considering move to medium format

**cdd29** · 11-10-2017, 07:41 PM

Hi. I'm debating the jump to digital medium format, specifically a 645D. I currently shoot a L-1 and have been told in many regards the K-1 has surpassed the 645D in IQ and features. I do landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy. What would be some (if any) advantages moving from full frame to medium format? If I did move, it would have to be the D instead of the z due to costs.

Last edited by cdd29; 11-10-2017 at 07:58 PM.

MarkJerling · 11-10-2017, 07:47 PM - **1 Like**

I think, for studio work, product photography and the like, the 645D or 645Z would be a good choice. For landscapes and night photography, I think the K-1 would be your better choice. No doubt, the 645D or 645Z would do well in those situations too, but it's more suited, I think, to studio work. The K-1 has the advantage of working well with any regular K-mount lens, so no need to invest in a new set of lenses either.

postnobills · 11-10-2017, 08:05 PM

I use a 645z and have never tried a 645D or a K-1. I also don't do much night photography, so I can't say anything regarding your specific questions.

I would, however, like to say that my experience using the 645z hand held in the field has been entirely positive. I use it like I use my other DSLR's and have no complaint other than the added weight/bulk.

bumgardnern · 11-10-2017, 08:21 PM

I can only speak to the 645z, but overall despite having some issues with tethering it is a fantastic camera. I really only use my camera in the studio and it stays on a tripod 90% of the time.

mikeSF · 11-10-2017, 09:59 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by cdd29

Hi. I'm debating the jump to digital medium format, specifically a 645D. I currently shoot a L-1 and have been told in many regards the K-1 has surpassed the 645D in IQ and features. I do landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy. What would be some (if any) advantages moving from full frame to medium format? If I did move, it would have to be the D instead of the z due to costs.

for base ISO landscape and studio work, the 645D is a clear winner in IQ and color rendering due to the CCD sensor vs the K-1. But the trade off is if you need high ISO, the image gets noisy fast, ie by ISO1600 typically. For astrophotography, K-1 is a better bet for this reason alone but be aware the 645D has a mandatory dark frame subtraction for long exposures which cannot be overridden. This can really slow down a milky way workflow with the D.

Both cameras have their strengths but the K-1 is most versatile for a variety of subjects vs pure IQ for a specific application as offered by the 645D.

Have fun shopping.

---------- Post added 11-10-2017 at 09:02 PM ----------

just fwiw, here is my album of 645D shots: 645D | Flickr
I am currently using the 645Z but still remain a fan of the D at low ISO.

**mattb123** · 11-10-2017, 10:30 PM

I have a 645D and I like it but I avoid any high ISO situations with it. At low ISO it's great for relatively slow paced shooting.

2351HD · 11-11-2017, 01:44 AM

Considering that you are looking to do Astro work, I would say get the K1. Form and function it is much more current than even the 645Z, with its full electronic and electronic first curtain shutter options, wide array of wide aperture wide angle lenses, beautiful tilt screen etc etc.

Add to that the 645z does not have a wide angle lens suitable for astro work, or an ultra-wide lens at all for that matter.

When you consider that you don't have the funds for a Z, get the K1. As a matter of fact, if I were not already invested into the 645Z and lenses, I would not recommend to anybody (even myself) to buy into Pentax 645 digital at this point until they at least show us what the future holds. The big players Hasselblad and Fuji are leaving old Pentax in the dust at the moment and I doubt that the Pentax 645 system will ever recover from this current onslaught of new products. A few die-hards on here are not going to like me saying that, but its a hard truth. I am staying put with my system for now and hoping like hell that Pentax release a newer body with OVF / EVF option and EFCS and K1 tilt screen, plus some new high class zoom lenses for landscape and travel work, which is my primary application.

**Alex645** · 11-11-2017, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by cdd29

I do landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy. What would be some (if any) advantages moving from full frame to medium format?

Originally posted by MarkJerling

I think, for studio work, product photography and the like, the 645D or 645Z would be a good choice. For landscapes and night photography, I think the K-1 would be your better choice. No doubt, the 645D or 645Z would do well in those situations too, but it's more suited, I think, to studio work.

The main advantage of medium format over FF includes a 4:3 frame (more square) vs. 3:2 frame; beautiful shallow depth of field or bokeh, and perception wise from clients, it separates you from "small format" photographers. I've used my medium format exclusively outdoors and even handheld, although it is more commonly seen in studios. The 645D is weather-sealed for a reason.

Pentax does make a 35mm 645 prime (28mm FF), a 33-55mm zoom (26-44mm FF), and a 28-45mm (22-36mm FF) wide angle options. The last one is AW rated, although having non-WR or AW rated primes has rarely stopped me from shooting outdoors (with caution).

With that said, I agree with Mark especially in terms of cost. The K1 is by far more affordable when you look at the overall system costs, and is more than capable to do landscapes and astrophotography. If you hit the jackpot, and don't mind the bulk, then I'd go for a 645Z, but given your budget, the K1 makes more sense and you'd have less regrets than getting an older MF 645D.

Fcsnt54 · 11-11-2017, 10:28 AM - **1 Like**

The pictures that i see from people who have the 645d model are awesome. The lenses are great, although they could use a refresh, and i find i pick up the 645z more times then the k-1. Keep in mind though if these items are important, the 645d does not have ibis or ios (except for the 28-45 and 90 mm lenses), and the 645d does not have liveview. It does have a 4:3 image ratio which is nice.

desertscape · 11-11-2017, 11:49 AM - **1 Like**

Your question is similar to what I was asking 30 years ago when I was shooting 35mm film and was questioning the need to shoot 6x7. If you are shooting professionally or plan to in the future, then the extra bit of IQ from the 645D could be a good idea. But if you are shooting for your own enjoyment, the K-1 should do fine. Your talent is way more important than your equipment. Owning a D or Z is not going to suddenly make you a better photographer.

**cdd29** · 11-11-2017, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

Your question is similar to what I was asking 30 years ago when I was shooting 35mm film and was questioning the need to shoot 6x7. If you are shooting professionally or plan to in the future, then the extra bit of IQ from the 645D could be a good idea. But if you are shooting for your own enjoyment, the K-1 should do fine. Your talent is way more important than your equipment. Owning a D or Z is not going to suddenly make you a better photographer.

I understand that a better camera doesn't make a better photographer. As far as turning professional, that's a ways off if ever. Right now, I'm just wanting to play with the format and then go from there.

DeadJohn · 11-11-2017, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by cdd29

...landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy...

IMO you'll be much better off with a K-1 instead of 645D. You'll likely get equal or better images with less work. K-1 offers live view, better dynamic range, high ISO when needed, astrotracer, more lens choice, less weight and bulk.

The 645D offers the "medium format look" with the option for thinner depth of field, but that's not something that comes into play much for landscapes and astrophotography.

**cdd29** · 11-11-2017, 07:56 PM

I'm not giving up my K-1. I've always wanted to play with medium format. I'd rather play with digital than film, at least for now. I figure the 645D would be the cheapest way to get into the format. I've also been watching some Mamyias with digital backs (also would let me get into film by changing out the back).

**mattb123** · 11-11-2017, 10:49 PM

Or you can pick up an old film 645 and share lenses with the 645D. That is what I do but only every now and then.
It sounds like you have a pretty good idea what you are getting into. Might as well give it a shot.

Gyroscope · 11-13-2017, 04:31 PM

The K1 is a fantastic landscape camera. I have not used the 645D but on specs alone I would say the K1 would be better overall. The 645Z (which I use along with K1) on the other hand is IMO the best landscape photography camera but it lacks an UWA lens and is very expensive. You won't regret sticking with a K1.

11-10-2017, 07:41 PM	#1
cdd29 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Southern Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 963	considering move to medium format Hi. I'm debating the jump to digital medium format, specifically a 645D. I currently shoot a L-1 and have been told in many regards the K-1 has surpassed the 645D in IQ and features. I do landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy. What would be some (if any) advantages moving from full frame to medium format? If I did move, it would have to be the D instead of the z due to costs. Last edited by cdd29; 11-10-2017 at 07:58 PM.

11-10-2017, 08:05 PM	#3
postnobills Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Photos: Gallery Posts: 51	I use a 645z and have never tried a 645D or a K-1. I also don't do much night photography, so I can't say anything regarding your specific questions. I would, however, like to say that my experience using the 645z hand held in the field has been entirely positive. I use it like I use my other DSLR's and have no complaint other than the added weight/bulk. Last edited by postnobills; 11-10-2017 at 08:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your non-pentax medium-format and large-format pictures	DenisG	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	12-07-2020 08:02 PM
Considering moving to medium format 645D or 645Z	mikeodial	Pentax Medium Format	28	11-30-2017 04:47 PM
considering medium format - need advice	IgorZ	Pentax Medium Format	57	05-28-2016 07:55 PM
Hi from california, not sure on medium format	Fcsnt54	Welcomes and Introductions	11	11-29-2015 11:48 AM

11-10-2017, 07:47 PM - 1 Like	#2
MarkJerling Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,421	I think, for studio work, product photography and the like, the 645D or 645Z would be a good choice. For landscapes and night photography, I think the K-1 would be your better choice. No doubt, the 645D or 645Z would do well in those situations too, but it's more suited, I think, to studio work. The K-1 has the advantage of working well with any regular K-mount lens, so no need to invest in a new set of lenses either.

11-10-2017, 08:21 PM	#4
bumgardnern New Member Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 15	I can only speak to the 645z, but overall despite having some issues with tethering it is a fantastic camera. I really only use my camera in the studio and it stays on a tripod 90% of the time.

11-10-2017, 09:59 PM - 1 Like	#5
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	Originally posted by cdd29 Hi. I'm debating the jump to digital medium format, specifically a 645D. I currently shoot a L-1 and have been told in many regards the K-1 has surpassed the 645D in IQ and features. I do landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy. What would be some (if any) advantages moving from full frame to medium format? If I did move, it would have to be the D instead of the z due to costs. for base ISO landscape and studio work, the 645D is a clear winner in IQ and color rendering due to the CCD sensor vs the K-1. But the trade off is if you need high ISO, the image gets noisy fast, ie by ISO1600 typically. For astrophotography, K-1 is a better bet for this reason alone but be aware the 645D has a mandatory dark frame subtraction for long exposures which cannot be overridden. This can really slow down a milky way workflow with the D. Both cameras have their strengths but the K-1 is most versatile for a variety of subjects vs pure IQ for a specific application as offered by the 645D. Have fun shopping. ---------- Post added 11-10-2017 at 09:02 PM ---------- just fwiw, here is my album of 645D shots: 645D \| Flickr I am currently using the 645Z but still remain a fan of the D at low ISO.

11-10-2017, 10:30 PM	#6
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	I have a 645D and I like it but I avoid any high ISO situations with it. At low ISO it's great for relatively slow paced shooting.

11-11-2017, 01:44 AM	#7
2351HD Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 750	Considering that you are looking to do Astro work, I would say get the K1. Form and function it is much more current than even the 645Z, with its full electronic and electronic first curtain shutter options, wide array of wide aperture wide angle lenses, beautiful tilt screen etc etc. Add to that the 645z does not have a wide angle lens suitable for astro work, or an ultra-wide lens at all for that matter. When you consider that you don't have the funds for a Z, get the K1. As a matter of fact, if I were not already invested into the 645Z and lenses, I would not recommend to anybody (even myself) to buy into Pentax 645 digital at this point until they at least show us what the future holds. The big players Hasselblad and Fuji are leaving old Pentax in the dust at the moment and I doubt that the Pentax 645 system will ever recover from this current onslaught of new products. A few die-hards on here are not going to like me saying that, but its a hard truth. I am staying put with my system for now and hoping like hell that Pentax release a newer body with OVF / EVF option and EFCS and K1 tilt screen, plus some new high class zoom lenses for landscape and travel work, which is my primary application.

11-11-2017, 06:37 AM	#8
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,527	Originally posted by cdd29 I do landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy. What would be some (if any) advantages moving from full frame to medium format? Originally posted by MarkJerling I think, for studio work, product photography and the like, the 645D or 645Z would be a good choice. For landscapes and night photography, I think the K-1 would be your better choice. No doubt, the 645D or 645Z would do well in those situations too, but it's more suited, I think, to studio work. The main advantage of medium format over FF includes a 4:3 frame (more square) vs. 3:2 frame; beautiful shallow depth of field or bokeh, and perception wise from clients, it separates you from "small format" photographers. I've used my medium format exclusively outdoors and even handheld, although it is more commonly seen in studios. The 645D is weather-sealed for a reason. Pentax does make a 35mm 645 prime (28mm FF), a 33-55mm zoom (26-44mm FF), and a 28-45mm (22-36mm FF) wide angle options. The last one is AW rated, although having non-WR or AW rated primes has rarely stopped me from shooting outdoors (with caution). With that said, I agree with Mark especially in terms of cost. The K1 is by far more affordable when you look at the overall system costs, and is more than capable to do landscapes and astrophotography. If you hit the jackpot, and don't mind the bulk, then I'd go for a 645Z, but given your budget, the K1 makes more sense and you'd have less regrets than getting an older MF 645D.

11-11-2017, 10:28 AM - 1 Like	#9
Fcsnt54 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: California Posts: 621	The pictures that i see from people who have the 645d model are awesome. The lenses are great, although they could use a refresh, and i find i pick up the 645z more times then the k-1. Keep in mind though if these items are important, the 645d does not have ibis or ios (except for the 28-45 and 90 mm lenses), and the 645d does not have liveview. It does have a 4:3 image ratio which is nice.

11-11-2017, 11:49 AM - 1 Like	#10
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Your question is similar to what I was asking 30 years ago when I was shooting 35mm film and was questioning the need to shoot 6x7. If you are shooting professionally or plan to in the future, then the extra bit of IQ from the 645D could be a good idea. But if you are shooting for your own enjoyment, the K-1 should do fine. Your talent is way more important than your equipment. Owning a D or Z is not going to suddenly make you a better photographer.

11-11-2017, 12:29 PM	#11
cdd29 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Southern Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 963 Original Poster	Originally posted by desertscape Your question is similar to what I was asking 30 years ago when I was shooting 35mm film and was questioning the need to shoot 6x7. If you are shooting professionally or plan to in the future, then the extra bit of IQ from the 645D could be a good idea. But if you are shooting for your own enjoyment, the K-1 should do fine. Your talent is way more important than your equipment. Owning a D or Z is not going to suddenly make you a better photographer. I understand that a better camera doesn't make a better photographer. As far as turning professional, that's a ways off if ever. Right now, I'm just wanting to play with the format and then go from there.

11-11-2017, 01:17 PM	#12
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	Originally posted by cdd29 ...landscape and night photography primarily and starting to dabble in astrophotograohy... IMO you'll be much better off with a K-1 instead of 645D. You'll likely get equal or better images with less work. K-1 offers live view, better dynamic range, high ISO when needed, astrotracer, more lens choice, less weight and bulk. The 645D offers the "medium format look" with the option for thinner depth of field, but that's not something that comes into play much for landscapes and astrophotography.

11-11-2017, 07:56 PM	#13
cdd29 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Southern Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 963 Original Poster	I'm not giving up my K-1. I've always wanted to play with medium format. I'd rather play with digital than film, at least for now. I figure the 645D would be the cheapest way to get into the format. I've also been watching some Mamyias with digital backs (also would let me get into film by changing out the back).

11-11-2017, 10:49 PM	#14
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,873	Or you can pick up an old film 645 and share lenses with the 645D. That is what I do but only every now and then. It sounds like you have a pretty good idea what you are getting into. Might as well give it a shot.

11-13-2017, 04:31 PM	#15
Gyroscope Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 166	The K1 is a fantastic landscape camera. I have not used the 645D but on specs alone I would say the K1 would be better overall. The 645Z (which I use along with K1) on the other hand is IMO the best landscape photography camera but it lacks an UWA lens and is very expensive. You won't regret sticking with a K1.