[bibz]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

It's really bloody easy to see, if you can't, enjoy shooting whatever I guess. Look for detail. Look for tonality. The way light falls on the subject. The way its represented. Film does light better then digital. More film area = more everything its good at. The chemical process and reactions therein. Same in digital, more points of data/bigger photosites, better colour/noise handling. If you're results don't seem to relate to whats been said here, then follow your own path!

Seriously, the only way to get experience in something is doing it, especially if you can't relate to all the great info shown here.

[algrove]

That sir is the point of my inquiry. I suppose. It appears to me you had to have the equipment to prove it is better. I do not have the equipment, thus my view of MF examples is through the use of my computer screen. I do not have prints to survey, as you do. I am trying to understand the basis on which you all made "investments" in the equipment...was it just the intuitive premise that bigger negatives can be blown up better? Or did you see examples for yourself before you reached for your wallet? Thanks.

Dave

Dave

This is a real tough question to answer if you rely on the internet with its sRGB files. This means all files, no matter the original file, are reduced to this format at 72dpi.
If you can get out to see REAL MF prints it would help you answer what might be right for you. Of course how you use a camera is important too which I have yet to see addressed here-- Studio, landscape, street, etc.
I come from the 70's MF generation where prints mattered more than today and that was the judge by which all images were dealt with (excluding slides which when projected could also have different qualities). So, to me, the judge of an image is how it prints. Even on a 3880 printer, using the same paper, I can see differences which are important to me, but seldom could I point to an internet image and tell which medium it was shot on or say it is better or worse than another like image.

[daveward]

I do very much appreciate all the assistance offered. I can see why the way I asked my questions may have tweaked some sensibilities. That was not my intent.

All I wanted to know was this original question: "...my question is whether you got into MF because the images are better and you were able to see that for yourself before you spent the money on a camera system."

I tried to convince you all that I really was not questioning whether MF was better, I was simply trying to elicit your experiences and decision making before you got into MF. Why? Because I am where you were at some point in your life; it seemed like I could benefit from your experience.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Dave

[tuco]

...
All I wanted to know was this original question: "...my question is whether you got into MF because the images are better and you were able to see that for yourself before you spent the money on a camera system."

I got into MF film before digital existed. So, it was very clear after seeing prints from a friend's MF and LF cameras that the images were way more defined. That's how I knew before buying my MF and LF gear. And at the time if you didn't know someone, you could always see high quality prints at exhibitions.

[algrove]

Dave
Is all many of us seem to,be saying to you--turn off the computer, go out your door and head to some exhibitions, galleries, photo stores which have prints on display where they can answer your questions about the prints, etc. It could be just that easy for you. What's so difficult about that idea?

[ColColt]

I'll make one last attempt and I'm putting this to bed. to answer the original question(again) I had a Leica M2 with two lens, a 50 f2 and 35 f2 Summicron lens back in the early 80's-not a cheap setup but it was still 35mm. I think anyone that's been around photography for more than a few months knows the quality of that camera and lens.

However, after seeing some 8x10's and 11x14's done with a 6x7 camera I was stunned and decided if I was going to do studio work seriously and weddings at all, I needed something besides what I had. I traded the Leica and lens for a Pentax 6x7, 90 f2.8 LS lens and a 165 f2.8LS lens and was as happy as a baby in a barrel full of titties with the results and the money it made me. As Forrest Gump once said, "and that's all I've got to say about that".

[Danaher Dempsey]

I traded the Leica and lens for a Pentax 6x7, 90 f2.8 LS lens and a 165 f2.8LS lens and was as happy.

No argument for film back in the day when everything was printed optically with NO scanning. Bigger Film = Better.
My dad had an Exacta 35mm and a 6x6 Rollicord and a darkroom... yep B&W no contest. Way easier handling bigger film as well.

Today though with almost all commercially done processing using scanning, where does one look for - one stop developing and printing of high quality via the mail? or should I say developing and scanning? or are folks developing at home and Epson scanning?

It seems for those of us in the really rural outback improved digital photography may be the preferred mode via 24 MP sensors. So it looks like carrying digital for ease of use, while perhaps packing an MF film camera for special shots may be the road ahead.

In terms of resolution digital is quite spectacular but photography is more than sharpness. Art encompasses a lot more than just chemistry, physics, and engineering. ... I loved Agfa film for portraits.

[rfkiii]

Here's why I bought a Pentax 645z:


1.) It had 50 MPs
2.) It had the Sony sensor with the ungodly dynamic range
3.) I reviewed images posted here and elsewhere on the internet (I do not need to see a paper print to determine good IQ although a large print would probably maximize its benefits).
4.) it came with nifty features unavailable on the two brands of FF I am/was shooting.
5.) I bought the Pentax and the kit lens at a very deep discount on eBay from an authorized dealer.
6.) Many of the lenses can be purchased used on eBay at deep discounts off MSRP making it possibly cheaper to own than a 50 MP FF.

[ColColt]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Danaher Dempsey]

Here's why I bought a Pentax 645z:

5.) I bought the Pentax and the kit lens at a very deep discount on eBay from an authorized dealer.
6.) Many of the lenses can be purchased used on eBay at deep discounts off MSRP making it possibly cheaper to own than a 50 MP FF.

So rfkiii, how much was that 645z with kit lens? .... I must know the answer. You have made an interesting argument.

[rfkiii]

$8k, last March. I've seen the body only it for much less since. For example:


pentax 645z in Camera and Photo Digital Cameras | eBay

[algrove]

Since the OP has not been to his thread for many days now, it might seem is was just a troll.

[Tom S.]

Since the OP has not been to his thread for many days now, it might seem is was just a troll.

The OP was/is on as late as today, so I think you're off base with the troll comment.

[Parallax]

Since the OP has not been to his thread for many days now, it might seem is was just a troll.

You started a thread back on the 30th of April and never made another post in it. Were you trolling?

[rfkiii]

The official new pricing for the 645z is $6999.95 as reported at Photo Plus


Photo Plus 2015: First Glimpse at Pentax Full-Frame DSLR! | Expert photography blogs, tip, techniques, camera reviews - Adorama Learning Center


In other Pentax news, Ricoh has dropped the price of its 645Z medium-format digital camera (you know, the one with the 1/8000 sec flash synch shutter speed) to $6,999.95, and is offering a starter kit (camera body, 55mm f/2.8, 28-45mm f/4.5, and Macro 90mm f/2.8, an extra battery, 2 32GB cards, and Ricoh Advantage Platinum extended 3-year warranty over the camera and 3 lenses) for $15,999.


645Z medium-format digital camera Buy or Learn at Adorama


No, I do not work for Adorama.