[normhead]

In 67 when I was in Photo Arts at Ryerson Politech, all study work and product photography was done with 8x10 or 4x5 film. There were assignments where we used Pentax SLRs and there was a sign out cupboard full of Pentax lenses. Portrait studios were still shooing 4x5 or 8x10. My cousin the wedding photographer was using Hasselblads and 35mm. He used medium format and 35mm the way I use FF and APS-c. Another friend who was largely a product photographer (but also shot large trucks and automobile shots for G.M.) and graduated maybe 4 years after I did, so say 71, shot almost his whole career in 35mm. Buy the time we were working together in 94, digital was getting started. But he also did 4x5 corporate portraits for a number of organizations. By 2005 we were all Digital.

Despite the fact my first dream camera would have been a Bronica 645 system, the age of large format film was already coming to an end in the 70s. By the 90s almost all the photographers I knew were shooting 35mm for most of their work. That's my own personal perspective from my spot on the sidelines. Personally I had taken the last 2 years of my Photography program digital by 2005. FiIm was Grade 10, 11 and 12 were digital.

To me, in this day and age 645 is fine, as long as it's like the GFX 100s. Not much bigger than an FF and easily portable with DSLR FF ergonomics. But to date I can't think of a meaningful advantage to buying a 645 system as an amateur, beyond having lots of money and being able to afford whatever toys you desire. Seriously, my style is not conducive to a lack of IBIS and clunkiness. Nimble and unobtrusive is what works for me.

As for smart phones, the last wedding I shot a few years ago, the donated smart phone images from various people really enhanced the photo record of the wedding. And the couple didn't make even one print from all the submitted photos. My cousin back in the day made 2/3s of his money from prints and albums that his wife put together. Times have changed.

The need for large format is not the that cell phones take pictures, it's that these days photo albums are stored and displayed on phones, tablet and computers an TVs. And I have a 42x30" image on my wall taken with my K-3 that rivals anything I've ever taken. People vastly under-estimate the fact that you can enlarge digital without enlarging the grain. I have no film prints that in anyway rival my digital prints. Trying to work out comparisons is pretty much apples and oranges.

Is there a future for 645? Right now, my suspicion is that Fuji is eating everyone's lunch. This based on how long the Fuji system has been out, and the number of professional shots I've seen on line using it. And its hard to say if they will even make it. But because of their IQ and pricing, they have a realistic shot, offering a huge improvement over FF, where as if you have a 36 MP FF do you really need a 42 MP MF? There are a number of FFs that are higher res than that. And I'm not really clear on whether Pentax MF glass can handle 100 MP images. I suspect Pentax will not try and take their MF system beyond the niche it now fills. But who knows. Life is full of surprises. When the 645z came out Pentax had the whole lower cost market MF to themselves. Fuji has pretty much eaten their lunch. I can buy a 100 MP Fuji system for lesss than I can buy a 645z and the Fuji system has more modern glass available. The writing is on the wall for the Pentax 645 system.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-30-2021 at 08:24 AM.

[biz-engineer]

To me, in this day and age 645 is fine, as long as it's like the GFX 100s. Not much bigger than an FF and easily portable with DSLR FF ergonomics

It looks like there are some reliability issues on the Fuji 100s. A number of shutter issues and corrupt SD card writing have been reported. There is one for sale used here at the local shop, only a few weeks of use, that's weird. I don't know if those issues have something to do with too much stuff packed into a DSLR sized camera body.

[normhead]

It looks like there are some reliability issues on the Fuji 100s. A number of shutter issues and corrupt SD card writing have been reported. There is one for sale used here at the local shop, only a few weeks of use, that's weird. I don't know if those issues have something to do with too much stuff packed into a DSLR sized camera body.

That's why you don't buy anything until a year has passed. But that being said, the larger the format, the more fiddling about. I also saw Pentax 645sz on sale second hand a year aterr release. Some people just try it and don't like it. Not everyone favours the kind of rugged construction that makes Pentax reliable. So anything is possible.

On Flickr the 645z reports an average of 1 daily user, the Fuji GFX100 has 9. That's pretty clear evidence Pentax has lost whatever market there is. By contrast, the K-3 has 59 average daily users. While I don't expect current users to sell their gear, I also wouldn't expect to see any influx of new users or even a lot of users acquiring new lenses etc.

Reminds me of Monty Python. "The parrot is not dead, it's just sleeping."

Given the new lens system, the high res etc. and the downturn in the camera market -90% sales, it's looking like the GFX was developed at a time when it became unlikely the investment was ever going to be returned. Which basically means no one in the future will be putting out the kind of investment into super hi-res equipment. This GFX series may be the swan song gift to the camera industry. Given current levels of camera sales, it's hard to imagine it will ever again be worth anyone's while to invest in lower cost MF.

[Eric Auer]

That's why you don't buy anything until a year has passed. Bu the being said, the larger the format, the more fiddling about. I also saw Pentax 645s on sale second hand a year later release. Some people just try it and don't like it. Not everyone favours the kind of rugged construction that makes Pentax reliable. So anything is possible.

on Flickr the 645z reports an average of 1 daily user, the Fuji GFX100 has 9. That's pretty clear evidence Pentax has lost whatever market there is. by contrast, the K-3 has 59 average daily users. While I don't expect current users to sell their gear, I also wouldn't expect to see any influx of new users or even a lot of users acquiring new lenses etc.

Reminds me of Monty Python. "The parrot is not dead, it's just sleeping."

Given the new lens system, the high res etc. and the downturn in the camera market -90% sales, it's looking like the GFX was developed at a time when I became unlikely the investment ws ever going to be returned. Which basically mean no one in the future will be putting hit kind o investment into super hi-res equipment. This GFX series may be the swan song gift to the camera industry. Given current levels of camera sales, it's had t imagine it will ever again be worth anyone's while to invest in lower cost MF.

Wild guess:

Majority of 645z owners arent retired guys on Flickr?
And probably don't hang out here either

[normhead]

Wild guess:

Majority of 645z owners arent retired guys on Flickr?
And probably don't hang out here either

Any info is better than no info.

Personally, my interest in the 645z ended when the K-1 came out.

[JPT]

Given the new lens system, the high res etc. and the downturn in the camera market -90% sales, it's looking like the GFX was developed at a time when it became unlikely the investment was ever going to be returned. Which basically means no one in the future will be putting out the kind of investment into super hi-res equipment. This GFX series may be the swan song gift to the camera industry. Given current levels of camera sales, it's hard to imagine it will ever again be worth anyone's while to invest in lower cost MF.

I'm not sure about that. Looking at recent releases from Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fujifilm, it seems that the $4,000+ market is one of the segments that is still healthy. I can' see how amateurs justify buying them, but clearly they can afford it.

As for Pentax, they have a mature system in this segment. I think it would be odd to walk away from selling $5,000+ cameras, so I think they will have some kind of medium format plan.

[biz-engineer]

Given the new lens system, the high res etc. and the downturn in the camera market -90% sales, it's looking like the GFX was developed at a time when it became unlikely the investment was ever going to be returned. Which basically means no one in the future will be putting out the kind of investment into super hi-res equipment.

That thought came to my mind, not about the GFX cameras, but about that 100Mp sensor in it that Fuji only are using. Unless that sensor would be adopted by Nikon (apparently the Z mount is wide enough to fit a 33mmx44mm sensor), Hasselblad and Pentax (next 645z II), it could be the last of its kind being developed for photo cameras, or at least for a while.

[normhead]

As for Pentax, they have a mature system in this segment. I think it would be odd to walk away from selling $5,000+ cameras, so I think they will have some kind of medium format plan.

Their plan is to make money. The product is a good product. they will keep it alive as long as they can.

"it could be the last of its kind being developed for photo cameras, or at least for a while.

"

there could be a lot of things in that category. SO much development depended on out of this world sales bringing ample R&D funds. With the camera market the way it is now, where would those funds come rom?

[biz-engineer]

Personally, my interest in the 645z ended when the K-1 came out.

For me, if I don't already have a 645z camera and lenses, there is not enough difference in image quality with the K1 to justify to cost and bulk of a 645z system, but that's 2021, back 5 years ago the situation was different.

---------- Post added 30-07-21 at 17:17 ----------

With the camera market the way it is now, where would those funds come rom?

R&D funds come from increasing the price of cameras and waiting more years of pay back time, e.g 10 years pay-back instead of 3 years pay-back when the market was up.

[normhead]

For me, if I don't already have a 645z camera and lenses, there is not enough difference in image quality with the K1 to justify to cost and bulk of a 645z system, but that's 2021, back 5 years ago the situation was different.

---------- Post added 30-07-21 at 17:17 ----------


R&D funds come from increasing the price of cameras and waiting more years of pay back time, e.g 10 years pay-back instead of 3 years pay-back when the market was up.

Exactly what I'm expecting. Or those whoo us who were alive since the 60s and bought maybe 6 cameras in 40 years, the last 15 years have been dizzying. Used to be I didn't bother following camera updates. There were times when I went 10 years without using a new camera and 90% of my shooting was on summer vacations, and most of the rest was at Christmas. I was shooing less than 500 images year. Now I sometimes shoot close to 1000 images in a single session.

My K-3 is looking like it might make 10 years, my K-1 will almost certainly make 10 years, should I choose to stay with them that long. So far, there are no compelling reasons not to.

[reh321]

For me, if I don't already have a 645z camera and lenses, there is not enough difference in image quality with the K1 to justify to cost and bulk of a 645z system, but that's 2021, back 5 years ago the situation was different,

Especially when pixel shift is available on the K-1.

[house]

I'm no MF or LF shooter but it does seem to me that the ovf is primarily an advantage for smaller formats. The mirror box gets so big and the shooting style more technical just to realize the IQ. Already when using a tripod the ovf experience is diminished imho.

[TDvN57]

I'm no MF or LF shooter but it does seem to me that the ovf is primarily an advantage for smaller formats. The mirror box gets so big and the shooting style more technical just to realize the IQ. Already when using a tripod the ovf experience is diminished imho.

.

The larger and heavier MF cameras are easier to hold still at slower shutter speeds than the lighter and smaller systems.

So I would contest the notion that the ovf is a liability in the larger camera formats.

It all comes down to technique, practice and a balanced camera lens combination.

.

[barondla]

I'm no MF or LF shooter but it does seem to me that the ovf is primarily an advantage for smaller formats. The mirror box gets so big and the shooting style more technical just to realize the IQ. Already when using a tripod the ovf experience is diminished imho.

Most claim the OVF benefits larger formats. Look thru a Pentax 67 or 645. Larger and brighter viewfinders. This is why Panasonic & Olympus were in such a hurry to move from 4/3 DSLRs to m4/3 mirror less. The tiny, dim OVFs were awful. MF OVF collects much more light and can run more magnification.

Thanks,
barondla

[biz-engineer]

So I would contest the notion that the ovf is a liability in the larger camera formats.

I see it with a slightly different perspective. For me, EVF vs OVF for larger cameras come down to size. I really like the size of DSLR (comfortable to hold with the grip nicely matching my hand) and EVF makes it possible to have a medium format camera the same size of a DSLR, fitting in the same bag, but with superior image quality and resolution. I wouldn't see myself carrying a 645z for casual shooting, too large, too heavy. Seeing EVF from the perspective of camera size, I'd say, EVF brings a significant advantage for medium format, and insignificant benefit for full frame and smaller formats. For instance I find micro 4/3 uncomfortable to hold, they are way too small for me, I tried Olympus and immediately disliked the feeling (and the feeling of consumer grade device).