I really, really hesitate to take issue with any of your posts, they are always so great. I'll go out on the thin ice this time....
Originally posted by photoptimist On resolution and sensor size, the K1->645 gap is less than the K3->K1 gap.
Still a gap though, and my findings are that the resolution is only a part of the equation.
Quote: The potential thin-DoF advantages of the larger sensor in the 645Z probably don't exist because K1 lenses have larger apertures than 645 lenses.
maybe true, but thin dof is only one aspect of the comparison. FWIW, maybe only 1% of my work is done to achieve thin dof, so that's a song I don't sing.
Quote: And if your shooting scenarios can handle pixel-shift, then the 645Z is a downgrade on max potential resolution.
Well, if we're talking about that, then there's that "if" in there. Also, that's pixel-shift vs. single image, which isn't apples to apples. PS is different from stacking, but not that much. So, stack 4 Z images....
Quote: But if you want a big serious camera, then the 645Z totally crushes the K1 (and the K1 doesn't offer much physical presence advantage over APS-C DSLR bodies).
Not exactly sure what you mean here....I
think the Z, based on 4 years experience and a 2 meter fall with the camera---I got hurt, but the camera did not---is more robust than the K1....but I think my K1 is pretty robust! And I think it's serious as well, which is why I shoot the 2 cameras in tandem often. Of course, if you're being facetious...