[Sprky1285]

Good for you, lucky guy ! Knowing the quality of the P67 200 mm f/4 lens, a price of 100 $ is a steal. All metal, focusing like a dream, tack sharp, built to last a lifetime, what more can you wish for.

Regards

To whomever is knowledgeable or interested,

Is it worth it to get a medium format digital Pentax camera right now? As for the same price I could get some stellar performing Fuji Corp-Medium formats SLR, or hell even a like new film Mamiya RB67 with some killer lenses.

Obviously the sensor size and pixel dimensions are important, but I can get a brand new Sony A7rIV with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for less then a brand new 645z.

I have always wanted a medium format camera but think film is the way to go. Any opinions on the Pentax 645's and 67's versus the Mamiya 645's and 67's?

[RICHARD L.]

Well I wouldn't want to badmouth Mamiya's as I never used or even saw one. I got a brand-new Pentax 67 in 1991, liked it a lot but changed it for a new 67 II as soon as the new model was available. The viewfinder of the 67 II is a wonder to behold, bright and "enormous" compared to smaller sized cameras. Then I purchased a used 645N for 600 $ on eBay from Japan and started adding 645 lenses to my arsenal. Pentax medium-format lenses (645 as well as 67's) perform splendidly, great sharpness and contrast, mechanically well-built and the FA 645 series even offers autofocus on the 645N or newer digital 645D or 645Z. Mamiya's have a film back that is interchangeable in mid-roll, which may prove a deal breaker if you need this feature while Pentaxes only have fixed film backs. Personally, I was always very satisfied with my Pentax film cameras and the results they produced (landscape pictures on a tripod for the most part).

Regards

[barondla]

To whomever is knowledgeable or interested,

Is it worth it to get a medium format digital Pentax camera right now? As for the same price I could get some stellar performing Fuji Corp-Medium formats SLR, or hell even a like new film Mamiya RB67 with some killer lenses.

Obviously the sensor size and pixel dimensions are important, but I can get a brand new Sony A7rIV with a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for less then a brand new 645z.

I have always wanted a medium format camera but think film is the way to go. Any opinions on the Pentax 645's and 67's versus the Mamiya 645's and 67's?

Interrresting question. Last April I was in the same boat. Should I get a Pentax 645 digital or just stay with the Pentax K-1 and multiple lenses already owned? I was teetering back and forth until a very affordable 645Z body appeared. I jumped. Only had the Z, the A 120 macro and 75, 165, and 200 from the Pentax 67 to shoot. Now have 645 HD DFA 35, DFA 55, FA 80-160, FA 300, and FA 400. Plus Arsat 30 fisheye, Pentax 67 120 soft lens and another lens.

So the plot should be clear. I shoot the digital 645Z all the time. The K-1 once in a while, the film Pentax 67's almost never. I wouldn't invest huge money into a film system unless it was 4x5 or larger. Definitely not Pentax or Fuji digital format amounts of money.

Unless you buy the 100mp Fuji, they don't arguably have any better image quality than the comparably priced Pentax 645Z. Same Sony sensor. The Fuji lenses might have a more modern look than some of the Pentax. That isn't necessarily better, just different. My 645Z and all the 645 lenses cost less used than the Fuji 100mp body sells for. Pentax is where the deals are. Besides, I left Fuji medium format year's ago for Pentax.

Thanks,
barondla

[Sprky1285]

Well I wouldn't want to badmouth Mamiya's as I never used or even saw one. I got a brand-new Pentax 67 in 1991, liked it a lot but changed it for a new 67 II as soon as the new model was available. The viewfinder of the 67 II is a wonder to behold, bright and "enormous" compared to smaller sized cameras. Then I purchased a used 645N for 600 $ on eBay from Japan and started adding 645 lenses to my arsenal. Pentax medium-format lenses (645 as well as 67's) perform splendidly, great sharpness and contrast, mechanically well-built and the FA 645 series even offers autofocus on the 645N or newer digital 645D or 645Z. Mamiya's have a film back that is interchangeable in mid-roll, which may prove a deal breaker if you need this feature while Pentaxes only have fixed film backs. Personally, I was always very satisfied with my Pentax film cameras and the results they produced (landscape pictures on a tripod for the most part).

Regards

Thank you,

A thoughtful response that will aid in my decision making. I just love the legacy Pentax systems. The Ricosians may still have a hold on me yet.

---------- Post added 04-20-21 at 12:41 PM ----------

Interrresting question. Last April I was in the same boat. Should I get a Pentax 645 digital or just stay with the Pentax K-1 and multiple lenses already owned? I was teetering back and forth until a very affordable 645Z body appeared. I jumped. Only had the Z, the A 120 macro and 75, 165, and 200 from the Pentax 67 to shoot. Now have 645 HD DFA 35, DFA 55, FA 80-160, FA 300, and FA 400. Plus Arsat 30 fisheye, Pentax 67 120 soft lens and another lens.

So the plot should be clear. I shoot the digital 645Z all the time. The K-1 once in a while, the film Pentax 67's almost never. I wouldn't invest huge money into a film system unless it was 4x5 or larger. Definitely not Pentax or Fuji digital format amounts of money.

Unless you buy the 100mp Fuji, they don't arguably have any better image quality than the comparably priced Pentax 645Z. Same Sony sensor. The Fuji lenses might have a more modern look than some of the Pentax. That isn't necessarily better, just different. My 645Z and all the 645 lenses cost less used than the Fuji 100mp body sells for. Pentax is where the deals are. Besides, I left Fuji medium format year's ago for Pentax.

Thanks,
barondla

Barondia,

Some great information here. I greatly appreciate it. You have amassed quite the arsenal there, and I am quite envious. You are right about the aesthetics. The K-1 as well as new K3- Mark III are pinnacles of traditional/modern Pentax aesthetic that seem to be missing in the 645Z. Don't get me wrong it looks like a beast in it's own right, but if this were a Disney fairytale the Pentax 645Z would be the one trying to find true love before the last rose pedal falls. The Fuji Crop-Mediums on the other hand do catch the eye with a little more lust.

But no one looks at a printed image and thinks less or more of it if the photon capturing device won the most recent America's Next Top Model. The proof is in the pudding, the pudding here being the RAW file. I do love what people on this forums are outputting, so I will take that into consideration. Pentax was my first film camera and taught me the basics of exposing. Now I don't have any medium format Pentax lenses (or any medium format lenses for that matter) so I am not beholden to any one mount, but gosh darn if Pentax holds that special place in my heart.

This really helps. Thanks!

[RICHARD L.]

Never forget that the 645Z is in reality just a K3 "on steroids". All the electronic functions are similar.

Regards

[barondla]

Thank you,

A thoughtful response that will aid in my decision making. I just love the legacy Pentax systems. The Ricosians may still have a hold on me yet.

---------- Post added 04-20-21 at 12:41 PM ----------


Barondia,

Some great information here. I greatly appreciate it. You have amassed quite the arsenal there, and I am quite envious. You are right about the aesthetics. The K-1 as well as new K3- Mark III are pinnacles of traditional/modern Pentax aesthetic that seem to be missing in the 645Z. Don't get me wrong it looks like a beast in it's own right, but if this were a Disney fairytale the Pentax 645Z would be the one trying to find true love before the last rose pedal falls. The Fuji Crop-Mediums on the other hand do catch the eye with a little more lust.

But no one looks at a printed image and thinks less or more of it if the photon capturing device won the most recent America's Next Top Model. The proof is in the pudding, the pudding here being the RAW file. I do love what people on this forums are outputting, so I will take that into consideration. Pentax was my first film camera and taught me the basics of exposing. Now I don't have any medium format Pentax lenses (or any medium format lenses for that matter) so I am not beholden to any one mount, but gosh darn if Pentax holds that special place in my heart.

This really helps. Thanks!

Well, the Pentax 645's have always had a different look than the 35mm shaped Pentax. Where the "brick" shaped 645 excels is handling. The balance is superb. I have small hands and the K-1 grip is the most uncomfortable of all my Pentax. The big 645 grip is sublime. When taking pictures I pay more attention to the subject than what my camera looks like.

I have amassed lots of lenses . More than ever expected. Most expensive lens was the HD 35. At $900 used, I splurged. Wanted a great lens for landscapes and architecture. Is there a $900 Fuji lens? Nah. The A 120 macro and FA 80- 160 zooms were $160 each. New Fuji lenses are about 10x that amount. The used FA 300 & 400 were under $500 each. The Fuji body is great but it ain't doing much without lenses.

If my Pentax 645Z broke today I'd be replacing it with a new one tomorrow. It is a joy to use and the image quality is exceptional. With the problems I've had with Fuji, it would take a lot of thought to commit to their medium format system.

Thanks,
barondla

[johnha]

So the plot should be clear. I shoot the digital 645Z all the time. The K-1 once in a while, the film Pentax 67's almost never.

My experience mirrors this. I have a P67 with several lenses (and by chance a 645 adapter). I found a reasonably priced 645D body and used it initially with 67 lenses (I now have several 645 FA lenses). I prefer the 645D, mostly use the K-1 only when travelling and hardly shoot the 67.

I also have a Mamiya 645 from ages back but rarely use it. Bear in mind that exotic film cameras are increasing in price, while 'old' digital ones are falling rapidly. It probably won't be long before they cross over.

[barondla]

Bear in mind that exotic film cameras are increasing in price, while 'old' digital ones are falling rapidly. It probably won't be long before they cross over.

Fascinating point! The Pentax 67II is getting up there in price. Used medium format lens prices are also rising. My move to mf digital would cost more now than last year. Glad I did it last year.

Many 645D/Z people have other high spec FF bodies. Most say they'd rather be shooting with the 645.

Thanks,
barondla

[Sprky1285]

Well, the Pentax 645's have always had a different look than the 35mm shaped Pentax. Where the "brick" shaped 645 excels is handling. The balance is superb. I have small hands and the K-1 grip is the most uncomfortable of all my Pentax. The big 645 grip is sublime. When taking pictures I pay more attention to the subject than what my camera looks like.

I have amassed lots of lenses . More than ever expected. Most expensive lens was the HD 35. At $900 used, I splurged. Wanted a great lens for landscapes and architecture. Is there a $900 Fuji lens? Nah. The A 120 macro and FA 80- 160 zooms were $160 each. New Fuji lenses are about 10x that amount. The used FA 300 & 400 were under $500 each. The Fuji body is great but it ain't doing much without lenses.

If my Pentax 645Z broke today I'd be replacing it with a new one tomorrow. It is a joy to use and the image quality is exceptional. With the problems I've had with Fuji, it would take a lot of thought to commit to their medium format system.

Thanks,
barondla

I may have had previous misconceptions about the 645 series glass. Was unaware of the affordability. You almost cannot find a single pro series lens on any modern mirrorless kit for under $1000. Obviously there are worthy alternatives and excellent third party sources but still difficult. And since I already own certain Pentax lenses, I know the quality and craftsmanship of their glass.

Another point to Pentax!!

[jslifoaw]

The older A and FA lenses are generally good and quite inexpensive (in $CAD, many are obtainable for $100-200 each, with FA lenses sometimes closer to $200-500 with some exceptions).

That being said, the modern DA and DFA lenses are truly outstanding:
-you get AW (excluding the 35mm)
-you get quiet AF with full time manual focus (excluding the 35mm; no need for the clutch that most FA lenses have in common with 35mm format FA* lenses)
-you get SR (28-45mm and 90mm)
-you get top optical quality (at a cost)

I couldn't possibly justify brand new prices, but on the used market, the 645Z and the top DFA/DA lenses are comparably priced to brand new premium 35mm Pentax gear (typically in the $2000-$3000 CAD range)

[RICHARD L.]

Over the years, I purchased 13 P67 lenses, from 45 mm to 500 mm including the 2 zooms. Then I started amassing P645 lenses for my 645N and I finally got a 645Z in 2017, six zooms (2 A's and 4 FA's) and eleven fixed focal lengths (A wide-angles and FA teles) for a total of 17 lenses. So, with 30 lenses, you can call me a "hoarder" if you want ... LOL ! All are surprisingly good despite what we keep hearing that "medium-format lenses are inferior optics" because they don't have to be that good as the size of the recording medium (sensor) compensates for their mediocrity. People who say that usually don't own any of these lenses. When you mount a medium-format lens on a K1 or a K3, you realise how sharp they are. P67 lenses additionally have a "deep contrast" not seen on any other lens series.


Regards

[barondla]

I may have had previous misconceptions about the 645 series glass. Was unaware of the affordability. You almost cannot find a single pro series lens on any modern mirrorless kit for under $1000. Obviously there are worthy alternatives and excellent third party sources but still difficult. And since I already own certain Pentax lenses, I know the quality and craftsmanship of their glass.

Another point to Pentax!!

I had the same misconceptions. Figured I could swing a body a $5k, but not those $2-4k each lenses. Figure I'd need at least 3 lenses. Just not happening.

Then people here pointed out the affordable used lenses. The rest is history. Take a look at the market place here, KEH, Used Photo Pro, and eBay.

Thanks,
barondla

[cobbu2]

At the same time, on the rare occasions that there has ever been a problem with an item from a Japanese seller, I was always able to return it with a full refund. A couple sellers said to not even bother to return it and I still got my money back.