[TDvN57]

Well, here's an update.

Long story short, I bought it!

Couple of thoughts of mine:

The whole "its OK not to have an ultra wide angle because you don't really need it" excuse is extremely poor, and not just because people in forums making excuses for their favorite camera manufacturer makes my eyes bleed, but because there are plenty of reasons to have and use an ultra wide angle. My last 3 trips were to Iceland, the Balkans and Italy, and I found plenty of uses for ultra wide angles - vast mountains, narrow canyons, hiker standing on the edge of a cliff, a up close waterfalls, seaside cliffs, turquoise beach waters, seaside jetties, hiking paths meandering into the distance, tiny orthodox church interiors, and the list goes on.

The wide angle lenses change the value proposition of the whole system. Discontinuation of the 25mm f/4 is completely baffling. The pricing of the 28-45mm is from a bygone era. The only choice is to buy used, but alas, since they are quite rare and expensive new, there's not much choice. The last two used 28-45mm in the EU sold for €1500, which quite frankly isn't bad and I would be willing to pay that, but there simply aren't any for sale. I will just have to wait. Right now, it would actually be cheaper to order used from USA, pay 6.7% import duty and 21% VAT. And this is the case not just for wide angles, but for lots of lenses. Clearly, the availability and the prices of used Pentax gear is vastly different in USA. This has to be taken into account when comparing systems before making a buying choice.

The people who say "the 645Z is still the best for xxxxx", well, to put it bluntly - no, it isn't. The used prices for this gear tell an objective, ruthless story. Undoubtedly, there will be people here eschewing the merits of this system to their dying breath probably a decade from now, however, the rest of the world has basically moved on.


The reasons I bought it:

1) Depreciation has, for the most part, already happened. I can always ebay it and I will lose maybe a couple of hundred euros.

2) Always wanted a medium format. And there it was, in front of me, all I had to do was part with the cash in my pocket. There wasn't really anything to lose.

3) Camera is large, but ergonomics are excellent, no problem using it hand held. Buttons are all where they need to be. Camera speed is satisfactory. 3fps is enough for anything I'd use it for. AF is subpar, but completely workable, I like center point AF best anyway.

4) The 55mm 2.8 lens delivers the exact field of view I was expecting and what I want.

5) Bar the wide angle, all the other lenses I'd buy are pretty cheap. If you don't need the 25, 28-45 or the 90, the value proposition of the whole 645 camera system is fantastic. Comparing used prices you'd have to fork out massively more for a Fuji GFX system and even full frame would be more expensive (if you look at the options near 50MP and lenses to match that). For now I will just make do with the FA 35mm as my widest option.

6) My main camera is an Olympus E-M1 II, which is a fantastic travel camera. This camera complements it really well when I want to do hi-res landscapes.

Your points are very valid for people living in the EU were import duty and VAT is a reality many other countries don't have to deal with.

I have the dfa25 and the 28-45 and I hardly use them. Whenever I use the 28-45 it is usually at a fl in the 30's. So would I buy it again? Perhaps not, because for my purposes I would probably be as happy with the dfa35mm (or fa35mm).

For the types of wide angle shots you refer to, you also need some distortion to add drama, and the 25mm will be more than enough to fill that gap. Not that the 25mm has more distortion, but being a wide angle, it automatically gives a distorted representation of near versus far objects. Perhaps someone can help with the correct terminology here :-)

[texandrews]

Well, here's an update.

Long story short, I bought it!

Couple of thoughts of mine:

The whole "its OK not to have an ultra wide angle because you don't really need it" excuse is extremely poor, and not just because people in forums making excuses for their favorite camera manufacturer makes my eyes bleed, but because there are plenty of reasons to have and use an ultra wide angle. My last 3 trips were to Iceland, the Balkans and Italy, and I found plenty of uses for ultra wide angles - vast mountains, narrow canyons, hiker standing on the edge of a cliff, a up close waterfalls, seaside cliffs, turquoise beach waters, seaside jetties, hiking paths meandering into the distance, tiny orthodox church interiors, and the list goes on.

The wide angle lenses change the value proposition of the whole system. Discontinuation of the 25mm f/4 is completely baffling. The pricing of the 28-45mm is from a bygone era. The only choice is to buy used, but alas, since they are quite rare and expensive new, there's not much choice. The last two used 28-45mm in the EU sold for €1500, which quite frankly isn't bad and I would be willing to pay that, but there simply aren't any for sale. I will just have to wait. Right now, it would actually be cheaper to order used from USA, pay 6.7% import duty and 21% VAT. And this is the case not just for wide angles, but for lots of lenses. Clearly, the availability and the prices of used Pentax gear is vastly different in USA. This has to be taken into account when comparing systems before making a buying choice.

The people who say "the 645Z is still the best for xxxxx", well, to put it bluntly - no, it isn't. The used prices for this gear tell an objective, ruthless story. Undoubtedly, there will be people here eschewing the merits of this system to their dying breath probably a decade from now, however, the rest of the world has basically moved on.


The reasons I bought it:

1) Depreciation has, for the most part, already happened. I can always ebay it and I will lose maybe a couple of hundred euros.

2) Always wanted a medium format. And there it was, in front of me, all I had to do was part with the cash in my pocket. There wasn't really anything to lose.

3) Camera is large, but ergonomics are excellent, no problem using it hand held. Buttons are all where they need to be. Camera speed is satisfactory. 3fps is enough for anything I'd use it for. AF is subpar, but completely workable, I like center point AF best anyway.

4) The 55mm 2.8 lens delivers the exact field of view I was expecting and what I want.

5) Bar the wide angle, all the other lenses I'd buy are pretty cheap. If you don't need the 25, 28-45 or the 90, the value proposition of the whole 645 camera system is fantastic. Comparing used prices you'd have to fork out massively more for a Fuji GFX system and even full frame would be more expensive (if you look at the options near 50MP and lenses to match that). For now I will just make do with the FA 35mm as my widest option.

6) My main camera is an Olympus E-M1 II, which is a fantastic travel camera. This camera complements it really well when I want to do hi-res landscapes.

Well, considering the significant, substantial and for you extremely important negatives you outlined....I'm mystified why you wasted your money, which I think you truly did, given how you feel about the rest of our opinions. I think the best person to comment effectively on all of this is itshimitis---given that he has had both the Pentax 645 system (and used it a lot to great effect) and now the Fuji one. And he also shares I think your concerns and interest in UWA.


I am not one of those who think digital medium format is the answer to all photographic situations/problems (I use both FF and medium format in my professional work) or that the Pentax systems are the best ones available for every photographer (spoken as a former Oly and Sony user, systems I generally loved while I used them). It is for me, though. But I also have a personal quirk you may not have: I need to really like my gear in order to bond with it so I can effectively work. I have to use the museum's Canon cameras on occasion (because they are the best available to me for the job at hand), and I can do it, but it's always grating and I really don't love them---capable tools though they are. Nikon cameras leave me cold as well. I like Sony cameras, although they are a bit small for me now (the A850 was right-sized).

I admire the Fuji cameras, but the EVF on those was a non-starter for me---and I'm not an EVF hater as I liked the one in my A7R and even my NEX7.


IMO,given what you want to do with UWA, you would have been far better off with FF options---which are truly excellent today. Add in P/S and you're getting very close to medium format end results (although some of us think the remaining differences are notable for our work...).

[barondla]

The used prices for this gear tell an objective, ruthless story. Undoubtedly, there will be people here eschewing the merits of this system to their dying breath probably a decade from now, however, the rest of the world has basically moved on.

Welcome to Pentax 645 and this forum. I agree with you about the ultrawide. Bought a DFA 25 two weeks ago. I like extremes - wide and tele. None of the competition have a long lens stable remotely close to Pentax.

Are you saying cheap Pentax lens prices show people are no longer interested in the system? If so, that may be slightly true. There are other reasons, at least in the USA. The Pentax 645 system started in the film era. 120 film allowed greater enlargements for money making portrait and wedding photos. Even when 35mm film improved, 120 had the advantage of allowing retouching on the film. When people ordered 10 of the same print a lot more profit was generated.

Now wedding photography is mostly FF and crop digital. Digital medium format is a smaller niche than film used to be. So the 30+ years of 645 lenses has generated an abundance of glass. Fujifilm would be in the same boat if they had have ever managed to produce a popular interchangeable lens 120 film camera.

A better snapshot of Pentax's 645 popularity might be used body prices. I don't see a lot of difference between the Z and the Film 50mp bodies.

Thanks,
barondla

PS, if Fujifilm really wants to shake up the medium format market they should design a 120 film rangefinder body that uses the new GFX lenses. Film shooters would love to be able to buy a new film camera that isn't 20-30 years old.

[SylvainB]

Welcome to Pentax 645 and this forum. I agree with you about the ultrawide. Bought a DFA 25 two weeks ago. I like extremes - wide and tele. None of the competition have a long lens stable remotely close to Pentax.

Are you saying cheap Pentax lens prices show people are no longer interested in the system? If so, that may be slightly true. There are other reasons, at least in the USA. The Pentax 645 system started in the film era. 120 film allowed greater enlargements for money making portrait and wedding photos. Even when 35mm film improved, 120 had the advantage of allowing retouching on the film. When people ordered 10 of the same print a lot more profit was generated.

Now wedding photography is mostly FF and crop digital. Digital medium format is a smaller niche than film used to be. So the 30+ years of 645 lenses has generated an abundance of glass. Fujifilm would be in the same boat if they had have ever managed to produce a popular interchangeable lens 120 film camera.

A better snapshot of Pentax's 645 popularity might be used body prices. I don't see a lot of difference between the Z and the Film 50mp bodies.

Thanks,
barondla

PS, if Fujifilm really wants to shake up the medium format market they should design a 120 film rangefinder body that uses the new GFX lenses. Film shooters would love to be able to buy a new film camera that isn't 20-30 years old.

I don't think the GFX lenses would cover the film area.

Well, here's an update.

Long story short, I bought it!

Couple of thoughts of mine:

The whole "its OK not to have an ultra wide angle because you don't really need it" excuse is extremely poor, and not just because people in forums making excuses for their favorite camera manufacturer makes my eyes bleed, but because there are plenty of reasons to have and use an ultra wide angle. My last 3 trips were to Iceland, the Balkans and Italy, and I found plenty of uses for ultra wide angles - vast mountains, narrow canyons, hiker standing on the edge of a cliff, a up close waterfalls, seaside cliffs, turquoise beach waters, seaside jetties, hiking paths meandering into the distance, tiny orthodox church interiors, and the list goes on.

The wide angle lenses change the value proposition of the whole system. Discontinuation of the 25mm f/4 is completely baffling. The pricing of the 28-45mm is from a bygone era. The only choice is to buy used, but alas, since they are quite rare and expensive new, there's not much choice. The last two used 28-45mm in the EU sold for €1500, which quite frankly isn't bad and I would be willing to pay that, but there simply aren't any for sale. I will just have to wait. Right now, it would actually be cheaper to order used from USA, pay 6.7% import duty and 21% VAT. And this is the case not just for wide angles, but for lots of lenses. Clearly, the availability and the prices of used Pentax gear is vastly different in USA. This has to be taken into account when comparing systems before making a buying choice.

The people who say "the 645Z is still the best for xxxxx", well, to put it bluntly - no, it isn't. The used prices for this gear tell an objective, ruthless story. Undoubtedly, there will be people here eschewing the merits of this system to their dying breath probably a decade from now, however, the rest of the world has basically moved on.


The reasons I bought it:

1) Depreciation has, for the most part, already happened. I can always ebay it and I will lose maybe a couple of hundred euros.

2) Always wanted a medium format. And there it was, in front of me, all I had to do was part with the cash in my pocket. There wasn't really anything to lose.

3) Camera is large, but ergonomics are excellent, no problem using it hand held. Buttons are all where they need to be. Camera speed is satisfactory. 3fps is enough for anything I'd use it for. AF is subpar, but completely workable, I like center point AF best anyway.

4) The 55mm 2.8 lens delivers the exact field of view I was expecting and what I want.

5) Bar the wide angle, all the other lenses I'd buy are pretty cheap. If you don't need the 25, 28-45 or the 90, the value proposition of the whole 645 camera system is fantastic. Comparing used prices you'd have to fork out massively more for a Fuji GFX system and even full frame would be more expensive (if you look at the options near 50MP and lenses to match that). For now I will just make do with the FA 35mm as my widest option.

6) My main camera is an Olympus E-M1 II, which is a fantastic travel camera. This camera complements it really well when I want to do hi-res landscapes.

I share your point of view, mostly. Ergonomics are very good, and a strong point of the camera. There are a lot of clever tricks to provide a better user experience in a lot of situations. You said AF is subpar, I've seen worse... Just 1 point, and much slower (but precise) on the camera I use. Z's one is more than OK, although too centered by today's standard.
Concerning the lack of UWA, this is what drove me to another system in the end, plus the lack of shift lenses. 28-45 is an unexpectedly good lens, but when shooting buildings (inside and outside), I was too often willing to have a shorter FL.

I hope that you will be able to enjoy the 645Z nonetheless !

---

Last edited by SylvainB; 06-03-2021 at 12:54 AM.

[itshimitis]

Welcome to Pentax 645 and this forum. I agree with you about the ultrawide. Bought a DFA 25 two weeks ago. I like extremes - wide and tele. None of the competition have a long lens stable remotely close to Pentax.

Are you saying cheap Pentax lens prices show people are no longer interested in the system? If so, that may be slightly true. There are other reasons, at least in the USA. The Pentax 645 system started in the film era. 120 film allowed greater enlargements for money making portrait and wedding photos. Even when 35mm film improved, 120 had the advantage of allowing retouching on the film. When people ordered 10 of the same print a lot more profit was generated.

Now wedding photography is mostly FF and crop digital. Digital medium format is a smaller niche than film used to be. So the 30+ years of 645 lenses has generated an abundance of glass. Fujifilm would be in the same boat if they had have ever managed to produce a popular interchangeable lens 120 film camera.

A better snapshot of Pentax's 645 popularity might be used body prices. I don't see a lot of difference between the Z and the Film 50mp bodies.

Thanks,
barondla

PS, if Fujifilm really wants to shake up the medium format market they should design a 120 film rangefinder body that uses the new GFX lenses. Film shooters would love to be able to buy a new film camera that isn't 20-30 years old.

Fuji did two 6 x 7 modern bodies with fixed lenses a few years ago. Excellent quality - didn't get one myself.

---------- Post added 06-03-21 at 05:32 AM ----------

I'm in the EU, so AFAIK, I would have to pay 6.7% import and 21% VAT on these
Also, the last 2 of these on ebay sold for €1500. And there is one on US ebay for $2150 and nobody's buying it.



I got the DFA 55mm f2.8 and FA 35mm f3.5 as part of the deal!

Yes Brexit has a lot to answer for. Wasn't aware where you were from - though the € pricing was a clue. fords are worth bearing in mind though. Very knowledgeable - an excellent pro dealer. Aside from the UWA issues you won't go far wrong with the Z. I had the 25 f/4 and when it was working it was excellent and great drama to the lens. Trouble was that the quality control wasn't great. I had to send back 2 because etc focus mechanism stopped working. Ffordes dealt with both. The third copy got stuck at infinity (which isn't the worst place for it to be stuck tbh) and I got a reasonable price for it from Park Cameras in spite of this.

[SFTphotography]

To the original poster - I would just buy the lens from Ffordes and pay the import duty. It really is worth having and I wouldn't be without it. Optically it is an actual wonder.

Other point - processing wise I use DXO photolab - it again seems to work very well with the 645z files.

[itshimitis]

To the original poster - I would just buy the lens from Ffordes and pay the import duty. It really is worth having and I wouldn't be without it. Optically it is an actual wonder.

Other point - processing wise I use DXO photolab - it again seems to work very well with the 645z files.

If travel restrictions weren't so tight, it would probably be worth flying to Inverness hiring a small car drive to Beauly put the lens on the camera and walk through customs on way back asi f you had the lens with you on the way out. After all, you had a short break in the Scottish Highlands, of course you would have had a good wide angle lens with you

A bit of hassle, but OP, consider keeping an eye on their stock. They aren't too far from Loch Ness, book a weekend away and use what you saved from not paying the duty to pay for it

[SFTphotography]

If travel restrictions weren't so tight, it would probably be worth flying to Inverness hiring a small car drive to Beauly put the lens on the camera and walk through customs on way back asi f you had the lens with you on the way out. After all, you had a short break in the Scottish Highlands, of course you would have had a good wide angle lens with you

A bit of hassle, but OP, consider keeping an eye on their stock. They aren't too far from Loch Ness, book a weekend away and use what you saved from not paying the duty to pay for it

That's a very good suggestion and the OP could make the trip via rental car to GLA and fly back to EU taking the lens to Glencoe/Rannoch Moor.

I am convinced, now more than ever, that if I never left Glencoe (I live near) I could just make do with 1 645z and 28-45.

Actually, scrub flying back from GLA, fly from Edinburgh making a stop at the Kelpies using the 45-85









I've never had a GFX or mirrorless camera but the 645z nails low light focus - it doesn't have many points but crucially it never misses. That's not always a given with other camera systems. For 2021 this is still the best integrated sensor DSLR money can buy and I'd rather have a 645z than a D850.

[itshimitis]

That's a very good suggestion and the OP could make the trip via rental car to GLA and fly back to EU taking the lens to Glencoe/Rannoch Moor.

I am convinced, now more than ever, that if I never left Glencoe (I live near) I could just make do with 1 645z and 28-45.

Actually, scrub flying back from GLA, fly from Edinburgh making a stop at the Kelpies using the 45-85









I've never had a GFX or mirrorless camera but the 645z nails low light focus - it doesn't have many points but crucially it never misses. That's not always a given with other camera systems. For 2021 this is still the best integrated sensor DSLR money can buy and I'd rather have a 645z than a D850.

You could still do Rannoch Moor and Glencoe, just go via Stirling to Edinburgh

[SFTphotography]

You could still do Rannoch Moor and Glencoe, just go via Stirling to Edinburgh

That's what I meant to say - fly back from Edinburgh and down the A82 from Inverness to Crianlarach - follow A84 to Stirling and pick the M9 up to Ediburgh.

Could make a few detours to the Trossachs but they aren't nearly as remarkable as Glencoe/Rannoch Moor.

[ssgalo]

I see that 28-45 is being talked about a lot. Here you can find one for sale at a very good price, in case someone is interested:

For sale PENTAX 28-45mm F4.5 HD DA 645 ED AW SR - PentaxForums.com
It is a fantastic lens. Big, of course, but the quality it delivers is absolutely unmatched.
I have used it a lot to take aerial shots from a helicopter and the result has always been splendid:Aerial | Siqui Sánchez FotografiaSiqui Sánchez Fotografia

[ProfessorBuzz]

This has been a pretty rich and wide ranging discussion.
Anyone care to sum up?
My attempt: The glass is good; the bulk is bad; the pictures are awesome.

[TDvN57]

This has been a pretty rich and wide ranging discussion.
Anyone care to sum up?
My attempt: The glass is good; the bulk is bad; the pictures are awesome.

I agree, except I like the bulk, weighs the same as the skinny gear, just more place to hold on to :-)

[SFTphotography]

I agree, except I like the bulk, weighs the same as the skinny gear, just more place to hold on to :-)

I find it reassuringly expensive feeling. I love the deep handgrip and logical controls. The mass doesn't bother me, but you need a big big bag, a flipside 500 seems really good as it is deep and long, with a large comparyment at the top for the body to fill.

[Its Y I shoot Pentax]

Really good thread as I too have also contemplated taking the medium format plunge. Thank you for the perspectives.