[baro-nite]

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.

I contradict myself, but I like both (or, I should say, all, since I develop my on b/w, have C41 processed locally with a one-day turnaround, and send E6 out and have to wait a week or more). Different mindsets for film and digital, and I find both methods enjoyable.

Back to the OP, if your goal is to improve your [i]photography[/], stick with the gear you have and concentrate on image making rather than image quality. Maybe spend some money on books by photographers you admire; study the images closely and decide what you want to apply to your own work. You've said your gear isn't limiting you and I'll take you at your word. I say that as a gear pig; I have way more gear than I need. But I've stuck to what I can easily afford, and I've learned from it and enjoyed the process. At this point if I had to choose between film and digital I'd choose film. Fortunately I don't have to choose. (If I had to choose only one of the various film formats I use, I'd have a very hard time making that choice.) Also, I really benefitted from the faster learning curve I had working digital-only for several years.

[CreationBear]

that resolution is not everything

Great advice on this thread already, but I'll throw out a "Plan C": if you have money burning a hole in your pocket (as we sometimes say here in the States) you could always spend it on glass. One or more of the "Three Amigos"--the FA's 31/43/77--come to mind, as do the really well-regarded legacy lenses like the K-series 30/2.8. Granted, it's well established that gear in and of itself won't make you a better photographer, but perhaps you'll find the output inspirational.


That said, having looked at your 500px stream, I would caution against you exploring what some people are able to do with the P67 and 105/2.4--that way lies an unhealthy obsession!

[K5_Ltd_User]

Great advice on this thread already, but I'll throw out a "Plan C": if you have money burning a hole in your pocket (as we sometimes say here in the States) you could always spend it on glass. One or more of the "Three Amigos"--the FA's 31/43/77--come to mind, as do the really well-regarded legacy lenses like the K-series 30/2.8. Granted, it's well established that gear in and of itself won't make you a better photographer, but perhaps you'll find the output inspirational

Tested the 31 and the 77. I was `Meh` . 85mm always `turned me on` (couldn' t test it; only compared photos of the 3 from sites) , but still waiting for a new release from Pentax (which will of course be absurdly expensive) .

That said, having looked at your 500px stream, I would caution against you exploring what some people are able to do with the P67 and 105/2.4--that way lies an unhealthy obsession!

You could just say that my level is not really high enough for the larger formats.

[CreationBear]

I was `Meh`

Well you have high standards, if nothing else! That said, I definitely would explore the Pentax 67 system a bit--with a little luck, you could get a nice three-lens kit for about the same amount of money you're talking about, though of course all of the hidden costs of film/scanning would still apply (not to mention the inherent risk of having to deal with a sometimes temperamental 20 or 30 year-old technology.)

[K5_Ltd_User]

Well you have high standards, if nothing else! That said, I definitely would explore the Pentax 67 system a bit--with a little luck, you could get a nice three-lens kit for about the same amount of money you're talking about, though of course all of the hidden costs of film/scanning would still apply (not to mention the inherent risk of having to deal with a sometimes temperamental 20 or 30 year-old technology.)

Hello,


Yes and no.
Yes, I have standards, No it' s not the case here.
Problem with this set of lenses (and others, and many other Pentax branded equipment) is that people call it `Holy trinity` , sharpest of the sharp, best of the best, and all that (usually meaning the best in a small selection of competitors to none) .
Everything is oversold. I came having high hopes, that when I make a portrait, I will see so much reflection in the subject eyes, that I' ll be able to see all it' s previous lives.
But no, they were good for their class, but not `world class` (Carl Zeiss maybe) . From what I could tell, they can be called and praised (but not at the level of `Messianic` promoted by fanboys) ; they need post processing adjustments/ improvements (not minor, not heavy, normal) .


I don' t have problems with old technology.


All the best!

[stevebrot]

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) .

Without the ability to scan above 3000 dpi, you are wasting your time with 645. (my humble opinion)

Fire hazard? Photo chemicals are not flammable.*


Steve

* That being said, mixing a concentrated developer (strong reducing agent) with a strong oxidizing agent (e.g. hydrogen peroxide or chlorine radicals) may result in an impressive explosion.

[photoptimist]

Without the ability to scan above 3000 dpi, you are wasting your time with 645. (my humble opinion)

Clearly he has to get both the 645 to take the picture and the K-1 to do the 3000 dpi scan!

[grispie]

* That being said, mixing a concentrated developer (strong reducing agent) with a strong oxidizing agent (e.g. hydrogen peroxide or chlorine radicals) may result in an impressive explosion.

just don't tell the landlord ;-)

[K5_Ltd_User]

Hello,


Thank you all for your input.
Basically, reducing everything to cost, from start to finish (of a photo) , it would have been too high (camera, for film: no home developing and/ or printing, scan at decent resolution) . Also, the K1 is not an emotional buy for me, and it doesn' t convince me (lower skilled user) that is worth my money (overkill in some aspects, blank in others) . Thus, I passed down a bargain (MF) and kept my money.
Maybe this will help others save up some bit of cash for something else (CZ, CPL, or maybe nothing) .


Thank you all again for your input!

[ffking]

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.

just fyi, there's a second hand 645D going from Wex Photographic in the UK for GBP 1,649.00 at the moment - maybe others if you look around - the UK might be a good source

[K5_Ltd_User]

just fyi, there's a second hand 645D going from Wex Photographic in the UK for GBP 1,649.00 at the moment - maybe others if you look around - the UK might be a good source

Hello,


No such listing on their site.
Ebay cheapest is from Japan (not worth the hastle) .


Thanks for the info (still, with lenses and all, too much) !

[ffking]

No such listing on their site.

this is the link, but might be no longer valid?

Used Pentax 645D Medium Format Digital Camera Body Only

[Winder]

Hello,


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; which at the age of this camera' s can still be done; ).
But at the same time, if I add the total sum (shooting film, developing, scanning, etc. ) , I would probably scrape enough for a k1 (body + a 70- 200 will run me dry of 3 000 Euro' s plus; because nobody is selling at a SH price and only New is worth) .
Biggest issue I have in this, I realize (fully) that the gear is not my limiting factor.
I am intrigued by the 645, but am not convinced.
Would any of you trade your film MF for a k1?
Don' t know what I need, because it' s my money, but can' t really find good factors to buy it (mostly lack of interchangeable backs is a draw back) .
Thanks!

If you are shooting any kind of volume then the cost and time that it takes to use film will definitely exceed the cost of going with the K-1 system. I sold off my Contax 645 kit after my medium format film scanner died. The cost of a good film scanner alone is more than the cost of the K-1 body. Then there is carrying all the film and changing rolls constantly. I do miss shooting B&W film, but that is more of a nostalgia thing.

[K5_Ltd_User]

If you are shooting any kind of volume then the cost and time that it takes to use film will definitely exceed the cost of going with the K-1 system. I sold off my Contax 645 kit after my medium format film scanner died. The cost of a good film scanner alone is more than the cost of the K-1 body. Then there is carrying all the film and changing rolls constantly. I do miss shooting B&W film, but that is more of a nostalgia thing.

Hello,


Thank you for your input.
Pragmatically speaking, I reached the same conclusion.I remember that once I' veI searched for Film scanners and was turned off by the large price (for `quality scanners` ) . Plus, other forum members confirmed me that I' d pay too much (for me) .
Storage I got to think about it as well. Although, if we calculate storage, for digital we need to think about space (digital) , thus we spend on that one as well.
Would be curios if there' s somewhere a calculation of some sort. Would do it myself, but can' t put a constant of keepers (to say how much you' d need/ shot) . Anyway, I think the costs still come lower.

Waiting for the k1 successor or for a real price drop on the k1 (in case they won' t develop anything else anymore) .
With the k3 I' ve learned that the gear is surely not the limit (although it was more of a emotional purchase, because I liked the gunpowder gray color) , so I am holding back. This, and the good advice received in this thread.


Thank you again!

[grispie]

Originally posted by CreationBear
Great advice on this thread already, but I'll throw out a "Plan C": if you have money burning a hole in your pocket (as we sometimes say here in the States) you could always spend it on glass. One or more of the "Three Amigos"--the FA's 31/43/77--come to mind, as do the really well-regarded legacy lenses like the K-series 30/2.8. Granted, it's well established that gear in and of itself won't make you a better photographer, but perhaps you'll find the output inspirational
Tested the 31 and the 77. I was `Meh` . 85mm always `turned me on` (couldn' t test it; only compared photos of the 3 from sites) , but still waiting for a new release from Pentax (which will of course be absurdly expensive) .

But no, they were good for their class, but not `world class` (Carl Zeiss maybe) . From what I could tell, they can be called and praised (but not at the level of `Messianic` promoted by fanboys) ; they need post processing adjustments/ improvements (not minor, not heavy, normal) .

to be honest, i think you are cutting some corners here. Or maybe just missing something.
I own the fa31 e.g.
I tend to believe it did change my way of photographing. That doesn't mean it needs to be called 'messianic' ofcourse, as some people do ;-) But in the end, you start making use of its strengths. To the level that, purely 'technical', the lens becomes more important than the body that was being used. I think that is what creationbear was phrasing as 'the output might be inspirational'. Same goes for other lenses as well. They all have their unique way of rendering an image and you can make use of that.

This is also why i didn't buy the K1 (yet :-)
I believe my equipment is still outperforming me. Or at least, i can get the desired result with what i have and i can be very creative within the apsc world.
this is a good example (with fa31). it allows me to get this sort of portrait and at f1.8.
willemijn - christophe gryspeert

I'd love to put the fa31 on the K1 though ;-))