[fromunderthebridge]

I find a lot of the responses on this thread more than a little patronizing (some very informative posts also though). I can see where the responses are coming from, but the tone is a bit uncalled for. If a person has the means (funds) to buy premium gear, more power to them. The insinuation I'm getting from some that the OP should buy an old, dusty K-way-before-i-started-photography, to learn photography and not use equipment they cannot fully utilize is annoying.

To the OP I would say that do a lot of research and find a camera that you will want to use and enjoy using. That way you'll learn to utilize your gear and get the results you want all the while enjoying the process itself.

[K5_Ltd_User]

I find a lot of the responses on this thread more than a little patronizing (some very informative posts also though). I can see where the responses are coming from, but the tone is a bit uncalled for. If a person has the means (funds) to buy premium gear, more power to them. The insinuation I'm getting from some that the OP should buy an old, dusty K-way-before-i-started-photography, to learn photography and not use equipment they cannot fully utilize is annoying.

To the OP I would say that do a lot of research and find a camera that you will want to use and enjoy using. That way you'll learn to utilize your gear and get the results you want all the while enjoying the process itself.

Hello,


I agree with what you say, but I gave the advice from personal experience. My first camera (that I didn't manage to break before ever using it- childhood memory) was a K5. Lovely camera. It can do so much, I don' t even understand now many functions (although my hobby is on a pause for 2 years now, because of my career) .

The idea is, I spent a lot for a camera which I bassically learned on. It was a overkill compared to my skills. I didn' t use it in Auto mode- never, I wanted a hobby. But that being said, after thousands of dollars spent, I can say for certain that it' s a mistake, if the OP wants to make something from this.

A photographer said (if I' m not mistaking) to shoot your first 50 thousand frames and throw them away, as they are all not worth a look.
I think that' s half the shutter life of the MF (maybe I am mistaking, again) .

Regardless, his money, his beeswax. But if you care enough to ask somebody that has been around cameras for a while for a advice (some on the forum know photography; not all, but some; some even answer threads- deffinetly NOT me) , then consider them; this may help saving your wallet, and maybe your ego from disappointment (I say 'maybe' as I know not if you are naturally gifted) .

I hold my ground, if you need to learn, start cheap, overcome the gear.

Plenty of snaps (equivalent of point and shooting) around with the k1 (even digital mf) to proove money doesn' t make photography (or any other camera model from whatever brand) .


Enjoy the hobyy though!

[itshimitis]

I find a lot of the responses on this thread more than a little patronizing (some very informative posts also though). I can see where the responses are coming from, but the tone is a bit uncalled for. If a person has the means (funds) to buy premium gear, more power to them. The insinuation I'm getting from some that the OP should buy an old, dusty K-way-before-i-started-photography, to learn photography and not use equipment they cannot fully utilize is annoying.

To the OP I would say that do a lot of research and find a camera that you will want to use and enjoy using. That way you'll learn to utilize your gear and get the results you want all the while enjoying the process itself.

I think you may be seeing a little bit of cautious suspicion. Normally in major investment such as this (perhaps the OP is a multi millionaire who can make a 5 figure investment and then just dispose of it we don't know) there is more background to begin with. I haven't heard of people picking up a camera like this one as a very first camera not someone having a Ferrari as their first car- though as a counterpoint I have a Mercedes as my first car though just a E220 bought secondhand. So I think the caution with a bit of suspicion is not unduly misplaced.

[RonHendriks1966]

Looks like a fun thread and not a serious one. You can also considdered pre ordering the new Hasselblad x1d.

[normhead]

I find a lot of the responses on this thread more than a little patronizing (some very informative posts also though). I can see where the responses are coming from, but the tone is a bit uncalled for. If a person has the means (funds) to buy premium gear, more power to them. The insinuation I'm getting from some that the OP should buy an old, dusty K-way-before-i-started-photography, to learn photography and not use equipment they cannot fully utilize is annoying.

To the OP I would say that do a lot of research and find a camera that you will want to use and enjoy using. That way you'll learn to utilize your gear and get the results you want all the while enjoying the process itself.

But should he buy a 645 ( or a now 645z) or 5DSR? The question was a little more specific than that.

To the OP I would say that do a lot of research on the type of picture you wish to produce, drive to a lot of camera stores and rent a lot of stuff.and find a camera that you will want to use and enjoy using. That way with proper training, study and practice and a lot of time you'll learn to utilize your gear and get the results you want (unless you've bit off more than you can chew)' all the while enjoying the process itself. (except for all those times you'll come home when for some reason you missed a great shot because of lack of understanding and preparation. or you drive 100 miles to get a shot an the light wasn't right. Some of my images i went to the same location three to six days before I got one I liked.)

Lets not over simply this. The simple fact is, what the O.P. is talking about may not be possible for him, no matter how much he spends. Just as no matter whether I buy an 8x10 film camera or not, I will never be Ansel Adams of Richard Avedon. It doesn't matter how much I want to be.

Realistic results come from realistic expectations.
Lets not oversimplify what he's asking for. Many wish to do what he wants to do, not all are successful at it.

Now if the the thing is
" I enjoy spending big bucks on my little toys.
I think photography would be an enjoyable hobby."

Yours is a great answer.



---------- Post added 08-26-16 at 11:23 AM ----------

Looks like a fun thread and not a serious one. You can also considdered pre ordering the new Hasselblad x1d.

Still a teaching moment though.

[Ontarian50]

Aside from all the pixel counting, there's more to the difference between a medium format camera and a miniature (yep, that's what they used to call 35mm when it was introduced) sized camera.

Some years ago, a fellow showed me comparison images he shot on his Canon 1DsMkIII (21mp) and his 30-something megapixel Hasselblad H3D. He made the large prints himself on his large format Canon printer.

There was no contest. The medium format images had way more bite and detail, even though the Canon ones were very good. Obviously he enjoyed a wider range of lenses for his Canon, but when he didn't mind the bulk and comparative clumsiness of the 'Blad, it was the way to go.

I would expect the same comparison to still be true today, between the 645z and high-end DSLRs. There's just something about the bigger lenses and bigger sensors making detail and resolution that little bit more effortless.

It reminds me of the hot-rodder's mantra, that there's no substitute for cubic inches.

[normhead]

Indeed if you go one the Imaging Resources image comparison tool, the thing that stands out about the 645z images is they have more apparent 3d depth. Using their samples it's not a great difference, but I believe it's a difference a good photographer could exploit to produce some amazing images.

If I get lucky and some un-anticipated (but possible) income comes my way, I am seriously considering bypassing the K-1 for a 645z. Personally, I think using my K-3 for distant wildlife and a 645z for landscape and close to the camera wildlife would be a very had to beat combination.

To me the K-1 has become the best one body compromise. Not as good as the 645z for landscape, not as good as the K-3 for wildlife. A mid point camera, that really only excels at narrow DoF images.

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-26-2016 at 11:23 AM.

[fromunderthebridge]

I was not trying to say that buying a high end camera is a best choice for anyone's first 'serious' camera. I think many of the points made here are valid and also believe that high end gear is demanding to use properly. I also think that 'expectation management' wrt. the results one can expect from equipment without extensive experience is also warranted, lest the buyer be disappointed after all the hype. And lastly, I seriously respect the experience of the posters here regarding the journey of learning photography and that instant expertise it is not nor the results guaranteed.

The part I was disagreeing with was merely the tone used by some to convey these very on the mark observations. Also, it may very well be that the thread is not serious (IDK, I don't know the OP), but for a casual reader it could read as snarky ripostes to an honest question.

Again, feel free to disagree with me if I'm clamping down on the funsies or take forum discussions too seriously (I know, I know, the rubber band around my head is a bit too tight and itches from time to time). I'm just your regular "Forum Civility Warrior".

Carry on.

@urssu K-5 is one excellent camera. I started with one also and still have it as my backup. I wouldn't want to use camera with poorer sensor performance or ergonomics though, even if I don't use every feature of the camera (I mean K-5 performance is top notch, and I wouldn't want to trade down ).

[normhead]

All I'm concerned with here from my k-3 is frame rate and magnification.

The K-3 sensor has denser pixels and will therefore give you more magnification of your subject for the same sense a distance.


Much of the time, I have a 100% keeper rate with the k-3 at 8 FPS, so I don't reallyunderstand how the K-1 would be better. I lock focus on perched bird and I fill the buffer. I've many times shot 24 frames all i focus. What's better than 100%? Bird images are usually selected one pose and alignment to the focal plane for DoF plane. That affects your keeper rate but isn't caused by the camera, so I'm not sure how a K-1 would help with that, except for the shutter speed, aperture lens and ISO I'll have a narrow DOF, making alignment even more critical.

But hey, shoot some side by side images for me, show me what you're talking about.

[PhilRich]

Interesting thread. I understand the logic of starting small and working up big. However, I think the 645D will produce better results than the Canon 5dr. One advantage of the Pentax 645 is the availability of affordable used lens that produce very good results. Basically the user technique is the same for both cameras. I think the larger camera encourages slowing down and being more careful with the picture taking process and enhancing the learning process. It encourages using a tripod, etc.,.etc. I wouldn't advise a person to start small if they wanted produce larger fine prints if they can afford the medium format camera. I have the K-1 and find that the larger format of the 645 is better. The pixel shift feature helps but has limited use.

[normhead]

Interesting thread. I understand the logic of starting small and working up big. However, I think the 645D will produce better results than the Canon 5dr. One advantage of the Pentax 645 is the availability of affordable used lens that produce very good results. Basically the user technique is the same for both cameras. I think the larger camera encourages slowing down and being more careful with the picture taking process and enhancing the learning process. It encourages using a tripod, etc.,.etc. I wouldn't advise a person to start small if they wanted produce larger fine prints if they can afford the medium format camera. I have the K-1 and find that the larger format of the 645 is better. The pixel shift feature helps but has limited use.

I'm with this guy, exactly what I was thinking. on the IQ MF to FF, but with the added observation, if you want to do large start large, its a lot to learn and the sooner you get after it, the sooner you get to where you want to be.

[mikeSF]

I third that opinion. I would definitely prefer the 645D over the 5dsr any day of the week.
Ymmv though, depending on specific needs.

[Kolor-Pikker]

My take on it is this; the medium format options out there today, even the "light-weight" Z and S 007, are a fairly demanding type of camera to acquire the best results from, even for an experienced photographer.
My old 5D2 was a fairly simple camera to shoot, and the heavily increased tolerances required by the Z required me to almost relearn how to use a camera properly for best results. Settings which you knew in the back of your head were good enough, now led to poor results. While jumping feet first into a high-end system will leave your with plenty room to grow, it's also like getting into an F1 race car to learn how to drive. OP needs a "fun" camera before a serious one.

I wouldn't even suggest the 5DSR for a start, but the new 5D4 that's been announced. 30MP is still a lot of detail, but it's also going to be a very fast and forgiving camera to use for most subject matter, while still having a large selection of lenses to work with, including some truly superlative zooms and primes.
If you really want to print BIG a better option is stitching frames anyway, because you need 15,840 pixels across to make a 44" (1.2m) print at 360PPI, and even the Z can't manage that without at least three shots (accounting for overlap).

By the time OP gets some good experience under their belt, a new P645 camera may be out that's even better than the Z, and there might also be new lenses to pick from as well. In the mean time, something snappy and easy to get results with is a better option, you'll want such a camera anyway for your backup.

[Rondec]

I do think that if you think you are going to "move up" in cameras over time, it makes little sense to buy the cheapest gear and then try to sell it and purchase a little more expensive gear. Better to start with your goal camera (if you can afford it) and learn to shoot with it.

As to how hard it is to learn any of these cameras, to my way of thinking it is a lot easier. Older cameras like the K10 or K7 really struggled with dynamic range and if you underexposed at all, you were likely to end up with a grainy, washed out image. Recent vintage cameras have much easier learning curve as even if you don't hit your exposure exactly, you can fix a lot of things in post (although the goal should be still to get the image right in camera).

It isn't rocket science. Learning to shoot with a 645z isn't really that much different than learning with a K50 -- it is just bigger and a lot more expensive.

[Kolor-Pikker]

I do think that if you think you are going to "move up" in cameras over time, it makes little sense to buy the cheapest gear and then try to sell it and purchase a little more expensive gear. Better to start with your goal camera (if you can afford it) and learn to shoot with it.

As to how hard it is to learn any of these cameras, to my way of thinking it is a lot easier. Older cameras like the K10 or K7 really struggled with dynamic range and if you underexposed at all, you were likely to end up with a grainy, washed out image. Recent vintage cameras have much easier learning curve as even if you don't hit your exposure exactly, you can fix a lot of things in post (although the goal should be still to get the image right in camera).

It isn't rocket science. Learning to shoot with a 645z isn't really that much different than learning with a K50 -- it is just bigger and a lot more expensive.

I never did sell my Canon kit though, it's still the better camera for run & gun shooting, and I would still one day update the 5D2 to something newer, if only so as not be bothered by the worse sensor performance.
I do agree about it being easier to set exposure though, as long as you don't over-expose on the histogram, nothing else really matters; however watching my exposure and ISO on the 5D never really bothered me either.
The Z is still hard to use as a regular DSLR, in part due to the f/2.8 limit on lenses and the need to hold a shutter speed twice as high as you'd want normally for hand-held shooting, plus the lack of stabilization on all but the most expensive lenses. That's about three stops of leeway you're losing compared to a Canon with an f/1.4 prime, whether it be in noise or shutter speed.