[stevebrot]

I know a digital 67 would be super cost prohibitive but I wonder if it'd make sense in any universe to make a modern film 67 in the 21st century. I imagine there are quite a few pros who still shoot medium format with film professionally.

There are technical reasons why we don't have a 6x7 digital sensor. As for 6x7 film cameras, one can still order a new Alpa configured for 6x7 roll film and yes, there are are still pros that use medium and large format film.

ALPA / Linhof rollfilm back

PhotoKlassic Magazine on the Alpa for roll film (PDF, German) (Shows cool photo of the kit assembled.)

A less expensive, but equally cool option might be the Horseman SW612D...




Steve

[Pål Jensen]

The 645 has about 1.5cm longer mount to sensor distance than a K-mount camera. Hence, it possible to visualize a 645 as a larger (mostly depth) K-1. Then there's the question of heat....

[TDvN57]

Perhaps ergonomics has a role to play in the shape of the 645z. From memory the handling and feel is very similar to the film 645. With the larger 645 lenses the whole kit feels balanced and easy to walk around with, at least for me.

[Pål Jensen]

The greatest thing with 645 body style is the two tripod sockets.....

[w2ck]

Hi,

And, boy! have I been making much use out of the vertical tripod socket, shooting these lighthouses. I absolutely love that aspect of the design.

Stan

[RobA_Oz]

645N ii:
DIMENSIONS & WEIGHT
Width 5.9 in
Depth 4.6 in
Height 4.4 in
Weight 45.15 oz

645z:
DIMENSIONS & WEIGHT
Width 6.1 in
Depth 4.8 in
Height 4.6 in
Weight 54.9 oz

The size and proportions are very similar to the original film design. There's a little more space behind the sensor, but not a lot. Granted the design of the film version has more depth behind the film plane than a 35mm already and this adds to that, but the lcd requires electronics and heat has to be able to get away from the sensor. Also the design looks like it used some fairly large components.

I’d never looked closely at that cutaway image before, but there are several interesting things I hadn’t realised about the 645 series, before, like the inclined focussing screen and the stacked prism glass. It also suggests there’d be a few redesign issues to turn it into a Full Frame 645 body, such as dealing with the AF optics and electronics that seem as if they’d intrude into the larger light path. Also, while there’s plenty of room behind the sensor sub-assembly, adding SR (and the allied benefits) to the 645 might be a challenge if the height of that sub-assembly can’t be reduced. All speculation on my part, of course. I would imagine that the engineers at Ricoh would have looked hard at those issues.

I’ve only come across one photographer here who uses a 645Z, and he’s a professional nature photographer who just loves the proportions of the camera. He also intensely disliked the Hasselblad MF digital (I can’t remember which one) and shoots both Nikon and Canon gear as well.

[UncleVanya]

I’ve only come across one photographer here who uses a 645Z, and he’s a professional nature photographer who just loves the proportions of the camera. He also intensely disliked the Hasselblad MF digital (I can’t remember which one) and shoots both Nikon and Canon gear as well.

Do you mean one professional photographer or just one photographer? Because I've talked to a half dozen folks who post regularly and shoot the 645z.

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 11-25-2020 at 11:09 PM.

[TDvN57]

I’d never looked closely at that cutaway image before, but there are several interesting things I hadn’t realised about the 645 series, before, like the inclined focussing screen and the stacked prism glass. It also suggests there’d be a few redesign issues to turn it into a Full Frame 645 body, such as dealing with the AF optics and electronics that seem as if they’d intrude into the larger light path. Also, while there’s plenty of room behind the sensor sub-assembly, adding SR (and the allied benefits) to the 645 might be a challenge if the height of that sub-assembly can’t be reduced. All speculation on my part, of course. I would imagine that the engineers at Ricoh would have looked hard at those issues.

I’ve only come across one photographer here who uses a 645Z, and he’s a professional nature photographer who just loves the proportions of the camera. He also intensely disliked the Hasselblad MF digital (I can’t remember which one) and shoots both Nikon and Canon gear as well.

I'm beginning to think that shake reduction is perhaps less valuable than better low light performance. I know this sounds contrarian, but think about it for a second. The best SR system advertise 5 stops benefit. Well for starters, 5 stops from what kind of shaking? Obviously is based on some lab designated shake standard. How does that standard compare to realistic in the field conditions? And do I really get 5 stops SR or actually only 3 or at best 4 based on my reality. Maybe it's because I may shake more than what I used to.

On the other hand, if the camera development is done with better low light performance ie. cleaner pictures at higher iso, well then I can crank up my shutter speed say 3 or 4 f-stops and then I know I have a realistic reduction in shake effect on the picture. Not some promised lab based standard 5 stop SR.

So if I have two options, get the 5 stop SR, or get 3 or 4 stops better iso performance, I'll take the iso option.

Just my 2 cents...

[RobA_Oz]

Do you mean one professional photographer or just one photographer? Because I've talked to a half dozen folks who lost regularly and shoot the 645z.

Ah, sorry. I meant I only know of one here in Australia, and he isn't a Forum member.

[RobA_Oz]

I'm beginning to think that shake reduction is perhaps less valuable than better low light performance. I know this sounds contrarian, but think about it for a second. The best SR system advertise 5 stops benefit. Well for starters, 5 stops from what kind of shaking? Obviously is based on some lab designated shake standard. How does that standard compare to realistic in the field conditions? And do I really get 5 stops SR or actually only 3 or at best 4 based on my reality. Maybe it's because I may shake more than what I used to.

On the other hand, if the camera development is done with better low light performance ie. cleaner pictures at higher iso, well then I can crank up my shutter speed say 3 or 4 f-stops and then I know I have a realistic reduction in shake effect on the picture. Not some promised lab based standard 5 stop SR.

So if I have two options, get the 5 stop SR, or get 3 or 4 stops better iso performance, I'll take the iso option.

Just my 2 cents...

I would guess that, for the sort of work that's done with MF, the allied benefits of SR might be more important than its low light performance. The principal benefit, of course, be the increased DR, but if they were to introduce sub-pixel displacements, a significantly greater resolution would be possible. I recall one of the other MF makers was offering this.

[SylvainB]

Hasselblad is still offering that (H6D 400 MS) : MS for Multi Shot, 100MP sensor moving to combine files and produce 400MP pictures. But this Hasselblad body doesn't offer image stabilization.

(…) I would imagine that the engineers at Ricoh would have looked hard at those issues (…)

I guess so, because Pentax had signed an agreement with Sony to make preliminary study with the 100MP full size sensor long time ago. So they probably made prototypes to integrate this bigger sensor and see how it can fit in the body we know.

[kaseki]

I'm beginning to think that shake reduction is perhaps less valuable than better low light performance. I know this sounds contrarian, but think about it for a second. The best SR system advertise 5 stops benefit. Well for starters, 5 stops from what kind of shaking? Obviously is based on some lab designated shake standard. How does that standard compare to realistic in the field conditions? And do I really get 5 stops SR or actually only 3 or at best 4 based on my reality. Maybe it's because I may shake more than what I used to.

On the other hand, if the camera development is done with better low light performance ie. cleaner pictures at higher iso, well then I can crank up my shutter speed say 3 or 4 f-stops and then I know I have a realistic reduction in shake effect on the picture. Not some promised lab based standard 5 stop SR.

So if I have two options, get the 5 stop SR, or get 3 or 4 stops better iso performance, I'll take the iso option.

Just my 2 cents...

Excellent point, and a factor in my buying a 645Z after discovering that my 645N could not be hand-held steadily enough (by me, at least) in overcast daytime conditions due to the low ISO range of most film. I'm unclear whether the DFA lenses with SR would RS on the 645N. Maybe a future experiment is in order unless someone can clarify.

[UncleVanya]

Ah, sorry. I meant I only know of one here in Australia, and he isn't a Forum member.

I hoping Sandy drops in... He is and definitely has a 645z.

[RobA_Oz]

I hoping Sandy drops in... He is and definitely has a 645z.

OK, OK. I really meant knowing personally. I think we chased this one far enough down the rabbit hole.

[UncleVanya]

OK, OK. I really meant knowing personally. I think we chased this one far enough down the rabbit hole.

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I didn't mean to be annoying, I was just confused.