[chicagonature]

So now you are just trolling the forum. You must have better things to do with your time.

No, just so happened this comment applied to both threads. Nonetheless, I was simply reporting on two stories that were recently published by reputable sources.

I've stood by Pentax for the last 12 years or so, buying their products, touting their products, even writing a favorable review of the Pentaxt 645NII, 33-55mm lens, and 55-110mm lens in Outdoor Photographer Magazine. I waited forever for a 645D as they toyed with us by announcing a digital camera, then bailing on the camera, then announcing again years later. And, after promoting the 645D as primarily a landscape photography camera, it took them two years since the announcement of the 645D to come out with a landscape photography lens. Duh! So, I've given Pentax every chance to keep my business and they've now failed. So, I've been participating in the discussions of the Nikon D800/D800E comparisons because I recently pre-ordered one and was hoping for facts to see how they might compare, not to garner snarky remarks.

You say that I'm wasting my time. But, you're the one who has made 395 posts in the last 13 months, averaging 1 post per day. According to my numbers, I average about one post per week.

[DandA]

I've been actively shooting both Pentax and Nikon professionaly for close to 35 years, so I have no dog in the fight. I also use or have used each one of Nikon's pro bodies as well as the 645D. So instead of theoretical comments and conjecture, I can speak from actual experience. All I want to say with regards to #'s, as important a consideration as they are....I'm reminded of the high end audio days when many could easily demonstrate amps and preamps having the absolute best measured specs in a large # of important catagories. Yet when it came to simply listening to the music through these amps and preamps, vs. quite a few that had much worse lab measurements but were carefully designed and tested by listening....the latter ones easily won out in double blind tests vs those with the stellar measurements.

Yes, sometimes the reverse could be true to. Looking strictly at measured #'s, with regards to images and their image quality....it doesn't always translate well when it comes to subjective image quality as judged by ones own eyes. If a camera is picked by someone solely on that, then they are doing themselves a grave diservice. Don't just grab files off the internet and play with them (even RAW)...go out and shoot actually shoot with each camera on subjects you normally shoot with. Then make an informed decision on which files look best for your intended output (a factor which is also very important too). I'm reminded of some of the accolades the Nikon D7000 body received, especially with regards to some of it's measured performance...yet personally its been a long time since I was so underwhelmed by a DSLR and it's output.. This coming from real world testing and shooting it against other highly regarded DSLR's.

Dave (DandA)

[Zygonyx]

.... And, after promoting the 645D as primarily a landscape photography camera, it took them two years since the announcement of the 645D to come out with a landscape photography lens. Duh! So, I've given Pentax every chance to keep my business and they've now failed.

Your post seems quite contradictory to me, since after waiting for 12 years, you finally have now what you need with Pentax for landscape.
The D800 launch is another story, at this moment it isn't in any consumer photographer's hand...

[Coeurdechene]

I've given Pentax every chance to keep my business and they've now failed

Keep in mind Pentax's history...Pentax succumbed, and slowly faded away from the position they had in film, they tried recovering selling good glass at almost discount prices,didn't work. The damage was done. The were bought by Hoya who wasn't interested in the photo division (they were after the medical imaging division), they just kept it running and released good things just to keep the imaging division interesting enough to be sold...
Now Ricoh arrives, they have cashflow, a succesfull business model and presumably the will to invest and devellop Pentax. In 6 or so months we'll start seeing more clearly what Ricoh intends to do and if they are really serious about rising Pentax's status and about offering prograde cameras, may it be in MF or FF categories.

[Yamanobori]

You say that I'm wasting my time. But, you're the one who has made 395 posts in the last 13 months, averaging 1 post per day. According to my numbers, I average about one post per week.

Well, I certainly wasted my time answering your questions about the 645D and posting images for you. The ingratitude you show by posting an infantile mine-is-better-than-your post certainly confirms that. Well, I won't make that mistake twice.

[atlnq9]

You say that I'm wasting my time. But, you're the one who has made 395 posts in the last 13 months, averaging 1 post per day. According to my numbers, I average about one post per week.

I prefer to look at numbers in this case. Likes to total number of posts. You're at 1.54% of your posts are generally helpful to the community. Yamanobori is at 4.35%. If your outputting posts that general help peoples understanding you are wasting your time less because you are providing a positive benefit to the community with your posts.

[Thomas]

I've been actively shooting both Pentax and Nikon professionaly for close to 35 years, so I have no dog in the fight. I also use or have used each one of Nikon's pro bodies as well as the 645D. So instead of theoretical comments and conjecture, I can speak from actual experience. All I want to say with regards to #'s, as important a consideration as they are....I'm reminded of the high end audio days when many could easily demonstrate amps and preamps having the absolute best measured specs in a large # of important catagories. Yet when it came to simply listening to the music through these amps and preamps, vs. quite a few that had much worse lab measurements but were carefully designed and tested by listening....the latter ones easily won out in double blind tests vs those with the stellar measurements.

Yes, sometimes the reverse could be true to. Looking strictly at measured #'s, with regards to images and their image quality....it doesn't always translate well when it comes to subjective image quality as judged by ones own eyes. If a camera is picked by someone solely on that, then they are doing themselves a grave diservice. Don't just grab files off the internet and play with them (even RAW)...go out and shoot actually shoot with each camera on subjects you normally shoot with. Then make an informed decision on which files look best for your intended output (a factor which is also very important too). I'm reminded of some of the accolades the Nikon D7000 body received, especially with regards to some of it's measured performance...yet personally its been a long time since I was so underwhelmed by a DSLR and it's output.. This coming from real world testing and shooting it against other highly regarded DSLR's.

Dave (DandA)

Dave, what didn't you like about the D7000? I considered getting one rather than the K5. I believe the D7000 and K5 have the same sensor and the K5 is amazing.

Tom

[bull drinkwater]

concerning the 645d,the 35mm cost so much that i think i'lll stick with the 45mm f 2.8 for land scapes. they don't move so i can take 3 across or 2 up and 4 across for a nice panorama.no big deal for me.i am getting good results with my 45 mm. last option,3 up and 6 of 9 across with the 75 mm f 2.8. how about them apples? one more thing, a little time with the dumb bells and one should be able to handle the 645d in the field.

[DandA]

Dave, what didn't you like about the D7000? I considered getting one rather than the K5. I believe the D7000 and K5 have the same sensor and the K5 is amazing.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Just a brief couple of things come to mind why I was disappointed with the D7000, although at this time during its production run a few things might have been addressed by Nikon. I'm comparing it to every single pro level body by Nikon (which I've shot with most alll of them extensively). The output was flat and 2 dimensional, somewhat lifeless. Yes, it could partly be addressed in post processing (I only shoot RAW), but the final output was far from ideal. Exposure was extremely inconsistant, especially in bright sunlight, where severe overexposure would rule. Never had I seen a Nikon camera do this and it was all D7000's not just one particular sample. Af performance in moderately low light was erratic and sub-par. There were many other dislikes but these are a few. Yet many love their D7000, so please take my comments simply as a personal opinion.

I personally wouldn't extrapolate that just because I found the D7000 this way, that the K5 performed similary. They may share the same sensor but the eletronics and firmware has as much impact on a cameras performance and output as much as anything else. I cannot speak for the K5, but I wouldn't start out assuming anything I described for the D7000 would be observed with the K5. Only shooting and testing it will determine that. There were also some older models of Pentax DSLR's that I too had high hopes for, but once I shot with them in a variety of demanding situations, they fell flat (no pun intended) and their performance was disappointing to.

Dave (D&A)

[Zygonyx]

Hence the 645D choice

[bull drinkwater]

Still, I ask, who is going to buy or upgrade into the 645D? There are four groups, from what I can figure:
1) 35mm photographers who want more pixels or better image quality
2) Existing medium format film users
3) Those who are using medium format digital already
4) Large format film shooters who are using medium format backs or still shooting film

For each user above:
1) 35mm folks would have a choice between a more a 36MP camera and the 645D, especially if the 35mm competitor is a lot cheap. Hence, the market for the 645D is reduced. Certainly, it's not going to go up.
2) Medium format film users who want enough resolution to jump in probably want a reasonable price, like landscape shooter who are making a fraction of the income as commercial shooter. A 36MP 35mm camera will probably achieve comparable quality as the medium format film and will be happy if the price is right. If they were waiting because of the price, then 35mm at a good price will be very enticing and, hence, the market for the 645D will again suffer. Plus, if you crop a 36MP camera to the .75 aspect ratio as the 645D, you end up with 32MP, not a huge loss. In fact, the D3 and D3x have the ability allow you to shoot in the 4x5 aspect ratio if you'd like.
3) Which existing digital medium format owners from the following companies will ever switch to Pentax?: Hasselblad (no way), Leica (no way), Phase users (no way), Mamiya (possibly). Money is not a factor to any of those folks and they are very loyal to their brands, most of which offer many, many lenses that are made specifically for digital and who already have extensive track records in digital. Granted, Leica is lacking in lenses, but it's Leica and they have tremendous brand loyalty.
4) Large format film shooters who've already switched to medium cameras or backs are unlikely to switch. Too much invested already. If they haven't switched yet, then the 645D might be a decent choice. But, with no tilt/shift ability, I wonder. Plus, that market is the smallest of all.

Professional photographers are included in the 4 classes above.

Everybody is a consumer and they always consider the trade-offs between image quality and their wallets, except for those who have money to burn. When 35mm digital hit 8MP, many professional portrait studios dumped their medium format film cameras for them, not for expensive medium format systems. I've seen it and I have friends in that industry who confirmed it. When another friend's church hired a studio to do their membership directory, he told me that they were using Nikon D200 cameras. And that was last year, 2 years after the D300 came out. These are professionals who don't seem to care about a drop in image quality. And there are A LOT of studios out there. They're not upgrading to medium format digital anytime soon. They're already happy with their results.

Finally, it doesn't matter how good something is if people don't have confidence in the brand. Pentax is new to medium format digital and they toyed with people for 3 years, which doesn't give one much confidence. Right now, they're doing fine. But, it's the future that I'm talking about.

I am one of those consumers and a professional photographer who shoots landscapes on film and I want to go digital in a meaningful way. But, I am in a wait-and-see mode, though I can't wait much longer. Probably in May, I'll make up my mind. I am one of those people who is wondering if buying a 36MP 35mm camera would hold me over for a couple of years. Certainly a 36MP 35mm camera will have very good image quality when compared to MF film. And, it'll only take 2 years to pay for itself if the rumored price is true (no film and scanning costs). Those 2 years would give me time to see where Pentax medium format ends up and where industry technology is heading. If they come out with a new 645DII camera by that time with resolution, image quality, and low noise capability, then I could jump in and be happy for a very long time afterwards.

I would have jumped in much earlier if Pentax would have had its act together. They claimed to have designed the 645D specifically for landscape photography, yet a year later you still can't get a wide enough landscape photography lens with a U.S. warranty (the 25mm). (The 35mm lens is not very wide after the crop factor, especially for the work I do.)

Thanks for considering these ideas.

add #5 to the list,ME.i have been reading about cameras since 1954,started with a box camera and slowly moved up.
money was always tight , so i could never afford my "IT".
i made the jump from sony a 200 and a 550.i looked at the mamiyas ,hasses,and leica.for the money they didn't do what i wanted.i did my homework on lenses for the 645d and decided it was a good way to go.i'll never be good enough to put all the camera offers to use,BUT i'll have fun trying. i bought it because i could finally afford what i wanted,like my dodge challenger.when i cash in my chips i hope they both go to some one who can take them to the limit.btw i am 73 and go for broke each day.

[Zygonyx]

In my opinion, there is no matter with the future as far as i - or you - take my - your - pleasure with the Pentax ergonomics.

If you begin to put any "intellect", "planification", or whatever "resentment" in your choices, you are not any more shooting with your hands and eyes... you priorise mind to pleasure.

I personnally have tried the Nikon system as well as the Canon ones : these are far too complicated for my limited abilities to change properly parameters while framing, if things don't simply "fall" below your fingers.

Pentax has put such "feelings" with its ergonomics, that i don't even imagine to change.

[CDW]

I moved to the 645D from a Canon system based on the 5D2. I had been a Canon DSLR user for years and a Pentax MF film user before that. If one wants to move to 645 film quality, you don't need a 36meg camera to accomplish it. It can be done with a FF20+ meg system with good lenses, technique, and quality printing. I moved to the 645D because I also had shot 4x5 large format film and many of my best selling landscape images continue to be those captured in that format.

I still own my 645n and all the lenses that are part of that system so my transition to the 645D made perfect sense. I believe that Pentax also correctly assumed that many 645 lenses from the film days would be in the marketplace and would enable the 645D to make inroads in spite of limited new lenses to go with it. I can say that I'm now producing images with the 645D that are far superior to my 645 film images and by stitching multiple frames I'm able to generate panoramas that surpass the quality of those from my Fuji 617 as well as images that easily rival what I achieved with 4x5 large format. I should state that I was a Velvia shooter and the pros and cons of Velvia are well known. Others might have higher film expectations but I'm in the business of selling landscapes and the 645D has been the perfect addition to my systems.

I use the K-5 with an ultrawide lens for situations where I am unable to stitch but I haven't found the 645 35mm particularly limiting and I seldom do encounter a situation where I am unable to stitch at least two 645D frames for a wider view. Your mileage may vary, of course.

As for the Nikon 800e, I've looked at the files online and to me, they simply look flat and two dimensional and don't match the look of 645D images much less those from other more expensive MF digital systems. I spend zero time at this point worrying about what Canon or Nikon are doing in the full frame arena. I do applaud Canon for addressing the issue of low noise performance. I wish Pentax would release a FF 35 body in the 20+ meg area with ultra low noise performance. It would aid nightscapes and night sky work immensely and for that purpose I may have to take a second look at the 5D3.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well In The Netherlands there are (in the low) twenty's 645D camera's sold, so that is just a little number. Also old lenses almost don't sell anymore at the time here. There is a big need for a second version 645D with a new sensor.

[eddie1960]

Well In The Netherlands there are (in the low) twenty's 645D camera's sold, so that is just a little number. Also old lenses almost don't sell anymore at the time here. There is a big need for a second version 645D with a new sensor.

Well your population is not very large at 16-17 million so i don't think that is a bad number. I think the biggest market was japan at launch
If I'm not mistaken at least in the first year they sold everything they made so regardless of number if they sold what they planned it was a success
it's a pretty specialized camera in a very small market segment. I also remember reading that the launch of the 645D almost doubled the market in size which i would think if true is a huge level of success. But it's not a number you would put against the more conventional and much cheaper FF cameras