[Yamanobori]

I used it in the studio as well, with nice results. But it is still too damn slow and not flexible enough. That tethered thing sucks, too. It takes them more than two years to get one done? How fast will it be? Can you use it with Bridge, Lightroom?

This just sounds like sour grapes.

[slackercruster]

How did you get to $20k? I have a 645d and four lenses, two manual focus, and I spent nowhere near that.

I'd go for the body and a 25mm...that is $15K right there.

[slackercruster]

The only frustrating part for me about the 645D is how slow pentax is releasing new generation lenses for it and how hard the only one that is shipping is to acquire. Yes some of the older lenses are all right (like the 120 macro) but they are not weather sealed which is very important to me.

Besides small annoyances like the image display speed, which is ok to live with coming from large format where a click of the shutter means flipping over a film holder, there is nothing else out there that really matches the 645D for the target market it's intended for. Also for people who make prints and sell them, the aspect ratio of the 645D fits more within all the standard paper sizes that 4x5 inch film was typically printed to.

Yes, slow as hell it seems.

Do any of you think Pentax will ever release an affordable dig back for the 645 film models?

[atlnq9]

Love it and don't regret it.

I am finding I like the A 45-85 over the FA. The A 120 over the FA. And the A 120 over the FA 150 2.8. And I made the call to get a A* 600mm over the new 25mm and don't regret it. You can stitch images from the 35mm if you need the wider view or I can switch to the K5 and 15mm limited if I need the wider view and can't stitch. The K5 and 645d combo is great, one gives you high image quality the other gives you light compact. I will probably be selling my FA* 300 4.0 when I go back to the States as I am really enjoying my FA 300 5.6. That thing is amazingly light (maybe even lighter than the A 120). The A 120 fills the gap between the 300 and 45-85 nice, no need for a zoom there.

Medium and large format is more about working with the view you get from primes than the need for zooms to cover the entire range.

I do wish for a sealed 45-85 which I think from what I saw something like that is on the drawing boards. Otherwise I don't have a problem with the current lens selection.

With the success Pentax had with the 645D I am sure they will release a new version, it may even be announced at Photokina this year, especially to widen the gap between the d800.

Depends on your style but the A lenses may fit you better than the FA. The format works great and the slow speed is not a problem for me. I like the 645D camera better than the 35mm offerings, I just enjoy it more and get better results.

[phonoline]

This just sounds like sour grapes.

you do know how to stir things up, my friend.

I love film. I love the slowliness of it. I hate it in digital. The 645D is unneccessarily slow.

[eddie1960]

Yes, slow as hell it seems.

Do any of you think Pentax will ever release an affordable dig back for the 645 film models?

not possible, they don't use replaceable backs. lots's of backs out there though that can be fit to other brands with the right plate adapter. No such thing as affordable though there is even support for the defunct Contax system (which was a really nice setup and decent AF to boot - but even used Contax is pricey)

[Yamanobori]

you do know how to stir things up, my friend.

I love film. I love the slowliness of it. I hate it in digital. The 645D is unneccessarily slow.

Actually, I find your posts provocative. I do not find the 645D slow at all.

[aurele]

I love film. I love the slowliness of it. I hate it in digital. The 645D is unneccessarily slow.

dumb question, but we never know : Do you have some kind of optical correction turned on ?

[Lacunapratum]

Gorgeous files, great lenses, much more user friendly than the competition, reasonable price among MFD - what's there not to like?

[normhead]

The only question I have is if I will ever have the money to buy one. That is very real at this point. If I could buy one outright and lay out 20k for lenses and body, it would be done already. But I'm still hoping for an 8x10 camera with a digital back. Now that's a full size image. There's a reason Yosuf Karsch (portrait) , Richard Avedon (fashion, portrait, street portrait) and Ansel Adams (landscape) all shot 8x10. Compared to an 8x10, a 645 is minuscule, an FF is more minuscule and an APS-c is slightly more minuscule. Why all this fascination with minuscule sensor formats? You'll never produce work like Adams, Avedon or Karsch using one. Unless maybe someone can make a lens the emulates 8x10 on some other camera. Until then, everyone is striving to be second best. The images may be great in their own way, but you'll always know the difference between an Avedon or Karsch portrait and something shot with a 645 , FF or APS-c.

[Thomas]

No, the D800 is nipping the 645D's heels, but the 645D files still appear better. The Nikon has reached a limit, given the sensor size; next version of the 645D will pull away again.

[normhead]

No, the D800 is nipping the 645D's heels, but the 645D files still appear better.

Only in file size. One way of looking at it might be, what can you get into an image using a 35-70 mm lens. APS-c, ok but not that much, FF a little bit more, MF a bit more, 8x10 you're shooting wide angle, without wide angle distortion. If you want the picture like you're seeing with your human eye, 35-50 is your lens, no matter what format you shoot. You can go to 80 mm without the image being an image dominated by distortion but after that, there's a certain distortion factor to every image. The only issue is how much do I get into the frame using those limits. Shooting FF or APS-c (or even MF) looks great, as long as you don' t put it side by side with an 8x10 image.

[eddie1960]

Only in file size. One way of looking at it might be, what can you get into an image using a 35-70 mm lens. APS-c, ok but not that much, FF a little bit more, MF a bit more, 8x10 you're shooting wide angle, without wide angle distortion. If you want the picture like you're seeing with your human eye, 35-50 is your lens, no matter what format you shoot. You can go to 80 mm without the image being an image dominated by distortion but after that, there's a certain distortion factor to every image. The only issue is how much do I get into the frame using those limits. Shooting FF or APS-c (or even MF) looks great, as long as you don' t put it side by side with an 8x10 image.

not much chance of shooting 8x10 now unfortunately since the film stock is all discontinued. 4x5 is the best you can hope for (and i don't give that a whole lot longer)

[Ryan Tischer]

But I'm still hoping for an 8x10 camera with a digital back.

Sure, that would be a pretty sweet file...but if you think the MF backs are expensive...and then having the processing power to even save that file...I think we're a ways off, if ever.

I think the company is called Better Light, that make the 4x5 scan backs...but the exposures take a long time (over a minute I believe, so that seriously limits any landscape work with moving objects) and you also then need to bring a laptop into the field to save it. Maybe they'll make an 8x10 scan back someday --not sure if the 4x5 has been successful?? Really designed for studio work I believe, though.

Everything in photography is a compromise in one way or another and in my case I've bought into Pentax's motto for the 645D, "a happy medium." It gives me the best compromise of IQ, portability and usability in the field, and speed. YES, I said it...it's FAST, at least compared to anything LF, if you put that into the calculation it starts to look pretty close in speed to a Canikon!

[aurele]

i've read that "impossible project" projected to re-manufacture 8x10 polaroid film during 2012 at the cost of 570 USD for 15 exposure.

Dunno if they did/do/will.