[mikeSF]

I cant say enough about entering digital MF via the 645D. As long as you don't need high ISO, the D is a marvelous choice, and especially in the low $2K price point. You already have 3 lenses, too.
I switched to the Z for 2 reasons*, but otherwise could have easily stayed happy with my 645D for many years!

*reasons were: 1) mandatory dark frame subtraction on long exposures, and 2) my ageing eyesight needed manual focusing help - the focus peaking was a solution.

[babywriter]

I have the 645D. I bought the body new several years ago and used the lenses I had from the film 645 and it works great. I think there is something to that "medium format look" but I sure can't qualify exactly what that is.

I cant say enough about entering digital MF via the 645D. As long as you don't need high ISO, the D is a marvelous choice, and especially in the low $2K price point. You already have 3 lenses, too.

Really appreciate your responses, especially the thoughts re: 645D quality and the use of older lenses. The lack of focus peaking is a bit of a disappointment, but I guess not totally unexpected, considering the age of the system.

I realize, too, that the price of a used 645D (40mp) is roughly comparable a new K-1 (36mp) ... but buying a K-1 doesn't get me excited like a 645D would. It's illogical, I know.

[texandrews]

It can be very expensive, and if your funds are limited, really, stay where you are. The 645Z would be a colossal waste of money (no forward roadmap and thus an uncertain future) unless you are a working professional able to claim depreciation, or can lease one. Investing in quality lenses within the current camera format's sphere is a much better start.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, especially in the used market (although new also). The Z will work until it breaks, and it's a very robust camera, so it's hard to break. Easily one would get 10 years of hard use out of it, and 10 years from now no one knows where we'll be.

---------- Post added 07-03-18 at 12:36 PM ----------

Really appreciate your responses, especially the thoughts re: 645D quality and the use of older lenses. The lack of focus peaking is a bit of a disappointment, but I guess not totally unexpected, considering the age of the system.

I realize, too, that the price of a used 645D (40mp) is roughly comparable a new K-1 (36mp) ... but buying a K-1 doesn't get me excited like a 645D would. It's illogical, I know.

No, not illogical. I have a Z and the K1, use them both. You have lenses that will work for a D or Z. The D is a fine camera, and since you are already used to being relatively ISO constrained, you won't find it a problem to use.

But the Z is liberating in far larger measure. The best camera I have ever owned in 40 years of serious shooting.

[timw4mail]

No, not illogical. I have a Z and the K1, use them both. You have lenses that will work for a D or Z. The D is a fine camera, and since you are already used to being relatively ISO constrained, you won't find it a problem to use.

But the Z is liberating in far larger measure. The best camera I have ever owned in 40 years of serious shooting.

How so? The fact that it's a larger sensor?

I wouldn't turn down a 645 digital, but the file sizes would require other secondary investments...

[Silent Street]

Easily one would get 10 years of hard use out of it, and 10 years from now no one knows where we'll be.

Well something must be akimbo. A lot of us are using cameras that are going on a shade shy of 50 years. Still others are more than a century old...

[texandrews]

Well something must be akimbo. A lot of us are using cameras that are going on a shade shy of 50 years. Still others are more than a century old...

Well, first thing is that I was being conservative--I expect my Z will outlive me (I'm 62), based on the examples of the original 645 series cameras and their upgrades. And of course, the second is that much older cameras have little or nothing in the way of electronics, which I'm sure you intended to remind us in your comment.

---------- Post added 07-05-18 at 07:24 AM ----------

How so? The fact that it's a larger sensor?

Well, it's not the largest format I've used for sure. But it's the best camera in terms of robust build, capabilities, versatility, and quality of output combined.

I wouldn't turn down a 645 digital, but the file sizes would require other secondary investments...

That's true.

[ffking]

FOF? Photographers love their acronyms. I can’t find a reasonable reference:

typo version of DOF

[rdenney]

It can be very expensive, and if your funds are limited, really, stay where you are. The 645Z would be a colossal waste of money (no forward roadmap and thus an uncertain future) unless you are a working professional able to claim depreciation, or can lease one. Investing in quality lenses within the current camera format's sphere is a much better start.



Shift your scanning to high-end drum scanning (e.g. Hasselblad Flextight and like-aparatus) and quality printing -- printing especially is what photography is about, not dumping thousands upon thousands of images into a digital black hole never to be seen again.

Huh? I could spend what a used 645D costs making 20 drum scans by a service I would trust.

I spent half of what a used 645D costs buying a Nikon film scanner, which isn’t good enough for you. The cheapest Flextight I see on ebay costs more than a used 645D, and it doesn’t come with software or the museum computer required to run it.

But a sub-kilobuck 17” Epson printer and a box of 17x22 Exhibition Fiber paper will display very high quality work from either of the digital 645’s.

Even if this is the last digital 645 from Pentax, it’s good for ten more years of service at least. My Canon 5D is doing likewise and it’s 15 years old.

But your statement about pros really got me. Pros must have return on investment in money that pays rent and buys food. They have to care about what stuff costs. Amateurs require a return on investment in enjoyment only, and the digital 645’s return that abundantly.

Rick “quality lenses are always a good investment” Denney

[Silent Street]

Amateurs require a return on investment in enjoyment only, and the digital 645’s return that abundantly.

Changes nothing at all, certainly not the fact it is still a waste of money if there is not a skerrick of money coming in, even as a casual engagement.

[rdenney]

Changes nothing at all, certainly not the fact it is still a waste of money if there is not a skerrick of money coming in, even as a casual engagement.

I tell you what, I won’t tell you how to spend your money if you don’t tell me how much my enjoyment is worth to me.

Rick “who used a $100 Mamiya C3 for decades of occasional pro work” Denney

[johnha]

Really appreciate your responses, especially the thoughts re: 645D quality and the use of older lenses. The lack of focus peaking is a bit of a disappointment, but I guess not totally unexpected, considering the age of the system.

I realize, too, that the price of a used 645D (40mp) is roughly comparable a new K-1 (36mp) ... but buying a K-1 doesn't get me excited like a 645D would. It's illogical, I know.

I have a P6x7 with several 6x7 lenses and also bought the 67->645 adapter (thinking I might be able to rent a Z body for a day sometime - didn't happen, too difficult for an amateur in the UK). I've always wanted a K-1, except it doesn't excite me in the way it should (either as an FF body or a £2K camera), my only other DSLR is an old K-5.

I started noticing that used D's were dropping into the £2k price range (similar enough to a K-1) and I did stacks of googling the differences between the D & Z and lowest used prices for both. Used D or Z availability in the UK is very limited, especially from reputable dealers with sufficient warranties. I spun in my usage - I don't use high-iso, live view, focus peaking etc on my K-5, the tilt screen would be useful and I'm sure there are other features better on the Z - but ultimately the Z is way above my budget with a minimum of 50% premium compared to a D (and that 50% is a sizeable lump).

I reckoned a D would be best for me, and having missed a few 'cheaper' ones, went for a mid-milage D from a reputable dealer with a 12 month warranty (the warranty was the important bit). It has been a really good decision, the output is stunning (although I'm still tweaking my processing - I need a better PC), the handling is superb and it has allowed me to shoot 'medium format' on digital which had previously been a pipe-dream. It's not a 6x7 format, but it's still nearly double FF format and achieving that for 'K-1 money' is a big plus.

I must also thank the various posters here who have shown stunning results achievable from the D & Z in the 'Show us your Medium Format shots' thread. I'm going to struggle to match their results, but they've been very inspirational in my decision.

John.

[itshimitis]

drum scanning rates in the UK would make you wince. I've seen charges a while back of upwards of £50 an image. That doesn't include a print.

[Silent Street]

drum scanning rates in the UK would make you wince. I've seen charges a while back of upwards of £50 an image. That doesn't include a print.

No, the print comes last, and on top of everything else!
I have always been convinced that the USA is the most expensive place for high-end production drum scans.

Hasselblad Flextight drum scans vary between $130 to about $400 here in Australia, depending on the print size (where my work is prepared, the sky is the limit if the print is destined for giclée as the printer itself can output up to 3.2 metres!). The high cost reflects the procedure which can be (but not strictly always) quite messy and odorous, with meticulous attention to metrics precision — a planned-out image only gets so much of a scan, and no more and no less than is wished.

[kaseki]

This topic raised my interest in where prices are at present for both D and Z. Unlike lenses, which while often substantial in cost, have a cost vs. likelihood of needing repair deemed (by me at least) to be low risk. Thus, importing used from Japan when no good examples are available in the USA or Canada doesn't raise warranty issues with me.

However, the 645D and 645Z are complex and expensive enough to raise the question of repair options, even without any remaining warranty. Are repair sources available that will work on these camera bodies independent of whether purchased new in the USA or purchased used from Japan or sold as used from within the USA but possibly imported via the gray market from wherever? An alternative way of asking this is, if there are adequate repair sources, are they controlled by Pentax to refuse to repair any camera bodies that were not sold via Pentax retailers within the USA?

Are USA white market serial number ranges published?

Thanks

[rdenney]

I’m sure Precision will work on any 645 digital camera, no matter where it was bought. Gray market affects the warranty only.

Rick “are any 645Ds still in warranty?” Denney