Originally posted by JeffBurns In what situations would you prefer a K1 over a 645z and vice versa?
I have both and use them side by side in some situations, especially for fine arts repro/museum exhibits installation photography. The K-1 is invaluable when UWA is required, which I need for interiors and other tight spaces. It is also better for video when I need that, but the Canon 5dmkIV spanks it in terms of usability (files not that much...). Others have spoken to the tele utility. Finally, sometimes the nimbleness/quickness of the K-1 is very handy when documenting work as it happens, which I have to do with installations. I use the 645Z at every practical opportunity, however. Better in low light, and for documenting an artwork's condition for condition/treatment reports, the Z's files can be blown up so far the detail is incredible (but the K-1 is very good). I will say that the lack of good tethering is a problem, and I just had an interesting conversation with a conservator who finds the files from Pentax not as "scientifically friendly" as those from Nikon or Canon. I need to explore that more with her. She is now in a Pentax environment at work and is having some issues.
Quote: My local camera store has nearly new 645z I may be able to purchase at a good price. They also have several older 645 lenses. It is very unusual for them to have any Pentax gear. I think they purchased the stock of another store. At what price could a 645z be resold after a few months if I decide it is not for me?
Well, can't speak to the latter part of the comment/question---the new Fuji has so many people breathless. Not me, though, and I'm an old Fuji fan. To me, if you have a real need for DMF, Pentax is the way to go if you're not wealthy----the lenses on the used market are a steal, by and large.
So, I say get both! Remember, with an adapter all of those 645 lenses can be used with the K-1 if needs be. And you can use the K-1 with the Cambo Actus and a Fotodiox Rhinocam (I think...).