[BarryE]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, and I know it's subjective, but I really would like to put this niggle to bed once and for all.

The K-1 quality was a decent step up from APSC, but I was surprised at how close the two sensor sized systems were at low ISO, especially when shot on tripod, MUP etc (ie aiming for quality IQ). Yes, there was more DR which mattered enough for me to switch to FF. I used to sell my work to A1 print size, many were captured with APSC and I never felt, when processed well enough and printed professionally, they were really much worse than FF - DR apart. APSC clearly has a portability advantage, over FF, but on a tripod this matters little. Lugging around does matter and APSC format wins this battle.

However, to my niggle - the idea that MF images have 'something special' about them. Yes, there's a DR advantage, and it's this that's maybe at the heart of my niggling interest, but when shooting at low ISO and with modern, fast FF lenses available and with FA Limiteds, does the 645Z really offer that much over the K-1?

With careful and sensitive processing an APSC image has good tonal range, even up to an A1 print. Obviously, a FF RAW image is better than APSC before processing and there's a greater margin for recovery from poor technique. I assume a MF image is even more forgiving. However, I can't help thinking (or perhaps want to believe), that the MF's 'something special' would be small in most cases.

Please, ignore high ISO and resolution advantages of the 645z as these are not important to me. Nor does fast AF matter as my usage is for slow photography - I often use manual focus, anyway.

I believe the 645Z/MF is unlikely to be developed further by Ricoh and competitors' MF cameras are significantly more expensive to experience MF, so MF is probably just an expensive dream - plus the 645Z's future is iffy, it seems.

Cost is clearly a downside of MF systems, but maybe I can keep my ageing Skoda for a few more years and argue this would allow me to play with MF as a replacement car would soon waste more cash than a 645z and a couple of lenses. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced MF would Wow! me that much in reality.

Any users out there, who have experience of both systems, want to comment on the MF/FF comparisons, for the above usage?

Many thanks ...

[HarisF1]

I dabbled in MF a couple of times over the last two years and the thing that stands out for me is the lack of fast lenses for the 645Z. If you want DoF and subject isolation then you don't get any advantage by using the 645. Instead you've got very fast f/1.4 options on the K-1 that do a better job. If you want superb detail and great performance, then the 645Z is a very good option but the K-1 still puts up a fight.

Also you've got the sensor aspect ratio which I feel favours the 645Z. It feels great to get 51MP with such a usable aspect ratio, but that is where the good stuff ends for me.

The K-1 is easier to use, has SR, a huge range of lenses to use, as well as more 'gimmicky' options that might be of some use in the modern age (Pixelshift, GPS).

People will disagree with me regarding the 645Z - when I realised it was a cropped 645 sensor the camera lost its magic a little, especially as I was looking for the MF factor.

The best way to get proper MF feel is to try out film 645 or 6x7, unless you have a particular use case for the 645Z. It does have lenses that have extremely good image quality but ultimately it wasn't what I really needed from it.

[BarryE]

I should perhaps have added that any MF purchase would be just for personal project type usage. I use my FF for my part-time real estate use and it shines for that.

Also, I'd not like to have given the impression that I'm just after IQ. The 'feel' of using a 645Z is important too and the way you respond to this large camera in use.

---------- Post added 08-14-20 at 10:43 PM ----------

I dabbled in MF a couple of times over the last two years and the thing that stands out for me is the lack of fast lenses for the 645Z. If you want DoF and subject isolation then you don't get any advantage by using the 645. Instead you've got very fast f/1.4 options on the K-1 that do a better job. If you want superb detail and great performance, then the 645Z is a very good option but the K-1 still puts up a fight.

Also you've got the sensor aspect ratio which I feel favours the 645Z. It feels great to get 51MP with such a usable aspect ratio, but that is where the good stuff ends for me.

The K-1 is easier to use, has SR, a huge range of lenses to use, as well as more 'gimmicky' options that might be of some use in the modern age (Pixelshift, GPS).

People will disagree with me regarding the 645Z - when I realised it was a cropped 645 sensor the camera lost its magic a little, especially as I was looking for the MF factor.

The best way to get proper MF feel is to try out film 645 or 6x7, unless you have a particular use case for the 645Z. It does have lenses that have extremely good image quality but ultimately it wasn't what I really needed from it.

Thank you. I take your point about the aspect ratio. 4:3 often feels better than 3:2. The not quite MF is something I did wonder about, so it's good to have it referenced.

[JohnX]

Take a look here>Simon Booth - YouTube

Simon's a Pentax 645Z user as far as I'm aware - certainly he uses a digital 645. He might be able to offer some insight as to why he uses the kit, and you'll get an idea of results from his posts.

[HarisF1]

It's worth trying out though, if only to marvel at the huge mirror and the satisfying 'clack' when taking a picture. It handles beautifully and has a lot of controls and customisable settings. In that aspect it's a pleasure to use. The K-1 in comparison is a bit more 'action' but retains a lot of the features that make the 645Z great (as expected for a newer camera).

[texandrews]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, and I know it's subjective,

Well, not so much in my opinion. I think there are decided objective reasons to use digital medium format.

...but I really would like to put this niggle to bed once and for all.

Well, that won't happen.

The K-1 quality was a decent step up from APSC, but I was surprised at how close the two sensor sized systems were at low ISO, especially when shot on tripod, MUP etc (ie aiming for quality IQ). Yes, there was more DR which mattered enough for me to switch to FF. I used to sell my work to A1 print size, many were captured with APSC and I never felt, when processed well enough and printed professionally, they were really much worse than FF - DR apart. APSC clearly has a portability advantage, over FF, but on a tripod this matters little. Lugging around does matter and APSC format wins this battle.

Personally, I think this portability difference between apsc and FF is overstated.

However, to my niggle - the idea that MF images have 'something special' about them. Yes, there's a DR advantage, and it's this that's maybe at the heart of my niggling interest, but when shooting at low ISO and with modern, fast FF lenses available and with FA Limiteds, does the 645Z really offer that much over the K-1?

With careful and sensitive processing an APSC image has good tonal range, even up to an A1 print. Obviously, a FF RAW image is better than APSC before processing and there's a greater margin for recovery from poor technique. I assume a MF image is even more forgiving. However, I can't help thinking (or perhaps want to believe), that the MF's 'something special' would be small in most cases.

Please, ignore high ISO and resolution advantages of the 645z as these are not important to me. Nor does fast AF matter as my usage is for slow photography - I often use manual focus, anyway.

Mainly, it seems to me you are doing a very good job of convincing yourself that whatever differences there may be, they won't matter to you, as stated.

I believe the 645Z/MF is unlikely to be developed further by Ricoh and competitors' MF cameras are significantly more expensive to experience MF, so MF is probably just an expensive dream - plus the 645Z's future is iffy, it seems.

This is speculation, which seems to be a neurotic fault with a fair number of Pentaxians. This ground has been covered numerous times, re: how a small company like Pentax may not generate the same anticipation excitement of larger manufacturers, & more, so I won't recount that here.

Cost is clearly a downside of MF systems...

I have found the opposite to be true for Pentax, with its rich used lens market.

but maybe I can keep my ageing Skoda for a few more years and argue this would allow me to play with MF as a replacement car would soon waste more cash than a 645z and a couple of lenses. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced MF would Wow! me that much in reality.

Me neither, given your apparent use-case scenario, and apparent disinterest in expanding that significantly.

Any users out there, who have experience of both systems, want to comment on the MF/FF comparisons, for the above usage?

Many thanks ...

I shoot both professionally. For the most exacting work so far*, I always use the Z. It's no contest. Besides the issues above you don't have much interest in, the other advantages are the better tonal transitions generally---which is an aid in achieving color accuracy---and the extraordinary malleability of the files, which has been a great help in my work. Also, while most of my work is done at base iso, it's actually quite handy to be able to shoot up to iso 3200 with little penalty, or to underexpose by 3-4 stops if necessary and recover in post, again with little penalty. I could go on, but I won't, because I firmly believe that people need to match their gear to their use-case. If I were shooting sports, I would not be using medium format. But I'm not. What I shoot is right in the larger format's wheelhouse.

For the documentary/action photography I do need to do, I use the K1mkII. The action I shoot isn't that quick, just slower human movements, but typically in much lower light settings (museums) and no flash allowed. This would be a good use-case for a number of cameras, especially Sony (which I used to own), not so much Canon these days (the museum has Canon equipment, for various reasons, but largely due to legacy from the days when it was king of high iso performance, which it is not now), but the K1 is especially suited to it because of that exposure latitude at the low end. Not as good as the Z, but quicker to use, especially in burst. And it's a good backup for the Z in case it goes down or I don't have it with me: I can always tripod it and use Pixel Shift. It also has built in composition shift---with that plus my Pentax 28shift I'm covered there if needs be.

Again, use-case scenarios, that's what it's really about. In my personal artwork that uses photography, or documentation of my work in other media, I use the same standards the museum tries to reach. Check the guidelines tab if you want a dense read that might induce a headache. If you think medium format is expensive, price out the targets they have listed. Made me choke, although I think I'll have to get one of them for work this fall.

By your own admission, you don't need any of this.

*One high end use I'm about to experiment with using the K1, though, is photogrammetry of sculptures and installations. The smaller files of the K1 would be an advantage here, possibly. I also use the K1 when I need UWA wider than the 25 I have for the Z.

[BarryE]

Well, not so much in my opinion. I think there are decided objective reasons to use digital medium format. Well, that won't happen.

Personally, I think this portability difference between apsc and FF is overstated.

Mainly, it seems to me you are doing a very good job of convincing yourself that whatever differences there may be, they won't matter to you, as stated.

This is speculation, which seems to be a neurotic fault with a fair number of Pentaxians. This ground has been covered numerous times, re: how a small company like Pentax may not generate the same anticipation excitement of larger manufacturers, & more, so I won't recount that here.

I have found the opposite to be true for Pentax, with its rich used lens market. Me neither, given your apparent use-case scenario, and apparent disinterest in expanding that significantly.

I shoot both professionally. For the most exacting work so far*, I always use the Z. It's no contest. Besides the issues above you don't have much interest in, the other advantages are the better tonal transitions generally---which is an aid in achieving color accuracy---and the extraordinary malleability of the files, which has been a great help in my work. Also, while most of my work is done at base iso, it's actually quite handy to be able to shoot up to iso 3200 with little penalty, or to underexpose by 3-4 stops if necessary and recover in post, again with little penalty. I could go on, but I won't, because I firmly believe that people need to match their gear to their use-case. If I were shooting sports, I would not be using medium format. But I'm not. What I shoot is right in the larger format's wheelhouse.

For the documentary/action photography I do need to do, I use the K1mkII. The action I shoot isn't that quick, just slower human movements, but typically in much lower light settings (museums) and no flash allowed. This would be a good use-case for a number of cameras, especially Sony (which I used to own), not so much Canon these days (the museum has Canon equipment, for various reasons, but largely due to legacy from the days when it was king of high iso performance, which it is not now), but the K1 is especially suited to it because of that exposure latitude at the low end. Not as good as the Z, but quicker to use, especially in burst. And it's a good backup for the Z in case it goes down or I don't have it with me: I can always tripod it and use Pixel Shift. It also has built in composition shift---with that plus my Pentax 28shift I'm covered there if needs be.

Again, use-case scenarios, that's what it's really about. In my personal artwork that uses photography, or documentation of my work in other media, I use the same standards the museum tries to reach. Check the guidelines tab if you want a dense read that might induce a headache. If you think medium format is expensive, price out the targets they have listed. Made me choke, although I think I'll have to get one of them for work this fall.

By your own admission, you don't need any of this.

*One high end use I'm about to experiment with using the K1, though, is photogrammetry of sculptures and installations. The smaller files of the K1 would be an advantage here, possibly. I also use the K1 when I need UWA wider than the 25 I have for the Z.

Many fair and reasonable points. Many thanks for taking the time to respond and help.

I do find the difference between APSC and FF in portability does give the smaller sensor system an advantage, especially when multiple lenses are carried. The smaller/lighter system does, however, seem to change my approach and usage - maybe I'm less tight and experimental with smaller gear, but probably more careless too. Good or bad? This, perhaps, counter intuitively is one of the reasons I do keep getting drawn back to the Z - its weight. The greater heft, I expect, would further slow me down, an approach I feel more comfortable with.

As a tool for exacting work, I'm sure there is little comparison in the Z's flexibility and scope. Like most users the different systems all have their compromises. For my paid work FF has the best balance of these compromises. For extravagant, personal usage - necessitating continuing ownership of the old banger (car) - the Z is a temptation, but an unreasonable one.

There is another reason my Z interest has re-emerged and this is where your 'exacting' comment reinforces this interest, namely I'm starting to develop studio based, still-life work, where colour accuracy and the finesse of the lighting is key. The chance to develop an object's form with lighting modifiers would, I'm sure, be made easier with MF. Perhaps it chickens and eggs? A few product commissions, then a 645 or the other way round. At the moment this directional change is a reaction to real estate PPE requirements and this business' move to 360 video accelerated by Covid.

I'll take a look at the guidelines you mentioned.

Thanks again

[barondla]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, and I know it's subjective, but I really would like to put this niggle to bed once and for all.

The K-1 quality was a decent step up from APSC, but I was surprised at how close the two sensor sized systems were at low ISO, especially when shot on tripod, MUP etc (ie aiming for quality IQ). Yes, there was more DR which mattered enough for me to switch to FF. I used to sell my work to A1 print size, many were captured with APSC and I never felt, when processed well enough and printed professionally, they were really much worse than FF - DR apart. APSC clearly has a portability advantage, over FF, but on a tripod this matters little. Lugging around does matter and APSC format wins this battle.

However, to my niggle - the idea that MF images have 'something special' about them. Yes, there's a DR advantage, and it's this that's maybe at the heart of my niggling interest, but when shooting at low ISO and with modern, fast FF lenses available and with FA Limiteds, does the 645Z really offer that much over the K-1?

With careful and sensitive processing an APSC image has good tonal range, even up to an A1 print. Obviously, a FF RAW image is better than APSC before processing and there's a greater margin for recovery from poor technique. I assume a MF image is even more forgiving. However, I can't help thinking (or perhaps want to believe), that the MF's 'something special' would be small in most cases.

Please, ignore high ISO and resolution advantages of the 645z as these are not important to me. Nor does fast AF matter as my usage is for slow photography - I often use manual focus, anyway.

I believe the 645Z/MF is unlikely to be developed further by Ricoh and competitors' MF cameras are significantly more expensive to experience MF, so MF is probably just an expensive dream - plus the 645Z's future is iffy, it seems.

Cost is clearly a downside of MF systems, but maybe I can keep my ageing Skoda for a few more years and argue this would allow me to play with MF as a replacement car would soon waste more cash than a 645z and a couple of lenses. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced MF would Wow! me that much in reality.

Any users out there, who have experience of both systems, want to comment on the MF/FF comparisons, for the above usage?

Many thanks ...

Have had Pentax for years. Still have 35mm LX and Pentax 6x7. Last year I bought my first FF digital camera, the K-1. It is a great camera. Noticed a big step up in quality over the many Pentax APS-c ( K-01, K-7, K10D and K20D). Love the lunar lander screen and control layout of the K-1.

Like you, there was always the question about medium format digital. I'm sure this is partly due to do those Pentax 6X7s sitting on the shelf and their beautiful transparencies. I started asking questions last year. Found out medium format lenses could be less expensive than FF lenses. When I asked people that owned both the K-1(II) and 645D/Z which they preferred to shoot, nearly everyone said 645. It caught me a little off guard. I love the control layout with 3rd wheel of the K-1, but for my small hands the grip is the most uncomfortable of any Pentax I've owned. Still surprising everyone picks the 645 as their favorite to shoot. I wasn't sure the IQ diferences would be worth the expense.

Then, an affordable 645Z and A 120 macro lens popped up here in the market place ( thanks Sandy). I went for it. Thought it was probably a dumb move.

What I found:

The 645Z is balanced perfectly. The bigger, more rounded grip doesn't hurt my hand like the K-1. Then I looked thru the viewfinder...OMG. Not that little APS-c sized K-1 viewfinder. The 645 has a huge optical viewfinder... like my LX and Olympus OM4T. Huge. Manual focusing lenses is so much easier on the Z. If the Z didn't perform any better than FF, I'd still pick it as my favorite to shoot. The viewfinder is that nice.

A tree on my property is riddled with woodpecker holes. Every 4-5 inches there's a hole. I've shot it with most of my digital cameras, and never really captured anything that made me go wow. So looking at my first 645Z attempt ( with a 645 DFA 55 lens) and ZOWIE. The close up of the tree looked so 3D. Each hole had depth to it. Totally shocking. Couldn't believe what I was seeing on the computer monitor. Medium format has the ability to reproduce objects with more roundness, or depth. FF and smaller formats look flatter. Fast FF lenses, wide open, seperate the subject from the back ground, but the subject still looks flat vs the same shot in MF. It is amazing to see. Here is a thread on it: medium format and dimensionality - PentaxForums.com

So 5 months later I have: 645 HD DFA 35, DFA 55, FA 80-160, A 120 macro, FA300 F5.6, FA 400 F5.6, Rear Converter 1.4X, auto extension tubes, and a 67 to 645 adapter to use my 67 lenses. The uncrippled 645 mount allows the 67 lenses to work just like they would on the 67 camera. So I picked up an inexpensive 67 120 soft lens/ 67 1.4 Rear Converter combo for $160 shipped from Japan. I've never bought so many lenses in such a short time. The poor K-1 and 3 amigos have been out twice since getting the 645Z.

You might try posting a similar question in the MF forum. Many there have FF and MF.

Thanks,
barondla

[texandrews]

There is another reason my Z interest has re-emerged and this is where your 'exacting' comment reinforces this interest, namely I'm starting to develop studio based, still-life work, where colour accuracy and the finesse of the lighting is key. The chance to develop an object's form with lighting modifiers would, I'm sure, be made easier with MF.

Yes! So here is where in your work I'd say the use-case makes it more "worth it" from the financial standpoint---although I would first thoroughly explore P/S to see if you got good enough results. but read the 2 posts above this one for additional insights.

Perhaps it chickens and eggs? A few product commissions, then a 645 or the other way round.

Yeah, could be...my story at the end.

At the moment this directional change is a reaction to real estate PPE requirements and this business' move to 360 video accelerated by Covid.

Smart. You should maybe first look at the Theta Z, though, short term. A lot less money, but it's a very cool unit. Haven't used mine at work much, but I'm about to. Was going to do my first pro work with it back in March, but then Covid threw the wrench in the gears. Will probably start using it seriously this fall, starting out in the sculpture garden.

But here's another thought, which has probably occurred to you: higher end real estate photography starts to get a lot like the architectural photography you see in Architecture Digest & etc. And that could be a bridge to another client pool, and one that used to have pretty deep pockets. So, here's my story.


In 2012 I started doing serious photography for my museum, as an employee, when we were between photographers. One had retired and the Fed hiring process is a long one, so it was months between photographers. Then, the spec finally got written, and I was going to throw my hat in the ring, but I had an immediate disqualification---no use of digital medium format in a museum setting. Never mind the fact the the 645D was the only digital medium format camera available that didn't cost as much as a nice car/crappy-ish house, or that the museum didn't even have one and wasn't going to get one!

So, when the Z came out I used my last reserves of money (2008 crushed us) and traded in some beloved gear to get the price down far enough that I could keep the pain merely excruciating, and not fatal. And that was only because I had a 645N and some lenses to start---without those lenses, it would have been a no-go, as Fuji is today for me. And I have been able slowly over the last 6 years to acquire more, for a total of 14, plus the 2 teleconverters and the K mount adapter. Adding the K1 (and upgrading the board), plus lenses there, and flashes, triggers, etc along the way, all of it fully compatible, and with that K mount adapter all of those 645 lenses can be used with the K1---I've got a complete system that can't be had with any other manufacturer.

And as others will attest, I did it without being rich or having the billables at the time to load up.

So, as you think about the Z, think also about competitive advantage, whether the clients fully appreciate it or not---but somebody's going to. Not an issue for those who don't shoot for money.

[BarryE]

Yes! So here is where in your work I'd say the use-case makes it more "worth it" from the financial standpoint---although I would first thoroughly explore P/S to see if you got good enough results. but read the 2 posts above this one for additional insights. Yeah, could be...my story at the end. Smart. You should maybe first look at the Theta Z, though, short term. A lot less money, but it's a very cool unit. Haven't used mine at work much, but I'm about to. Was going to do my first pro work with it back in March, but then Covid threw the wrench in the gears. Will probably start using it seriously this fall, starting out in the sculpture garden.

But here's another thought, which has probably occurred to you: higher end real estate photography starts to get a lot like the architectural photography you see in Architecture Digest & etc. And that could be a bridge to another client pool, and one that used to have pretty deep pockets. So, here's my story.


In 2012 I started doing serious photography for my museum, as an employee, when we were between photographers. One had retired and the Fed hiring process is a long one, so it was months between photographers. Then, the spec finally got written, and I was going to throw my hat in the ring, but I had an immediate disqualification---no use of digital medium format in a museum setting. Never mind the fact the the 645D was the only digital medium format camera available that didn't cost as much as a nice car/crappy-ish house, or that the museum didn't even have one and wasn't going to get one!

So, when the Z came out I used my last reserves of money (2008 crushed us) and traded in some beloved gear to get the price down far enough that I could keep the pain merely excruciating, and not fatal. And that was only because I had a 645N and some lenses to start---without those lenses, it would have been a no-go, as Fuji is today for me. And I have been able slowly over the last 6 years to acquire more, for a total of 14, plus the 2 teleconverters and the K mount adapter. Adding the K1 (and upgrading the board), plus lenses there, and flashes, triggers, etc along the way, all of it fully compatible, and with that K mount adapter all of those 645 lenses can be used with the K1---I've got a complete system that can't be had with any other manufacturer.

And as others will attest, I did it without being rich or having the billables at the time to load up.

So, as you think about the Z, think also about competitive advantage, whether the clients fully appreciate it or not---but somebody's going to. Not an issue for those who don't shoot for money.

Thanks texandrews, Tjompen1968 and barondla for your imput and advice.

Texandrews, I've considered the Theta, the trouble is my agent is likely to buy his own copy soon as all he has do is plonk it in a room, hide out of sight and fire the camera from his phone. Then get his staff to put video tours together. I fear it doesn't take too much skill. The Theta's starting to change the viewing world and Covid isn't helping. The argument against HD video is that it shows warts and all, whereas stills can be used to enhance a property. The problem now is that potential buyers (and sellers) are reluctant to open their houses to all but committed buyers and remote video viewings will, I think become the norm, for even low value houses. My nephew and his fiance are house hunting for starter properties around London and when looking on-line they ignore any property that doesn't have a video tour for many reasons, including, speed, privacy, time, safety and re-visiting possibilities and because their world is all on-line so it's expected. Agents are responding quickly to this, especially when they can do the work themselves.

PS works a treat with continuous lighting - I've used it a lot. It's not so good with flash. Pity ...

Interesting story. I need to decide how far I want to run with this product re-direction. I took very early retirement from IBM and photography is a part-time revenue stream. The Brexit run-up in the UK changed things for me dramatically as my healthy retail sales went through the floor, so I switched. Building up my commercial work was going OK; then the virus. I don't want to bang on about Covid, but even offering free services to my local business community has not generated much interest - so many are fearful and unclear what to do.

I'm lucky to have a small pension, but I enjoy this work and it's been moderately successful in its different guises. Thus, I'm re-thinking how I want to respond, again, and carve out some different work, as I fear estate work will be patchy at best in the future. Probably a bit like your experiences around 2008.

The 645Z could be a distinguishing factor (and a personal pleasure to use), but there is a shockingly, sad pricing v quality battle going on now. Good enough has become the norm for so many businesses.

[barondla]

Thanks texandrews, Tjompen1968 and barondla for your imput and advice.

Texandrews, I've considered the Theta, the trouble is my agent is likely to buy his own copy soon as all he has do is plonk it in a room, hide out of sight and fire the camera from his phone. Then get his staff to put video tours together. I fear it doesn't take too much skill. The Theta's starting to change the viewing world and Covid isn't helping. The argument against HD video is that it shows warts and all, whereas stills can be used to enhance a property. The problem now is that potential buyers (and sellers) are reluctant to open their houses to all but committed buyers and remote video viewings will, I think become the norm, for even low value houses. My nephew and his fiance are house hunting for starter properties around London and when looking on-line they ignore any property that doesn't have a video tour for many reasons, including, speed, privacy, time, safety and re-visiting possibilities and because their world is all on-line so it's expected. Agents are responding quickly to this, especially when they can do the work themselves.

PS works a treat with continuous lighting - I've used it a lot. It's not so good with flash. Pity ...

Interesting story. I need to decide how far I want to run with this product re-direction. I took very early retirement from IBM and photography is a part-time revenue stream. The Brexit run-up in the UK changed things for me dramatically as my healthy retail sales went through the floor, so I switched. Building up my commercial work was going OK; then the virus. I don't want to bang on about Covid, but even offering free services to my local business community has not generated much interest - so many are fearful and unclear what to do.

I'm lucky to have a small pension, but I enjoy this work and it's been moderately successful in its different guises. Thus, I'm re-thinking how I want to respond, again, and carve out some different work, as I fear estate work will be patchy at best in the future. Probably a bit like your experiences around 2008.

The 645Z could be a distinguishing factor (and a personal pleasure to use), but there is a shockingly, sad pricing v quality battle going on now. Good enough has become the norm for so many businesses.

It's hard to know what to do right now. You've had a double dose of obstacles to navigate with Brexit & Covid. Hope things improve.

I could see real estate going 360° Theta. Kind of surprised it hasn't already. 10 years ago a friend was doing 360° house interiors. He used a bizarre "dome in a clear cylinder" attachment that screwed into the camera lens. The camera pointed straight up and captured all the walls. Then he used special editing software to make it playable on any tv screen. It was pretty popular in the area.

I would think real estate will always have people selling/buying lavish homes, that want the best quality possible. MF offers that. They may not know what MF is, but they'll recognize the quality of your work. Almost every business category has gradations from cheap to sublime. You just have to define your area.

I'm unsure what and how many lenses a realtor uses on average? A used Pentax 645Z and a couple of lenses isn't that large of an investment. Does the Ricoh store in Europe sell refurbs like here in the US? My most expensive lens was a used HD 645 35mm at $930. I splurged on it and could have saved $500 by buying the A 35 with manual focus. The DFA 55mm was $400. The A 120 macro and FA 80-160 was $150 each. I had considered renting a 645D/Z before buying.
Thanks,
barondla

[MJKoski]

I do not find big difference in DR when comparing K-1 to Fuji GFX50R. What that 50MP really does better are very long exposures. 8min is piece of cake without LENR @ 20C temp.

K-1 with Pixel-shift wins in details. Fuji (and 645Z) will not do better except when PS cannot be used.

645Z prices are too high in Europe for what it is. I would buy used GFX50S which has proper grip and mount adapted Pentax 645 lenses to it if money is an issue and cropped MF is a must have.

[BarryE]

I do not find big difference in DR when comparing K-1 to Fuji GFX50R. What that 50MP really does better are very long exposures. 8min is piece of cake without LENR @ 20C temp.

K-1 with Pixel-shift wins in details. Fuji (and 645Z) will not do better except when PS cannot be used.

645Z prices are too high in Europe for what it is. I would buy used GFX50S which has proper grip and mount adapted Pentax 645 lenses to it if money is an issue and cropped MF is a must have.

I agree the price in UK/Europe is too high. For a new 645Z and DFA 55mm it is approx: 1/3 the price of a small car or 1/2 a kitchen re-fit or several holidays or a year's food shopping for a family. Used prices are obviously better value, however I'm OK (ish) to buy used lenses, but less keen on used cameras.

Over the next few days I'll try some tests specifically looking for tonal variations on subjects using different lenses - macros and Limiteds etc - using large soft boxes and scrims to properly ascertain quite how different lenses and lighting influence the 3D effect. I suspect, from the responses I've received and what I've read, the Z's advantage over the K-1 is likely to be in the 3D perception (resolution apart). I've so far used the 100 and 55 mm macros, which are clinically sharp across the frame, but maybe lack 'dimensionality'. The DR with studio lights should not be a problem as it's up to me to make sure this is controlled.

[MJKoski]

I used GF50/3.5 (one of the their sharpest lenses) and 50/2 Zeiss MP on K-1. Pixel-Shifted image has superb clarity, handles upscaling better and removes all moire and aliasing effects which ruin some GFX 50MP images.

K-1 PS image ~equals 70-80MP bayer camera.

I assume that 645Z and 50R/S are equal in IQ if lenses are good enough.

[MJKoski]

It is possible that 645Z setup with modern lenses is better than the Fuji. But at least they share the same sensor.

645Z ergonomics are better. No question.