Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Sperdynamite · 10-31-2011, 02:08 PM

I'd be interested in a 20mp mode if you could do it? I shoot weddings so I don't need the landscape savvy 40mp. I like the tonality, the depth, the and the depth of field.

Yamanobori · 10-31-2011, 02:10 PM

In RAW you have 40 MP. That is it unless you would like to crop or down rez later. In JPEG you can make smaller images (32MP, 21MP, 13MP), but they are 8-bit. You can shoot both RAW and JPEG together and convert a RAW to JPEG in camera.

But the pixel resolution is not for landscapes. I shoot portraits and I very much appreciate the pixels.

Ole · 10-31-2011, 02:27 PM

The 645D has 5 lower levels for JPG images - 7MP, 13MP, 21MP, 32MP and 40MP.

Sperdynamite · 10-31-2011, 04:40 PM

If you shoot at lower resolutions jpg does it speed up the camera or review time any?

Yamanobori · 10-31-2011, 05:01 PM

JPEGs actually take the camera longer to write--RAW files are always the fastest as there is no processing or resizing. As far as preview times, I have never tried.

Sperdynamite · 10-31-2011, 05:47 PM

I'm seriously considering one for my wedding business. I know it's overkill but I'm going for a high end clientele. I already offere super 8 film film making and my K-5 kills it now, but I want the look of medium format without film.

fuent104 · 11-01-2011, 02:20 AM

I don't think anyone would consider it overkill. Medium format film was a standard for wedding photography before the success of full-frame digital cameras. I think many people would appreciate the look. However, it does seem like it would be more difficult to capture the magic with a larger, heavier camera.

Yamanobori · 11-01-2011, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by fuent104

I think many people would appreciate the look. However, it does seem like it would be more difficult to capture the magic with a larger, heavier camera.

What magic would that be?

Sperdynamite · 11-01-2011, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

What magic would that be?

This kind: INSTAMAT

fuent104 · 11-02-2011, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Yamanobori

What magic would that be?

I was referring to the once-in-a lifetime magical moments that can happen at a wedding, and disappear in the blink of an eye. I meant that using a camera that is physically more difficult to operate could cause the photographer to miss some of these moments.

phonoline · 11-02-2011, 03:05 AM

If you have one, two hours for the portraits of bride & groom, the 645D is an option to consider. It is not an option for the church (before, during, after) or the party afterwards, as it is way too slow.
I usually work with a Nikon D700 or D3X at weddings and they turn out to be all I need. The more gear you bring, the more complicated (and heavy) it can become.

Sperdynamite · 11-02-2011, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by phonoline

If you have one, two hours for the portraits of bride & groom, the 645D is an option to consider. It is not an option for the church (before, during, after) or the party afterwards, as it is way too slow.
I usually work with a Nikon D700 or D3X at weddings and they turn out to be all I need. The more gear you bring, the more complicated (and heavy) it can become.

Yeah, I defiantly have run into that. I follow work by people shooting weddings with film Contax 645s or medium format in general, and their work is always so beautiful. I just don't want to shoot film at a wedding, other than what I do now, which is super 8, totally different.

Plus I'd use it for my personal stuff. I used to shoot large format so I've been really wanting a digital solution for that gap... Its just that entry money...11199 plus tax with the 55mm 2.8... I've never bought anything that expensive before! And I'd probably want the 45-85 and the 75 2.8 too. And it's hard because it would be stupid to replace any of my current gear with the 645D, so I can't sell anything to offset the cost. Yikes! But I really fell in love with the thing at the photo expo. The color tonality and definition was incredible.

Basically the only way I could pay for it is by booking like 4 weddings at my middle tier cost and setting aside all the cash, haha. Yikes. Good thing I didn't quit my day job!

phonoline · 11-02-2011, 04:21 AM

I tend to think that shooting on film is different. Film is very forgiving, the sensor not so much. If I can cover the costs and have the time, I'd always shoot on film – it still looks better to me and more authentic.*

*Not that I wouldn't love my 645D, it's a grand camera! But nothing is better than film.

Sperdynamite · 11-02-2011, 04:55 AM

That's true...I do think about just getting a 645NII to tide myself over. I just picture myself at the wedding starting to shoot Portra 400, and then getting nervous and switching back to my K-5. There is a lot to be said for the "knowing you got it" factor of digital. Not that nothing can go wrong with digital too, but you know, peace of mind thing.

Yamanobori · 11-02-2011, 07:23 AM

Well, I have found the 645D faster than my film medium-format gear and much simpler to use. I just had it in the studio and took 160 odd photos in a 30 minute portrait session. For fun a few month ago, I took it to the Common Ground Fair and it worked beautifully. I was able to grab shoots very quickly and easily. The preview time is a bit of a pain, but if you are just using it for exposure, then you can just shoot. The 645D is really quite responsive. I can't imagine anything lacking for wedding work. The camera is a joy to use.

10-31-2011, 02:08 PM	#1
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271	Can you shoot smaller than 40mp with the 645D? I'd be interested in a 20mp mode if you could do it? I shoot weddings so I don't need the landscape savvy 40mp. I like the tonality, the depth, the and the depth of field.

10-31-2011, 02:10 PM	#2
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	In RAW you have 40 MP. That is it unless you would like to crop or down rez later. In JPEG you can make smaller images (32MP, 21MP, 13MP), but they are 8-bit. You can shoot both RAW and JPEG together and convert a RAW to JPEG in camera. But the pixel resolution is not for landscapes. I shoot portraits and I very much appreciate the pixels. Last edited by Yamanobori; 10-31-2011 at 02:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
645D Snowboard Shoot	TCSJordan	Pentax Medium Format	9	04-12-2011 04:53 AM
First studio shoot with the 645D	Warped	Pentax Medium Format	43	01-24-2011 11:50 AM
645D first true shoot	Shuttershane	Pentax Medium Format	9	01-03-2011 09:52 AM
PENTAX announces a medium format DSLR, the 40MP 645D	Ole	Homepage & Official Pentax News	18	03-17-2010 05:53 PM
What if 645D will shoot HD video?	i83N	Pentax Medium Format	12	12-11-2009 02:35 AM

10-31-2011, 02:27 PM	#3
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,409	The 645D has 5 lower levels for JPG images - 7MP, 13MP, 21MP, 32MP and 40MP.

10-31-2011, 04:40 PM	#4
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271 Original Poster	If you shoot at lower resolutions jpg does it speed up the camera or review time any?

10-31-2011, 05:01 PM	#5
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	JPEGs actually take the camera longer to write--RAW files are always the fastest as there is no processing or resizing. As far as preview times, I have never tried.

10-31-2011, 05:47 PM	#6
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271 Original Poster	I'm seriously considering one for my wedding business. I know it's overkill but I'm going for a high end clientele. I already offere super 8 film film making and my K-5 kills it now, but I want the look of medium format without film.

11-01-2011, 02:20 AM	#7
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	I don't think anyone would consider it overkill. Medium format film was a standard for wedding photography before the success of full-frame digital cameras. I think many people would appreciate the look. However, it does seem like it would be more difficult to capture the magic with a larger, heavier camera.

11-01-2011, 03:46 PM	#8
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Originally posted by fuent104 I think many people would appreciate the look. However, it does seem like it would be more difficult to capture the magic with a larger, heavier camera. What magic would that be?

11-01-2011, 05:14 PM	#9
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271 Original Poster	Originally posted by Yamanobori What magic would that be? This kind: INSTAMAT

11-02-2011, 01:39 AM	#10
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by Yamanobori What magic would that be? I was referring to the once-in-a lifetime magical moments that can happen at a wedding, and disappear in the blink of an eye. I meant that using a camera that is physically more difficult to operate could cause the photographer to miss some of these moments.

11-02-2011, 03:05 AM	#11
phonoline Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Hamburg Posts: 267	If you have one, two hours for the portraits of bride & groom, the 645D is an option to consider. It is not an option for the church (before, during, after) or the party afterwards, as it is way too slow. I usually work with a Nikon D700 or D3X at weddings and they turn out to be all I need. The more gear you bring, the more complicated (and heavy) it can become.

11-02-2011, 03:25 AM	#12
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271 Original Poster	Originally posted by phonoline If you have one, two hours for the portraits of bride & groom, the 645D is an option to consider. It is not an option for the church (before, during, after) or the party afterwards, as it is way too slow. I usually work with a Nikon D700 or D3X at weddings and they turn out to be all I need. The more gear you bring, the more complicated (and heavy) it can become. Yeah, I defiantly have run into that. I follow work by people shooting weddings with film Contax 645s or medium format in general, and their work is always so beautiful. I just don't want to shoot film at a wedding, other than what I do now, which is super 8, totally different. Plus I'd use it for my personal stuff. I used to shoot large format so I've been really wanting a digital solution for that gap... Its just that entry money...11199 plus tax with the 55mm 2.8... I've never bought anything that expensive before! And I'd probably want the 45-85 and the 75 2.8 too. And it's hard because it would be stupid to replace any of my current gear with the 645D, so I can't sell anything to offset the cost. Yikes! But I really fell in love with the thing at the photo expo. The color tonality and definition was incredible. Basically the only way I could pay for it is by booking like 4 weddings at my middle tier cost and setting aside all the cash, haha. Yikes. Good thing I didn't quit my day job!

11-02-2011, 04:21 AM	#13
phonoline Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Hamburg Posts: 267	I tend to think that shooting on film is different. Film is very forgiving, the sensor not so much. If I can cover the costs and have the time, I'd always shoot on film – it still looks better to me and more authentic.* *Not that I wouldn't love my 645D, it's a grand camera! But nothing is better than film.

11-02-2011, 04:55 AM	#14
Sperdynamite Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Maine Posts: 271 Original Poster	That's true...I do think about just getting a 645NII to tide myself over. I just picture myself at the wedding starting to shoot Portra 400, and then getting nervous and switching back to my K-5. There is a lot to be said for the "knowing you got it" factor of digital. Not that nothing can go wrong with digital too, but you know, peace of mind thing.

11-02-2011, 07:23 AM	#15
Yamanobori Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 573	Well, I have found the 645D faster than my film medium-format gear and much simpler to use. I just had it in the studio and took 160 odd photos in a 30 minute portrait session. For fun a few month ago, I took it to the Common Ground Fair and it worked beautifully. I was able to grab shoots very quickly and easily. The preview time is a bit of a pain, but if you are just using it for exposure, then you can just shoot. The 645D is really quite responsive. I can't imagine anything lacking for wedding work. The camera is a joy to use.

Can you shoot smaller than 40mp with the 645D?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!