Pentax (seeing that I' ve invested a lot already in lenses; not as much as many, more than others) . But that lack of interchangeable backs, kind of `eeh`
Not sure whether the 'keep it in the family is an argument enough for restricting yourself to pentax'. I also have the feeling that you shouldn't spend too much on this before you are sure you actually will end up using it a lot. To begin i would not even invest in a set but rather a body and one lens, unless a real bargain comes along. Working with one lens only can also enhance your photography.

QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
I would like to save up for a digital 645 because the samples I' ve seen, are amazing; mind you all, that in the right hands; If I crop those pictures to a 35 mm format, they still look great, but that' s because of the subject and technique. That being said, to have a good set- up for this format and digital, I would invest almost a down payment for a house or car (it' s a hobby, I don' t earn money from it)
IMHO, forget about a digital MF.. unless you make money with it.. :-)

It all boils down to what kind of pictures you want to make.

Going by your 500px link, i certainly see room for film MF in b&w & maybe some toning.
If possible, do the developing yourself. Very rewarding. and it gets less expensive also.
08-08-2017, 05:14 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 273
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by grispie Quote
If possible, do the developing yourself. Very rewarding. and it gets less expensive also.

Hello,


Can' t. Fire hazard, no approval from the landlord.


Thanks for your input!
08-08-2017, 05:35 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,602
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
Hello,


I live in Europe. Prices are rather high, because of the import charge and the V.A.T. (if I' d buy from outside the EU) .
Cheapest 645D body I' ve found, was 2 800 Euro' s, and it had around 20k shutters (from what I remember) . Add to that the lenses, filters, ect. , and you understand how this `it' s just a hobby` helps my wallet.


Thanks!
Sure. But what will the cost be to develop photos and get a decent quality scan of the negative. Looking at the Darkroom web site in the US, I'm seeing a cost of 20 dollars per 12 exposures, plus shipping. Of course, shooting film you don't go through as many exposures, but it still feels like that could get costly over time.
08-08-2017, 05:46 AM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 273
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Sure. But what will the cost be to develop photos and get a decent quality scan of the negative. Looking at the Darkroom web site in the US, I'm seeing a cost of 20 dollars per 12 exposures, plus shipping. Of course, shooting film you don't go through as many exposures, but it still feels like that could get costly over time.

Hello,


That' s my feeling as well. That' s why I mostly feel I should keep my money.
Although I don' t know if I will shoot long enough for it to become costly, I am sure that to become a better photographer, I should. But it raises the question if it' s really worth it. Because as I said, I am sure that the camera is not my weak link.
Maybe I should just halt everything and concentrate more on my APS- C.


Best regards!
08-08-2017, 06:15 AM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,602
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
Hello,


That' s my feeling as well. That' s why I mostly feel I should keep my money.
Although I don' t know if I will shoot long enough for it to become costly, I am sure that to become a better photographer, I should. But it raises the question if it' s really worth it. Because as I said, I am sure that the camera is not my weak link.
Maybe I should just halt everything and concentrate more on my APS- C.


Best regards!
Practice with digital where each exposure is not as big a deal and if you throw out 50 or even 100 photos, you have learned something in the end. Then apply what you have learned to film and each exposure can be something great.

I guess I don't have the patience for film. Tough when it might be three or four weeks from the beginning of a roll of film to when you send it off. I like the instant gratification of digital where I can chimp my image and make an adjustment right then.
08-08-2017, 06:15 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,199
QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
Can' t. Fire hazard, no approval from the landlord.
for sure you can at least develop the film yourself and only have worthwhile shots scanned or printed somewhere else, no?

QuoteOriginally posted by urssu Quote
Maybe I should just halt everything and concentrate more on my APS- C.
Nothing wrong with that... ;-)
Seems you should indeed keep your money!
Maybe use it for travelling to places you want to photograph..
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!
euro, film, film mf, k1, mf
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supremacy of MF (Manual Focus) shots- how many of us still doing MF? danielchtong Pentax DSLR Discussion 111 06-23-2017 06:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: SIGMA FISHEYE- A Circular Image 8mm F4 MF Filtermatic PENTAX K Full frame K1,K3, honey bo bo Sold Items 13 01-10-2017 06:21 PM
People Ivy Pt. 2: Film vs Digital (K1000 vs K1) alan_smithee_photos Post Your Photos! 7 06-12-2016 06:35 AM
Digital or Film MF rlatjsrud Pentax Medium Format 13 03-10-2016 01:41 PM
MF film to MF digital? codger Pentax Medium Format 30 09-24-2012 01:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:04 AM. | 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