[jogiba]

Not

Dear friends, a photo produced by a PENTAX 645N is better than one produced by PENTAX 645D. Better contrast, better saturation, better brightness, better definition, better at everything. Why pay so much?

Re: PENTAX 645D Why so expensive?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Poor guy needs to see the light. I still have my 67 Pentax with four lenses and a Beseler 16CP table top processor for Cibachrome/Ilfochrome , Beseler 45MXT enlarger w/ Minolta 45 head and top of the line lenses along with Epson V700 Photo scanner but have not used the setup in a long time. I admit if you like the workflow the MF film setup is the best bang for the buck today but forget about comparing it to the 645D. Here is an old shootout of the old 2002 11mp Canon 1Ds vs the 67 Pentax :

"The 1Ds also shows greater shadow detail, and on a personal level I find working with digital files much more efficient and pleasurable than scanning film, and certainly preferable to working in the darkroom. So what advantages does 6X7 film have? Really only absolute image size, and for me at least this isn't a compelling reason.

Ignoring the possibility of superior performance from medium format film by having drum scans made (which I don't normally do — not at $100 - $300 per scan) I am only left with the conclusion that I no longer retain any advantage in shooting medium format film. It's more expensive, less convenient and produces lower quality images. The range of lenses available to me is much greater with 35mm digital, including the availability of longer lenses, wider lenses, more zooms, Image Stabilization, wider aperture primes, and tilt / shift lenses. You can see where I'm going, can't you? "

Shootout

2002 11mp Canon 1Ds :


Pentax 67 :

[vrrattko]

Fair enough, but how much quality is lost due to scanning? And then: how big enlargement can you do with fullframe Canon and how big enlargement with Pentax 67? I never shoot with Pentax67, but I know landscape photographer who has k7 and pentax 67....and he usually takes the latter for serious work. But that's APS vs 6x7 so no wonder.....645N vs 645D is probably another cup of coffee

[jogiba]

Ian Cameron has many great 67 Pentax images that were shot in Scotland posted on pbase.

Scotland. Photo Gallery by Ian Cameron at pbase.com

[Anvh]

You know that's a very old article already...

This a nice one about film vs digital.
Clumps and Chumps

Fair enough, but how much quality is lost due to scanning? And then: how big enlargement can you do with fullframe Canon and how big enlargement with Pentax 67?

The drum scan is really super high quality, it will get out all of the details that's in their, don't worry about that.

About enlargement here is something.
Digital is not Fillm

[jogiba]

The bottom line is a FF DSLR will beat a 35mm SLR and a 645D will beat a 645N. Comparing a 275mp 6x12 Provia 100F digital scan to an old Canon D60 APS-C 6.3mp 2002 DSLR is a joke.

[normhead]

While am somewhat familiar with the "Digital is not Film" concepts, there are some serious changes since this article was written, His statement that about the 256 gradations within each colour segment is still true for jpeg images...however my K20D is 12 bit, so over 1000 gradations, and a K-5 is 14 bit colour depth, so over 4 thousand gradations. Just the fact that he was using an 8 bit for comparison, it's unlikely his conclusions would hold up for 12 bit and almost certain they wouldn't hold up for 14 bit. I print to 20x30 inches with my K20D, 4872 x 3604 12 bit colour depth, as 14 Mb of info. In a high quality 8 bit jpg it's 4.4 mb. Mind you, most printers are still 8 bit, but not all.

[jogiba]

The Pentax 645N w/SMC Pentax-FA 75mm F2.8 Lens & 120 Film Back is on ebay for $376.90 and the 645D body is $10,000 so why the difference ?

[xfloggingkylex]

The Pentax 645N w/SMC Pentax-FA 75mm F2.8 Lens & 120 Film Back is on ebay for $376.90 and the 645D body is $10,000 so why the difference ?

I would say the same reason all digital camera's cost more than film counterparts.

Also figure in the cost of film, what it costs to develop and get those scans and factor in the lost convenience of chimping and I think the price starts to show itself a little more fair.

And I don't mean to alarm you, but if you think the price of these items is bad do NOT look at the price difference between pencils and computers.

[vrrattko]

Ian Cameron has many great 67 Pentax images that were shot in Scotland posted on pbase.

Scotland. Photo Gallery by Ian Cameron at pbase.com

Nice ones...I've seen them before. Now I'm using K-5 for landscpaes, but hopefully one day I will have time to play with film and get Fujica 6x9 for landscape photography. Btww. Scotland is beautiful and rugged country, but there's not too much 'good light' days....I've been there for 3 and half years.

[Yamanobori]

Actually, the LL shootout was flawed. Michael even replaced one of the images he posted as "proof" because folks pointed out while the digital looked better, the film image was actually resolving more--this was an image of the windows in a glass building where the Canon showed a single large pane whereas the Pentax showed it actually was two pieces of glass. The image was taken down and replaced by another because it did not fit the "facts." If you look carefully, you can see in the examples posted above the film image doing better. I have shot 12MP cameras and they compare very well against 35mm cameras, but not against medium-format cameras. I also own a 645D and having shot medium format for years, a 6x4.5 film MF camera is not better in many regards the gentleman believes.

Making a claim is not proof--that is what evidence is for. But what is the point of this thread?

[jogiba]

Actually, the LL shootout was flawed. Michael even replaced one of the images he posted as "proof" because folks pointed out while the digital looked better, the film image was actually resolving more--this was an image of the windows in a glass building where the Canon showed a single large pane whereas the Pentax showed it actually was two pieces of glass. The image was taken down and replaced by another because it did not fit the "facts." If you look carefully, you can see in the examples posted above the film image doing better. I have shot 12MP cameras and they compare very well against 35mm cameras, but not against medium-format cameras. I also own a 645D and having shot medium format for years, a 6x4.5 film MF camera is not better in many regards the gentleman believes.

Making a claim is not proof--that is what evidence is for. But what is the point of this thread?

The point of this thread is the 645D beats the 645N in image quality.

[desertscape]

I'm more concerned with the aesthetics of the resulting image and the photographer's talent and not so much about what the capture type was.

[Yamanobori]

Nothing beats anything in image quality. Image quality are the characteristics of an imaging system. A Holga makes fine images. Just because my 645D has better resolution, it does not make it better than a Holga--a Holga can produce an image my 645D cannot. If the rationale in photography is that image quality is simply defined by resolving power and sharpness, then we would have been shooting with 20x24 view cameras. Choose a system for what it gives your images, not just for MTF response.

[jogiba]

OMG, I see this went down the rat hole fast. I guess people are idiots for paying $10,000 for the 645D body when a 645N for a fraction of the cost will do the same thing.. I don't know why I waste time on the forums anymore.

[Thomas]

A test I did one year ago. No PP on the 645D, some on the 645N scan (Nikon 9000).

tom's: 1)645D crop 2) full image 3) 645N crop