Originally posted by spartan I had the 645D and sold it. Great images at low ISO but very limited camera. I would also question investing in Pentax MF when Fuji and others have shown up with more modern mirrorless designs.
In addition, Full Frame sensors have similar resolution to the 645D (like the sony A7RIII) and are more flexible and extensible systems.
So, we’ll advise a guy who already owns P645 lenses and film cameras to spend ten grand (including a lens or two) for a new Fuji mirrorless camera, instead of about two grand for a 645 D. Ooookay. But it’s a bit like the “forum” member of 1955 asking whether he should consider a Sinar Norma view camera for tripod landscape photography, and being told to get a Speed Graphic instead because it’s more portable, lighter, and has a rangefinder. That they both use 4x5 film is not enough to make them meaningful competitors for the tripod use case. I simply would not want to use a Fuji on a tripod in bright sun (or, in all honesty,
particularly in bright sun).
The 645 D will not seem limited to a film photographer. It works well up to at least ISO 400, which is already faster than film that most landscape photographers would consider using in any rollfilm camera. The ability to tolerate very high ISO’s is like magic in many circumstances, but a film photographer committed to tripod use will have already developed the technique to manage that limitation.
The only real limitation is the lack of live view, but I use that on the 645z about once in a hundred photos. Focus confirmation works with any lens on the 645D (or the N and NII, for that matter).
I do not believe it is easy to get the same results using a full-frame camera, though one can get close. 16x20 prints will require 17x enlargement and significant cropping from a 24x36 sensor. The 645D files will be enlarged 12x and will use nearly all of the image. I’ve seen 16x20 prints from D850’s and 5Ds’s that were sharp enough, but they did not have the tonal density and smoothness of prints from the 645D and the Leica S that used the same Kodak sensor.
I think the OP’s plan is a good one—it provides enough image quality to give his experiment with digital a fair test while mitigating the risk of the major technology change.
Rick “format size and shape still counts” Denney