[phonoline]

I am having a dejavu.

[Yamanobori]

Well, lets wait to hear from the OP and let him tell us about his choice.

[Thomas]

But, Whats_edoo does landscape photography. In that case, the D800 ($3K) and the revered Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens ($2K) comes to $5K. The Pentax 645D with a the new 25mm Lens is $15,000 and that's just for one focal length. The Nikon user has an extra $10K in his pocket to spend on lenses, vacations, dentures, etc. I'm also certain that a lens like the manual focus Nikkor 500 f/4 P Lens will fair beautifully on the D800. And, you can get it used for $2,500. Plus, medium format lenses, based on their size (much more glass and materials), all cost more than 35mm lenses (focal lengths and maximum apertures being equal).

You're very selective in your examples. I suggest you compare the sum of the costs for the list of lenses Zygonyx posted to the Nikon equivalents. When I bought the 645D, I compared the cost to changing to a D3x-based system, it was cheaper and better for me to go with Pentax. The D800 closes the resolution gap of course, but it is still a 35mm system. Keep in mind that whatever happens in future sensor development that 35mm lenses will always be limited to that sized sensor. 645 lenses on the other hand...

[Makten]

You do not buy a format over another in order for them to collect the same amount of photons so why do this pointless excecise? You buy a format over another because they are different and do not collect the same amount of photons; of course 100ISO and APS is not the same as 100ISO on FF but that is the main reason for choosing FF in the first place. The same exposure is important cause they may give different images and it is the image (if you are aphotographer and not a armchair theorist with nothing better to do) you want regardless of format; ie. one may give motion blur.
95% of all people buy a fast lens in order to let in more light for exposure freedom, particularly in low light, and ease of focus. Only a few buy a lens for exact DOF wide open and no one have fixed ideas of what Exact DOF you must get from a lens at a certain number of stops from wide open which is basis for the equivalency nonsense.
Different formats have different DOF at the same magnification, focusing distance and aperture value. Equalizing them is meaningless because you can from this construct any case of one format over the other by choosing arguments that fits your preferences.
Besides paper thin DOF at F.1.4 is totally irrelevant for landscape photography (and 99% of photography in genereal)

You have obviously not understood what equivalence is and I'm not gonna spend time (again) trying to explain it. At the same DOF, any format have collected the same amount of light per time. Period.

[Bigvern1263]

A radical suggestion, go out and take some pictures !!! isnt that what all these cameras are for ??? Pentax, Nikon, Canon, who cares !! Take some pictures and enjoy.. Jeez

[itshimitis]

I am having a dejavu.

me too. When the OP started this thread, the 645D v D800 thread was on the front page and the other threads still are. A search wasn't even necessary!

[Yamanobori]

And still no word from our OP on what he decided to do...

[jwoodland]

Just a note after shooting with both the d800E and 645 for the past week together (and the d800 for several weeks before I got the E version). I find the Pentax about as easy to use as the Nikon, and the Pentax files are just lovely - they do indeed have a look to them that I've not seen with any of the Nikon files yet. This includes 30x40 prints of the same scenes with similar FOV lenses (and the Pentax prints were sharper with more find detail also). I really wanted to love the Nikon and sell the Pentax so I would just have one system (I'll keep the Nikon for really-high ISO work like shooting pinpoint stars), but that won't happen now - the Pentax will remain my main landscape camera. Price and weight for an overall system of either seems to be about the same when you collect all the necessary lenses, although the Pentax remains limited on both ends - wide and long. I think generally for folks coming from a 35mm system the Nikon will be terrific; for folks coming from a medium-format system would prefer the Pentax...I'm a happy camper with both!

[Thomas]

Just a note after shooting with both the d800E and 645 for the past week together (and the d800 for several weeks before I got the E version). I find the Pentax about as easy to use as the Nikon, and the Pentax files are just lovely - they do indeed have a look to them that I've not seen with any of the Nikon files yet. This includes 30x40 prints of the same scenes with similar FOV lenses (and the Pentax prints were sharper with more find detail also). I really wanted to love the Nikon and sell the Pentax so I would just have one system (I'll keep the Nikon for really-high ISO work like shooting pinpoint stars), but that won't happen now - the Pentax will remain my main landscape camera. Price and weight for an overall system of either seems to be about the same when you collect all the necessary lenses, although the Pentax remains limited on both ends - wide and long. I think generally for folks coming from a 35mm system the Nikon will be terrific; for folks coming from a medium-format system would prefer the Pentax...I'm a happy camper with both!

I would like to hear your impressions of the D800 with a wide angle, e.g. the 21mm Zeiss. I ask since at 5k for the reduced format DA 25mm, a D800 and the Zeiss can be had for the same cost.
I plan on keeping the 645D, but I wonder if the D800 is a better solution for wide angle than spending 5k on the 25mm.

[Whats_edoo]

Just a note after shooting with both the d800E and 645 for the past week together (and the d800 for several weeks before I got the E version). I find the Pentax about as easy to use as the Nikon, and the Pentax files are just lovely - they do indeed have a look to them that I've not seen with any of the Nikon files yet. This includes 30x40 prints of the same scenes with similar FOV lenses (and the Pentax prints were sharper with more find detail also). I really wanted to love the Nikon and sell the Pentax so I would just have one system (I'll keep the Nikon for really-high ISO work like shooting pinpoint stars), but that won't happen now - the Pentax will remain my main landscape camera. Price and weight for an overall system of either seems to be about the same when you collect all the necessary lenses, although the Pentax remains limited on both ends - wide and long. I think generally for folks coming from a 35mm system the Nikon will be terrific; for folks coming from a medium-format system would prefer the Pentax...I'm a happy camper with both!

Thanks for that information. Iv'e shot the 645D and seen samples of the D800. I imagined the E version to be slightly sharper than the stock D800 but not dramatically so. If I was going to do the Nikon it would be the E version. Your experience between the 645D & the D800 & E version is what I suspected from the beginning but it's interesting to get confirmation from those like yourself that have handled all three cameras. Even so I don't think this diminishes Nikons accomplishments with these D800/E cameras. But for my purposes ( print ) I think the 645D is the way to go.

As far as my original question. From a technological and money point of view perhaps for 90% of the folks out there the Nikon might be the right choice for a high MP DSLR. But when one considers what these tools can actually accomplish in the real world in print the choice might be otherwise. For myself I find I'm in a position to choose a camera system in the Pentax price range and down. Because my tools and what they can accomplish are as important to me as the money ( Ouch! ) I have to choose the Pentax.

My thanks to those who contributed to this conversation in the spirit that was requested. The journey is sometimes as enjoyable as the destination.

[jwoodland]

Hey Thomas, yes, I forgot to note ultra-wide as one reason I'm keeping the Nikon - actually for the 14-24 and perhaps the Zeiss 15mm if it proves to be a lot better than the 14-24 at 15mm. If you were just going to use one system and did not need ultra-wide, then the Pentax 25mm would fill the bill at that focal length vs. the Nikon and Zeiss 21mm. I need wider for pinpoint star photos and at high ISO, and will use Nikon for those - I would not be able to do my pinpoint star work with the Pentax - 1600 and f4 is not good enough.

Big prints do look better with the Pentax for sure, if you can work within the focal and ISO limits of the system. FYI, I shot some rare wild orchids at 1600 ISO (by accident) with the Pentax last week and they turned out quite wonderful! No other medium-format system comes close to the Pentax in that regard.Enjoy your Pentax!

[Thomas]

Hey Thomas, yes, I forgot to note ultra-wide as one reason I'm keeping the Nikon - actually for the 14-24 and perhaps the Zeiss 15mm if it proves to be a lot better than the 14-24 at 15mm. If you were just going to use one system and did not need ultra-wide, then the Pentax 25mm would fill the bill at that focal length vs. the Nikon and Zeiss 21mm. I need wider for pinpoint star photos and at high ISO, and will use Nikon for those - I would not be able to do my pinpoint star work with the Pentax - 1600 and f4 is not good enough.

Big prints do look better with the Pentax for sure, if you can work within the focal and ISO limits of the system. FYI, I shot some rare wild orchids at 1600 ISO (by accident) with the Pentax last week and they turned out quite wonderful! No other medium-format system comes close to the Pentax in that regard.Enjoy your Pentax!

Thanks for the reply. I don't mind the slower speed of the f/4 Pentax. I am concerned about Pentax's future plans given that they reduced the coverage of the 25mm in the DA version. I've been surprised at the 1600 ISO performance as well.

[DandA]

Just a note after shooting with both the d800E and 645 for the past week together (and the d800 for several weeks before I got the E version). I find the Pentax about as easy to use as the Nikon, and the Pentax files are just lovely - they do indeed have a look to them that I've not seen with any of the Nikon files yet. This includes 30x40 prints of the same scenes with similar FOV lenses (and the Pentax prints were sharper with more find detail also). I really wanted to love the Nikon and sell the Pentax so I would just have one system (I'll keep the Nikon for really-high ISO work like shooting pinpoint stars), but that won't happen now - the Pentax will remain my main landscape camera. Price and weight for an overall system of either seems to be about the same when you collect all the necessary lenses, although the Pentax remains limited on both ends - wide and long. I think generally for folks coming from a 35mm system the Nikon will be terrific; for folks coming from a medium-format system would prefer the Pentax...I'm a happy camper with both!

Thanks for extremely interesting observations. Although I don't have my D800E yet, I did shoot with the D800 for a 1/2 a day and printed up some of the images (a few 24x36) and did a preliminary comparison with those from my 645D that had been previously printed. It was not a apples to apples comparison as I did not have my 645D on the same day shooting the D800 and thus images from both cameras were of different scences. My impression is much like those of jwoodland. The Pentax appeared to display finer details better, with what I will refer to as a depth or demensionality that was lacking in the Nikon. To be sure, the Nikon images were some of the best I've seen and printed, in the many years I've worked with Nikon pro bodies and of course has the versitility of shooting faster, better high ISO performance and overall better AF, especially in locking on to moving subjects and those in low light. Each system has its place when large detailed file sizes are required. Although there is quite a bit of overlap between the two systems if one was only able to only choose one, the Nikon would be picked when a wider variety of shooting circumstances may be encountered. In comparison, the Pentax would be applicable for extracting the most detail from a scene in a way that often has some additonal impact and that the Pentax has the advanatge of being a more versitile all weather camera for outdoor use, especially with the WR lenses.

Jwoodland's comparions are definitely more noteworthy since the same subject and FOV was used in comparing images from both these fine cameras, whereas mine weren't and were simply preliminary impressions. I have too many shooting circumstances where the Pentax wouldn't quite be applicable and normally I'd be using the D3s...but often a bigger file size is needed for the fast moving low light performing arts work...and thats where possibly the D800/D800E might fit the bill. I too have pondered the wide angle question with use of the Pentax 25mm vs. the Nikon and 14-24 or zeiss 21mm. Tough choice for landscape work since that would mean carrying around two systems when really only one could do.

Lastly like Thomas and others have mentioned, I too wish we would have some idea as to whether Pentax is contemplating going to a full frame sensor in future 645D cameras, since investment in a $5000 lens that is designed for a cropped sensor only, doesn't really appeal to me. Tough choices to say the least.

Dave (D&A)

[atlnq9]

Speaking from a landscape photographers perspective where high ISO performance and tracking AF is irrelevant:

I think the question you should be asking is whether you ever see a need to go with higher than 40MP resolution.

From what everybody is saying that the 35mm lenses aren't pulling the same resolution per pixel being that the 645 resolves details that the 35mm system isn't picking up then 35mm isn't likely to be going higher in resolution and have benefit. A cropped sensor 645 camera system has the ability to push resolution higher without hitting this type of limit by using the full image circle. Whether Pentax brings out a FF is a different question; but, the resolution upgrade option is capable unlike would be capable with all the new Nikon glass you buy now. For 35mm to go up higher in resolution they need to make improvements in the Nikon lens line up so if it happens you have to reinvest in lenses anyways...

So when making the comparison to the D800 and 645D you must consider this. The question must also be asked of how much improvement is Nikon going to make in their lens line so that they can perform at 60MP and what would the new buy in cost be?

Or you make the choice based on Pentax not bringing out FF and already equaling the resolution output of the D800. Then you are making the decision based on what tool you want to use until it fails and repair is not justifiable.

If you answer yes to the question of I think I will need more than 40MP then neither the 645D nor D800 is the right choice and you should be investing into a system with a Phase back.

What happened to the days of film when the upper resolution cap was set by ISO 100 slide film and if you needed more resolution you had to go to a larger format. Those days the system question was an easy answer. Nobody bought a 35mm slr with the anticipation that the performance of slide film would double. They rather switched to 6x4.5 or 6x7...

[poetictrance]

I have a bunch of Pentax 67 lenses, so I am leaning toward the 645D.