[lesmore49]

I think the issue is the cost. I would love a 645z, but for a hobbyist like myself, the funds just aren't there...

X 2

Les

[itshimitis]

. I'd really like to have the 25mm but I haven't seen a sample landscape image that convinces me.


.

Have a look at some of MikeSF's images in the Medium Format thread on here.....He uses the 25 regularly.

[donesteban]

I would think there would be more interest here in the Z.

I may be interested in moving up from the 645D if the high ISO is in order in the Z. The low ISO of the D was always a hardship for me when shooing in dim light. But the sensor in the D gives some pretty painterly images that I wonder may be missing in the Z.

Are you considering purchasing a Z?

I am not. I am considering buying a second 645D, to be on a safe side in case it needs a repair.
I love the pictures the 645D is delivering up to ISO 400 (or even 800), that's fine for me. I like the fact the sensor of the old model ist opmtimized to capture as many details as possible at low ISO.
Yes, sometimes I need high ISO, too. But in many of those cases, I need a very good auto focus and some FPS, too. Sorry, the D700 is still doing the better job there, if 12 MP in such cases is enough.

[Clicker]

I know quite a few studio shooters and a few wedding shooters who are very interested but they don't spend time on any forums that i know.

I too am interested but i would not have any use for it...just all GAS I love my DSLRs because i finally settled on what i shoot more of...sports where FPS counts.

[filoxophy]

tl;dr

Seems to be plenty of interest, from what I can see! Especially for a camera that hasn't been actually released yet. Like Adam said, wait a month till the hands on reports and early reviews come out.

[Nuff]

I shoot medium format, but I don't have any interest. With the amount of me shooting good photos and not just photos which show bricks of number of hair on a cat, there's no point.
For $500-1000 I can get a Pentax 67 and 105mm f2.4 lens.
Or for $1500-2000 Graflex Norita 66 with 80mm f2 lens (drool). I love the unique rendering of this lens.
For around ~$1000 I can get Rolleiflex 2.8C or E/F.
It would cost me ~$1500 to get flexbody for my hasselblad kit. There's nothing like that for this camera.
Not to mention there's number of lenses I could get.

So my question is, what is it going to give me that will make my photos better?

[funkysmurf]

So my question is, what is it going to give me that will make my photos better?

It depends on how you work and what you expect from a camera/lens system. For many, it won't necessarily make their photos better, but it will make it more convenient or easier to get the shot in the first place because of its features (eg. clean high ISO, crop heavily as the resolution is there).

[BackWithPentax]

The way I'm looking at it is I can buy either the 645D right now or wait perhaps a month and for $3k more purchase the 645Z and gain a shutter rated at 100k rather than 50k, live view, tethering, wifi flu-card support, HD video, 4k time lapse / video clips, enhanced AF, face detection, enhanced LCD screen, etc. etc. etc
But I do understand there is the concern over the "look" - the CMOS vs CCD sensor

[jonmarsh]

Those who are seriously interested in it will likely just be waiting for availability and review results to decide when it fits in with their plans. As in my own case, I'm too busy with too many work and other hobby related things to post or agonize over it- might do that if I had a lot more spare time. I'm just hoping it's as good as most folks think it COULD be, and that it will be available in some quantity for purchase in the US before I go to Antactica next March. I know that the described functionality fits in well with what I'd like to see compared with my 645D, especially the live view functionality.

[BackWithPentax]

Those who are seriously interested in it will likely just be waiting for availability and review results to decide when it fits in with their plans. As in my own case, I'm too busy with too many work and other hobby related things to post or agonize over it- might do that if I had a lot more spare time. I'm just hoping it's as good as most folks think it COULD be, and that it will be available in some quantity for purchase in the US before I go to Antactica next March. I know that the described functionality fits in well with what I'd like to see compared with my 645D, especially the live view functionality.

+1 I feel the same way. I've pre-ordered, but I'm not planning to roll it into my current workflow for at least 6 months.

[OregonJim]

I know I'll get pillared for this, but when I was shooting MF and 35mm in film, many times there really wasn't much difference in the image. There was rarely (but not never) a time when I thought, I couldn't have taken this with a 35mm camera when looking at MF pictures.

I'll agree with you on that one. It's much the same as the current APS-C vs. FF debate. My 645 doesn't see much use anymore, either. :/

[Silent Street]

normhead: There is a very considerable difference in imaging quality from 35mm to MF; typically a MF frame is 400% bigger, and fundamental to that size is the inherent resolution. But if you never print any bigger than a postcard in 35mm, no, it would make zero difference, but that's not to blithely dismiss the capability of MF.

Digital medium format is the preserve of those who are accomplished in MF analogue and can apply foundation skills and experience to the digital form to expediate their specific workflow. There is zero benefit to amateurs in buying such an expensive MF digital camera as a 'first step' up from the smaller and easily mastered 35mm formats and the more technically challenging MF analogue formats. There are less financially catastrophic means of gaining experience than investment in a camera that requires a lot of experience and skill as a prerequisite.

[monochrome]

It's all about the money. I bought a 645 film camera, just to see if I would use it. I actually don't take it with me anywhere, have shot two rolls of film in a year. And every time I've owned an MF camera, that is what it has come down to. It seems, I'll carry an APS_c system, not an FF system or and MF system. Why buy a system you'll hardly ever use? I know I'll get pillared for this, but when I was shooting MF and 35mm in film, many times there really wasn't much difference in the image. There was rarely (but not never) a time when I thought, I couldn't have taken this with a 35mm camera when looking at MF pictures.

So the issue for me is, how much can I pay for something that I might use 10% of the time. I'm not going to leave my K-3 home to take it, and I'm not going to carry two bodies, so, on landscape nights, sunsets, where that's all I'm planning on doing it would come as my main camera. The rest of the time, as in a chance for wildlife, candid or macro images, it would probably get left home. I'd be really happy to have one, but I'd be really unhappy to have paid that much money for something I rarely used. That's the thing.

So for me it's not that I'm not interested. It's that the cost benefit analysis isn't making economic sense.

Thinking rationally, the economics are tilted to

1. professional photographers (that is, photographers who actually sell the photographic product in some form) as a business investment
   1. In general they can lease (or depreciate) the camera body and lenses and in theory can establish a 'cost per sold image' estimate to justify the business' capital investment. Typically they would buy only the lenses they need to create the images they sell. The breadth of the lens catalog thus makes the camera body (and its future replacements) attractive to a diverse group of narrowly-focused professionals.
2. well-heeled enthusiasts who are gifted or accomplished photographers and who are willing to invest capital in their hobby tools
   1. such people are comparable to sports car or boat owners (even bass boat owners) who certainly don't need these things, but enjoy using them
3. idiots with more money than sense who will buy the camera just to say (know) they have it.
   1. these are the people who will spend $51,600 before sales tax and order the entire kit of camera and lenses - then use it once or twice and shelve it.

[Hakusan]

I believe people can pursue whatever they want. There is no qualification required to buy a camera. Insulting people because of some strange personal reasoning is not very helpful. One thing is sure, there is not magical skill you need to use a particular format.

[OregonJim]

One thing is sure, there is not magical skill you need to use a particular format.

Have you ever used a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera?

Yes, each format has different skill requirements.

I agree with the rest of your post, though.