[mattb123]

Hi,

I just went through this process myself about a month ago. Like you, not in a financial position to buy a GFX 100. Or, a 50s for that matter. I have not seen a 645Z priced low enough either. But, I did see a few 645D units which I could afford.

I used to use a Contax 645 with a 16 MP Kodak back alongside a Nikon F5 with a 6 MP Kodak back. Now I have a 16 MP Nikon Df and wanted something Medium Format to go with. That the 645D has a Kodak CCD is even better in my book.

Here is what I wound up with, body and lenses and their cost. The camera and all but the 300mm by way of lenses came from a camera shop. I presume a trade-in, but I didn't specifically ask if they all came from the same client.


645D w/battery and one 32GB card: $1567.71
645 FA 45-85/4.5: $190.25
645 FA 80-160/4.5: $291.06
645 A* 300/4: $200.00
645 1.4x Converter A: $46.84
645 2x Converter A: $43.69
645 FA 200/4: $133.88
Hood for FA 200/4: $21.66
Second Pentax brand new battery: $16.99
Second 32GB 40x memory card: $6.30
Generic remote shutter release: $6.46 (I had to trim the overmold plastic on the plug for it to fit the camera)

This entire setup was less cost than if I had gone for a higher res Nikon body. Which, I was hesitant to do as my Nikon lenses are from the film era and likely to not perform so well above 30 MP.

I don't think you can do better buying into a medium format digital system than this. And, the lenses will work as manual focus on a Fuji GFX body later on.

And, my lens choices came from many posts on the 645D and Z. Go back through the 90-some pages here in this forum. There is a ton of threads and posts.

Stan

That is pretty much most of my MF kit (plus A 35/3.5 and Arsat 30/3.5) and it is good but I do not like to hike or ski far with it. K-1 is a better compromise there. But for easier access locations and slow shooting the D is nice. Although I have been considering a GFX + adapter route. Maybe one day. The CCD is nice. Every time I have considered selling it I don't. Handling is slow compared to a more modern camera.

[BruceBanner]

I came across one of our beloved Mattius Burling's youtube videos today. I hope you all know him, hes a Pentax fan for sure =)

Anyway, he suggested an interesting 'medium format on digital' for cheap solution, which involved picking up a Sony A7 and a Kipon Baveyes MF Focal Reducer, which one on the Sony can take MF lenses and also produce a similar MF feel to the image via the speedboosting properties of the adapter. Interesting...

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[w2ck]

Hi,

I wonder if it really works all that well.

I learned long ago that using optics to reduce the image circle out of a main lens to then fit a smaller area imager was, at best, iffy. That was done in a joint venture DSLR from Nikon and Fuji back around 1998 or so. The Nikon E-series and the Fujix DS-5xx series. They had used the reducer optics to force fit the output of F-mount lenses onto a smaller imager chip. Full Frame right out of the gate. Well, sort of....

They had two versions of the reducer optics, in the Nikon nomenclature the E2 and the E3. I had the E2 first and then the E3 as it was supposed to be much improved. I found that to be not so much.... And, so, my attempt at getting into the DSLR world by buying used E-series on the cheap vs the new D1 was rather a miss.

That left me rather skeptical about ever using reducing optics again.... Just food for thought.

Oh, and the entire arrangement led to a camera body that was as large as a 645. :P

Stan

[barondla]

I came across one of our beloved Mattius Burling's youtube videos today. I hope you all know him, hes a Pentax fan for sure =)

Anyway, he suggested an interesting 'medium format on digital' for cheap solution, which involved picking up a Sony A7 and a Kipon Baveyes MF Focal Reducer, which one on the Sony can take MF lenses and also produce a similar MF feel to the image via the speedboosting properties of the adapter. Interesting...

Review - Digital Medium Format on a Budget! - Kipon Baveyes MF Focal Reducer - YouTube

I'll view this when time allows. Thanks for posting. Seems a little unlikely that this would mimic medium format. I always thought it was the bigger film/sensor that made medium and large format look different. If it's a longer focal length lens, then bolting a tele on ff should pull off the job.
Thanks,
barondla

[BruceBanner]

Hi,

I wonder if it really works all that well.

I learned long ago that using optics to reduce the image circle out of a main lens to then fit a smaller area imager was, at best, iffy. That was done in a joint venture DSLR from Nikon and Fuji back around 1998 or so. The Nikon E-series and the Fujix DS-5xx series. They had used the reducer optics to force fit the output of F-mount lenses onto a smaller imager chip. Full Frame right out of the gate. Well, sort of....

They had two versions of the reducer optics, in the Nikon nomenclature the E2 and the E3. I had the E2 first and then the E3 as it was supposed to be much improved. I found that to be not so much.... And, so, my attempt at getting into the DSLR world by buying used E-series on the cheap vs the new D1 was rather a miss.

That left me rather skeptical about ever using reducing optics again.... Just food for thought.

Oh, and the entire arrangement led to a camera body that was as large as a 645. :P

Stan

I'll view this when time allows. Thanks for posting. Seems a little unlikely that this would mimic medium format. I always thought it was the bigger film/sensor that made medium and large format look different. If it's a longer focal length lens, then bolting a tele on ff should pull off the job.
Thanks,
barondla

Yeah, honestly I have no idea. It's just something I stumbled upon during my MF research. The thread title is of this post is all about 'Cheapest Used Digital MF Camera to Buy', and whilst an A7 is not MF, paired with this thing and MF glass... I have to say the results from that one video alone are quite convincing. I have done a small amount of research and asking about this Kipon speedbooster (FF>MF) and it does seem to hold up as a very decent piece of kit with not a lot of negativity attached to it.

So, we have some pros and cons coming to mind;

Pros

- Cost. Official Sony Australia are selling a refurb (24 month warranty) A7 for $999AUD. The Kipon adapter is $695USD (you can get Pentax6/7 or 645 mount), which with shipping from B&H puts it at $1098AUD, it's literally more expensive than the camera But still... I have not seen a used 645D in oz go for less than $2.3k (AUD).

- Features. If we compare fps, the usability of both camera systems... the Sony might be wiping the floor with the 645D (and Z prolly) for features, fps, buffer, ease of focus... etc etc.

- Weight/Size. I don't think this is even a competition here? The camera body of the A7 is very small and tight, even with adapter and lens it's surely far more practical to shoot with vs a D or Z?

- Upgradeable. I believe you can trade in the Sony A7 for a A7II (and then A7III later) and thus gain more megapixels/features etc, this might be a cheaper way to 'move forward' with the MF look rather than selling an entire (expensive) camera body and moving from one body to another (D to Z for example).


Cons

- Is it Comparable? How well does it work? Are the results convincing?

- No AF. Or at least as I have understood AF is quite poor and slow, it might work ok for some slow shots but its best to think of it as MF only shooting (but then, EVF is typically easier for MF with).

I can't help feel that this option needs added to the table for a cheap method into 'Medium Format' style imagery. I mean it might break all the rules and not really be MF, but all I care about is the end result (image), if it looks and feels MF and the speedbooster is doing a good job... then... then...

My problem currently is finding a resource with images taken with this Kipon adapter to better assess its success or failings. $2k+ is quite a gamble on something that might just not work.

[hjoseph7]

Hi,

I just went through this process myself about a month ago. Like you, not in a financial position to buy a GFX 100. Or, a 50s for that matter. I have not seen a 645Z priced low enough either. But, I did see a few 645D units which I could afford.

I used to use a Contax 645 with a 16 MP Kodak back alongside a Nikon F5 with a 6 MP Kodak back. Now I have a 16 MP Nikon Df and wanted something Medium Format to go with. That the 645D has a Kodak CCD is even better in my book.

Here is what I wound up with, body and lenses and their cost. The camera and all but the 300mm by way of lenses came from a camera shop. I presume a trade-in, but I didn't specifically ask if they all came from the same client.


645D w/battery and one 32GB card: $1567.71
645 FA 45-85/4.5: $190.25
645 FA 80-160/4.5: $291.06
645 A* 300/4: $200.00
645 1.4x Converter A: $46.84
645 2x Converter A: $43.69
645 FA 200/4: $133.88
Hood for FA 200/4: $21.66
Second Pentax brand new battery: $16.99
Second 32GB 40x memory card: $6.30
Generic remote shutter release: $6.46 (I had to trim the overmold plastic on the plug for it to fit the camera)

This entire setup was less cost than if I had gone for a higher res Nikon body. Which, I was hesitant to do as my Nikon lenses are from the film era and likely to not perform so well above 30 MP.

I don't think you can do better buying into a medium format digital system than this. And, the lenses will work as manual focus on a Fuji GFX body later on.

And, my lens choices came from many posts on the 645D and Z. Go back through the 90-some pages here in this forum. There is a ton of threads and posts.

Stan

The 645D is smaller than the 645Z (which is HUGE) and some say the images come out better. I'm thinking about bypassing the K1 altogether and going with a 645D. If I could get a kit like you have I would be in heaven....

[BruceBanner]

The 645D is smaller than the 645Z (which is HUGE) and some say the images come out better. I'm thinking about bypassing the K1 altogether and going with a 645D. If I could get a kit like you have I would be in heaven....

Yeah, my thinking is similar (although I have the K-1 already I would be thinking to sell it (and some FF glass) to fund the 645D). I'd be pursuing the Fuji mentality but doing it with Pentax prolly running with a K-new + 645D (and a KP for backup). I believe (for events) the K-new should work better (than the K-1) and overcome a few niggles (better buffer, fps and AF performance), so the K-new becomes the 'bread and butter', but I still think the 645D would be used in a lot of shots as well. I'd treat it more like a film camera than digital (shoot it occasionally, don't chimp, just keep carrying on with the K-new). I mean there already exists plenty of hybrid wedding photographers who shoot film and digital, I would be treating the 645D in a similar way.
But that's just events, there are heaps of slower shooting paid work such as landscape use that I would adore a 645D.

[w2ck]

Hi,

Well, the 645Z is the same height and width as the 645D. The depth is 4mm greater, probably due to the articulating rear screen which the D does not have. The weight is slightly greater by 70 grams. So, I don't think you'd notice that the D is smaller and lighter than the Z after the first minute with it in your hand.

Just about everything is better in the Z than the D, except for the used market price tag. The difference in the image appearance between CMOS and CCD is really a matter of individual preference. In good light, both are just fine. In lower light, the CMOS wins and the CCD isn't really in the race.

For my usage, the CCD is good. Most of my many digital SLRs have been CCD anyway, and most of those were Kodak sensors. So, I am 'at home'. As I think on it, I have had only two CMOS sensors over the decades (and there is something for me to think about right there): The Canon 1Ds mk-I and my current Nikon Df. In time, though, I expect I will wind up with a 645Z as well. Probably soon after there is an upgraded model. Anyone up for a a 645 (insert your favorite letter here, mine is X) with the 100 MP Sony sensor?

Oh, and to put size into perspective, my first DSLR was a Nikon E2 and it was a large and heavy as the 645D but only gave 1.3 MP using F mount lenses. (!)

Stan

[texandrews]

The 645D is smaller than the 645Z (which is HUGE)

Exaggeration. Big, very much so. HUGE, not really. And the ergonomics are great.

and some say the images come out better.

Yes, for certain things. like maybe skin tones, CCD OOC images may have more appeal. But there's always PP, and the iso advantages of the Z are mind blowing.

I'm thinking about bypassing the K1 altogether and going with a 645D. If I could get a kit like you have I would be in heaven....

Think hard: the K1 is a fine camera, really fine! I have a Z and a K1 for backup. If my Z goes down, with P/S I know I could get great images with the K1. But yeah, if you had a kit like that, or mine (DFA 25, 28-45, DFA 35, 45 shift (Arsat?), DFA 55, FA45-85, FA 75, 75 LS, FA 45-85, DFA 90, LS 135, FA 150, FA 200, A* 300, plus 1.4 and 2x telconverters...), yeah, you'd be in heaven. I'm not bragging about that kit, but I am not wealthy by a very, very wide margin. For my work, there's pretty much nothing that will be thrown at me that I can't handle.

And of course I can use all of those lenses on my K1 with the Pentax K mount adapter....

[BruceBanner]

Exaggeration. Big, very much so. HUGE, not really. And the ergonomics are great. Yes, for certain things. like maybe skin tones, CCD OOC images may have more appeal. But there's always PP, and the iso advantages of the Z are mind blowing. Think hard: the K1 is a fine camera, really fine! I have a Z and a K1 for backup. If my Z goes down, with P/S I know I could get great images with the K1. But yeah, if you had a kit like that, or mine (DFA 25, 28-45, DFA 35, 45 shift (Arsat?), DFA 55, FA45-85, FA 75, 75 LS, FA 45-85, DFA 90, LS 135, FA 150, FA 200, A* 300, plus 1.4 and 2x telconverters...), yeah, you'd be in heaven. I'm not bragging about that kit, but I am not wealthy by a very, very wide margin. For my work, there's pretty much nothing that will be thrown at me that I can't handle.

And of course I can use all of those lenses on my K1 with the Pentax K mount adapter....

Talking of using those MF lenses on the K-1, I take it we lose nothing in terms of IQ or AF? And the same is true for crop bodies (KP etc)?

I'm just curious, with the 4:3 sensor how do the lenses perform on a 3:2 (I mean obviously the glass covers the sensor)... but like... I understand when going from Crop to FF we do the 1.5x thing, but those are two sensors running at 3:2 making comparisons more easy.

How can we get ballpark comparisons for FL and DoF similarities for the 645 lenses on FF and Crop bodies?

For example, when I try and work out how my F28/2.8 renders on my KP I do;

28x1.5 = 42mm
2.8x1.5 = f4.2

So the F28 on my KP renders like a 42mm f4.2 FF lens would (although of course it is exposing and letting light in at f2.8, just purely meaning how the DoF presents itself).

If pursuing a 645 I would be keen to reduce my overall kit and let every possible ounce of glass I have here go for sale to help with the proceeds, I'm just not sure what kind of results are to be expected when using MF glass on FF and Crop bodies...

[texandrews]

Talking of using those MF lenses on the K-1, I take it we lose nothing in terms of IQ or AF? And the same is true for crop bodies (KP etc)?

I'm just curious, with the 4:3 sensor how do the lenses perform on a 3:2 (I mean obviously the glass covers the sensor)... but like... I understand when going from Crop to FF we do the 1.5x thing, but those are two sensors running at 3:2 making comparisons more easy.

How can we get ballpark comparisons for FL and DoF similarities for the 645 lenses on FF and Crop bodies?

For example, when I try and work out how my F28/2.8 renders on my KP I do;

28x1.5 = 42mm
2.8x1.5 = f4.2

So the F28 on my KP renders like a 42mm f4.2 FF lens would (although of course it is exposing and letting light in at f2.8, just purely meaning how the DoF presents itself).

If pursuing a 645 I would be keen to reduce my overall kit and let every possible ounce of glass I have here go for sale to help with the proceeds, I'm just not sure what kind of results are to be expected when using MF glass on FF and Crop bodies...

Well, funny you should ask. I'm about to do some experiments with the 90 at least. I used to have a Rinocam(sp?) that would accept 645 lenses on the front side and my A7R on the back, and it enabled precise stitch imaging, but I never used it much because the Z came on the market and I decided to snap it up. So, I think during lockdown (still in it here with respect to work) it's time to try this. Maybe this weekend/coming week (although I have a full plate...)

[rdenney]

If you want 4x3, you have to crop the sides off of 24x36, and the equivalency is based on height. It’s about 73% (or 1.36).

If you want 3x2, you have to crop the top and bottom of the 645 frame, and the equivalency is based on length—82%, or 1.22.

The usual correction is based on the diagonal.

I usually print on 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20, so I use a height equivalency when pondering it.

But as you gain experience, you learn to think natively in each format, based on the effect you want, without having to perform an equivalency conversion.

Rick “depth of field depends on aperture size (not ratio), and intended enlargement magnification” Denney

[Pablo Villegas]

I get a little uneasy when people talk about paid for work (especially weddings) but looking to use old, used gear on cost grounds. For this you should be using the most likely to be reliable gear (i.e.newer rather than older) with a backup (or two). If you charge for the job correctly, it shouldn't take long for even a new Z to pay for itself.

That said, the D is a fine MF DSLR if you've got the time to be patient for the image review to display. Current used costs make it very affordable - although I'd buy from a dealer with warranty or support. Probably the most important improvement in the Z is the increased response to both shooting and review - both sound important for weddings & events (perhaps less so for posed shots or portraits where you can control things better).

Perception plays a big part in marketing - when a bride's friend is looking for a photographer, they may remember the wedding guy with that 'big' camera Uncle Harry doesn't have more vividly.

Yeah, I would never use a 645D for a wedding. It’s very slow to shoot with and the focus is a real problem, you only get about 11 focus points, but they’re all crammed in the middle. So, you’ll need to focus and recompose, which will take the main thing you want in focus, to be slightly out of focus, unless you’re shooting at F8 or above. I’m finding out that for the same reason, eve portraits are hard to do on location(interiors) try to shoot at F8 in location, you’ll need a high ISO, something that highly affects image quality in CCD sensors.
Tight close ups are no problem, or even lest say medium close shot, but an environmental portrait will lose focus on the subject.
You need to treat the D like a film camera, you don’t know what you’re going to get, until you get home and look at the photos in a computer. The review is painfully slow, and you’ll need to underexposed, because for some reason, anything white or almost white, will get clip warnings when the rest is correctly exposed, it’s has a tiny latitude in the highlights, so, you’ll need to underexposed.

Having said that, it’s a great camera for personal work and family, travel photos. I haven’t used it in two years, and just took it out, because I bought a new lens, the FA 120 Macro, and have been shooting my daughter a lot. Around the house and outside. I want to use it for a portrait personal project I wat to do. But for 99% of the paying jobs, I’ll use my Sony A7RIII.

Some of those recent shots with the 645D.











I just noticed that I tend to frame with a lot of air above the subject, because of the focus points thing.

---------- Post added 08-24-20 at 11:56 PM ----------

Oh, forgot to mentioned that I have done paying jobs with the 645D, but only in the studio, where you can shoot at F8 without a problem.

[w2ck]

Hi,

Yes, my shooting with the 645D is of things which decidedly do not move and are in good light. So, use a tripod, mirror up, a remote trigger and take lots of time.

Lighthouses. This is why I bought the gear in the first place. I am going to produce quilt blocks on a special fabric inkjet printer. The plan is to begin here in NC, but then expand North and South and eventually get all the Atlantic coast lighthouses.



Currituck, the Northenrmost in NC.

And, on the printer:



This one is a cell phone shot. I need to grab one of these quilt blocks and set it up and shoot it with the 645D. But, this shows the printer right after it finished.

Stan

[sheridangis]

645D is a great camera. Had use of one for a while but could not keep it.