[mikeSF]

to the OP, of course the 645D is still a great choice for landscape and non-action landscape at lowish ISO (under 800).
I prefer the out of camera color rendering of the D to the Z.
If you already have lenses too, what are you waiting for?

---------- Post added 11-30-18 at 11:49 PM ----------

the main downside to the 645D was sensor split. uneven exposure in the two sensor halves. showed up at the worst times. all three bodies that I owned or auditioned had the problem. loved the D until the second I could get my hands on a Z.........

never want to deal with a D again , for any reason........

wierd that you experienced uneven exposure in more than one body. I tried to coax the split out by compressing dynamic range such as with HDR and was able to see the line, but I never once noticed it in any of the routine shots i took.

---------- Post added 11-30-18 at 11:50 PM ----------

For me the only real downside of the 645D was the compulsory dark frame subtraction for all long exposures. I shoot a lot of night work, and that was a drag, but still quite manageable.

[spartan]

Sorry, but offering 24x30 mm of sensor to make a 16x20” print just isn’t the same as using 33x43 mm of sensor to make that 16x20, number of pixels notwithstanding.

And you offered Fuji as an alternative, not Sony.

First Size only matters at equal pixel counts when the sensor technology generations are equal. There is far more innovation occurring with FF than with MF, and we are dealing with a very old 645D sensor.
The performance of a 42 MPIXEL Sony is better than the 645D (see DxO or other ratings) at base ISO.

Second I did recommend the Sony 7R3 as an alternative in my first post.... and he can also the latest Nikon FF which also has similar sensor from Sony... or the K1 for that matter.

[rdenney]

First Size only matters at equal pixel counts when the sensor technology generations are equal. There is far more innovation occurring with FF than with MF, and we are dealing with a very old 645D sensor.

The performance of a 42 MPIXEL Sony is better than the 645D (see DxO or other ratings) at base ISO.



Second I did recommend the Sony 7R3 as an alternative in my first post.... and he can also the latest Nikon FF which also has similar sensor from Sony... or the K1 for that matter.

I’ve seen those comparisons, and I’ve heard that sensor generation trumps size, and I find them to be theoretical. I recall when people were processing 35mm Panatomic X in Rodinal to get the same resolution as Plus X in 120 size, so they could brag that they had done so, and the detail was there but not the tonality. I recall one video review, commented here recently, that compared a 645z to a Nikon D850 DSLR, and concluding the Nikon was just as sharp but a lot cheaper. But the Pentax images had richer color and tone even with web video display, unnoticed apparently by the reviewer whose focus was only on detail.

But that additional enlargement challenges the lenses as much as the sensor, and the OP already has lenses.

But there is also the style of camera. The 645 is wonderful on a tripod, horizontal or vertical. The A7R or whatever seems overbalanced by any larger lens, if it doesn’t have a tripod ring.

Rick “who has looked at actual prints, too” Denney

[spartan]

I’ve seen those comparisons, and I’ve heard that sensor generation trumps size, and I find them to be theoretical. I recall when people were processing 35mm Panatomic X in Rodinal to get the same resolution as Plus X in 120 size, so they could brag that they had done so, and the detail was there but not the tonality. I recall one video review, commented here recently, that compared a 645z to a Nikon D850 DSLR, and concluding the Nikon was just as sharp but a lot cheaper. But the Pentax images had richer color and tone even with web video display, unnoticed apparently by the reviewer whose focus was only on detail.

But that additional enlargement challenges the lenses as much as the sensor, and the OP already has lenses.

But there is also the style of camera. The 645 is wonderful on a tripod, horizontal or vertical. The A7R or whatever seems overbalanced by any larger lens, if it doesn’t have a tripod ring.

Rick “who has looked at actual prints, too” Denney

You can go to Imaging Resources and compare the 645D to Sony 7R3.

[rdenney]

You can go to Imaging Resources and compare the 645D to Sony 7R3.

Sigh.

Rick "there's more to a camera than Imaging Resource's opinion of it" Denney

[VellMerlot]

1- I'm a film shooter.


2- I primarily shoot landscapes and sometimes portraits


3- when I shoot 35mm I use nikon and my digital camera is a nikon D700 which gave great results when used. so my first look was at a D850

4- but the thought of paying a lot of cash for a new digital camera, not liking it and then forcing myself to use it....

Just before we start an statistics war...

1- a film shooter will be more appealed with a CCD sensor than a CMOS, although, as has been said, today's CMOS sensors do their best to get the same colors than CCD's, but you must pay a price for those CCD colors, and it's the ISO
2- for landscapes you don't care about high ISO, much less if you use tripods, maybe your "sometimes portraits" can be more difficult to get in low light situations, BUT MF's defocus is far better than FF (I believe it, because I made some comparisons, although it maybe pure suggestion)
3- I've been said (I'm not a nikonist, although I have a D700 -with a bit of luck tomorrow I'll have not- ) there are a lot of differences between the 700 and the 850; I think you must read further about them before an upgrade: the 700 was the most praised sensor from all time Nikon, at least on my circles
4- why not to try to find a rent? Just for a weekend, rent a Z and feel it... maybe it will raise your purchase cost a bit (the rent's one), but if you don't like it, you will save a lot of money and frustration

I've had the K-5, the K-5IIs, I played with a K10D, a K-3, a K-1, and a lot of other K's, and I ended with an *istDS just because the sensor. Yes, I cannot shoot birds with it (my fault, probably), and I had to get used to noise when shooting concerts, but I did it pretty well, if you can life with "a bit" of noise
Big Mama

The results with the 645D are pretty better, I guess
Ster Wax i Pablo Sanpa

(both hand-held with manual focus lenses)


Do you really think you'll have worse lighting shooting landscapes?

But I always though my relationship with my cameras is more about "the touch" (how I feel them) than about "the statistics", so maybe I'm not the best one to give advice... except to NOT consider only the statistics.

[VSTAR]

Hi Destroya, I have the k1 and several lenses. I am generally not an action photographer-ie sports. So the k1 with my several lenses is a perfect fit for me. But I kept reading about the 646d and z over the last few years. Someone st a used camera show had the d and several lenses for sale. I just could not say no. I have only used the d a few times,but the quality, details, and recoverable dynamic range is amazing...to me. Reminds me of when I used to take photos with 21/4 mamiya tlr c220.

Now I just need more free time away from work to use it more!

[bull drinkwater]

i'm still one of the lucky ones who have had no trouble with their 645D. it covers my skill level and shooting requirements. the 645Z looks impressive but i'm good with what I've got.

[carabez]

I have only used the d a few times,but the quality, details, and recoverable dynamic range is amazing...to me.

Good to know, thank you.


Last month I received the * ist DS and the K10D. My plan is to exclusively use the DS for a couple of months and do the same with the K10D with the intention of getting used to ISO 100-1600.
The idea is, in this year, to migrate from K3II to K1II or 645D.

So far, I am pleasantly impressed (the same is my wife's opinion) with the naivety of photos spit out by the DS. We'll see how the K10D works,

I come from film to digital and I avoid the pp as much as possible. I use the K3II and I like it very much, but I would like to take advantage of the DOF of the FF or MF with my 6x7 lenses.

Several friends are Canikon, Pentax or Fuji and I see that the latest generations of cameras have increased the dynamic range, ISO and detail at pixel level ... WOW. The temptation to shoot in green mode is a lot

As an amateur, I have the Kx, K30, K50, K3II. The jump between the DS and the K3II is huge, and the same huge step will be between the 645D and today's cameras.

What I want, as an amateur, is to take "imperfect" photos with my camera and not that the camera takes "perfect" photos even against me.


You know, nostalgia ... and a limited budget.

[VellMerlot]

I myself made the jump from the *istDS to the 645D and I can tell you it's almost the same camera, just a bit bulkier and a few more pixels. But you can get the same feelings (naivety?) from both cameras, in my opinion. Sadly, I've been caught by a 6x6 waist-level viewfinder, and I'm planning to sell mine to a friend as soon as he has the money