[Gyroscope]

Usually, what drives the needs and justify the cost and bulk of larger format system comes from higher expectations in terms of image quality. I feel like the OP doesn't prioritize image quality for his applications, plus considering wildlife photography, thus justifying a backward move to full frame. It is understandable, as one may realize that a 645z is too much for his/her needs and expectations.

It certainly is not a case where I have realized that the 645z is too much for my needs. It has been the best camera I've ever used and I would be sorry to part with it. It's more a case of my wondering if I should accept 'good-enough' over 'perfect' for the sake of simplifying my kit and getting a lens set that allows me to shoot more diverse subjects.

[barondla]

It certainly is not a case where I have realized that the 645z is too much for my needs. It has been the best camera I've ever used and I would be sorry to part with it. It's more a case of my wondering if I should accept 'good-enough' over 'perfect' for the sake of simplifying my kit and getting a lens set that allows me to shoot more diverse subjects.

You mostly do landscapes, so keep the 645 you have. Purchase the 645 FA 300 or 400 and 1.4 teleconverter. Buy the 150 filters for the 15-30. Adapt the other 100mm filter lenses to fit the 150 filters. Or forget filters, many use editing software instead.

Note most people on this forum have a full frame and still would rather shoot medium format when possible. Even kilohotel talks about possibly returning to MF. You've lived with perfect too long to be happy with good enough.

The pioneer landscape photographers would have traded their wet plates for the ease and portability of the Pentax 645 any day of the week.

Thanks,
barondla

[UncleVanya]

I've got a rather nice Canon 100-400 L II. I like a tele for landscape. I could adapt this and use on Fuji MF system with AF. Sounds like EF glass is future proofed.

Except the metabones caveats suggest that it might autofocus, or maybe not. And if it autofocuses you might not like the accuracy or speed. The whole thing didn’t fill me with any confidence honestly. But if people have tested that lens with the adapter and it works that’s better than expected results! Firmware changes in the lens may be another area that gets complicated if that’s a thing in Canon-land. Personally I’m skeptical of cross brand automation. Manual focus and aperture control isn’t hard to buy into, but autofocus seems hard to pull off based on various reviews of adapters across several Mounts.

[biz-engineer]

It's more a case of my wondering if I should accept 'good-enough' over 'perfect' for the sake of simplifying my kit and getting a lens set that allows me to shoot more diverse subjects.

I see you point very well. In 2016 I had multiple cameras and too many lenses , and I decided to simplify my kit around a single system to do all my photography, built around the Pentax K1, and now I've being thinking for a while about getting two systems again: full frame or apsc for wildlife, and medium format for wide to short telephoto focal lengths! And I'm going to tell you my reasoning here: I've figured my depth of field limits.

For me, ultra-wide up to 35mm FF equ. benefit from larger formats, it is so for 3 reasons:
1) Depth of field increases by the square of decreasing focal length, required shutter speed also decreases with decreasing focal length => direct image resolution + image quality gain with larger format
2) Image stitching without seams: very difficult to do with FL wider than 35mm equ. on full frame => advantage single exposure medium format
3) Autofocus requirements are low for wide angle imaging => medium format fits the bill.

On the other side of the spectrum, smaller formats win for supertele, sports, wildlife, macros, thanks to the extra "crop factor", choice of lenses, auto-focus performance, faster frame rates and mobility. Furthermore, the need for resolution is lower for single subjects (such as wildlife, portraits, macros..) due to the subject magnification in the frame. In other words, one can shoot an elephant with an apsc camera, make an XXL print that still show plenty of subject detail.

So, after trying to rely on a single system (K1) I realized the old Pentax approach of dual systems (apsc + MF) was a good approach. And I can see Fujifilm copied the old Pentax dual system approach: Fuji X + Fuji GF, having enough separation in terms of speed vs image quality for the two systems.

Full frame is the most versatile but at the same time it is a compromise.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-15-2021 at 10:50 PM.

[TDvN57]

@Gyroscope You may find this video on YouTube helpful. Although it is about DoF with large format cameras, he also addresses the benefits of a larger format.

It may help you in deciding whether the MF or 35mm FF or APSC is better for you going forward.

You Tube

You Tube

BTW your portfolio on your website is very nice.

[Gyroscope]

I had an interesting photographic experience on the weekend. I went to a coastal location to do some photography despite the forecast not being the greatest (boring blue skies a high possibility). I was in a poor frame of mind - it has been hard to get inspired recently due to covid travel restrictions and feeling like I've visited all the locations in my area too often. I only pulled out the z with 28-45 to use and found the beach had been eroded by about a metre since I was there last due to winter storms and the composition I had been hoping to reshoot just didn't exist so I had to scramble to find something different. I shot mostly in the blue hour because I knew the sky was going to wash out super quickly then I really underexposed my shots later to ensure 1-2 second exposures for the best water blur effects. I didn't think I was getting anything good then for the first time since I have owned the Z my tripod toppled over while my back was turned. Lucky I was higher up the beach getting a filter so it just landed in soft sand. It is a measure of my respect for the durability of my gear that I was only annoyed at now having to somehow get all the sand off my filter not concerned about damage. I simply got my water bottle and poured it over the camera and lens to wash all the sand off, dried off the filter and carried on shooting.

When I processed my images the amazing DR and malleability of the Z's files enabled me to end up with actually a couple of decent images with a soft pink glow in the sky and perfect detail in the recovered areas. They weren't quite gallery quality but they were enough to keep me inspired to go out again next time which is what I needed.

Suffice to say maybe I needed the reminder about why I chose pentax and the 645z in the first place! I still haven't decided what to do and am in no hurry but will look at other options including just abandoning my K1 system and going all-in on the Z (maybe just not worrying about the ultra wide at all) OR getting rid of my 15-30 with its much hated 150 filter system and get the irix 15mm and the pentax 70-200 F4. This doesn't solve my desire for wildlife photography though so that brings me back to square one....

---------- Post added 08-16-21 at 06:59 PM ----------

@Gyroscope You may find this video on YouTube helpful. Although it is about DoF with large format cameras, he also addresses the benefits of a larger format.

It may help you in deciding whether the MF or 35mm FF or APSC is better for you going forward.

Depth of Field with Large Format Photography - Large Format Friday - YouTube


BTW your portfolio on your website is very nice.

I'll check out the video. I'm not sure what it says but I have noticed I always get better background detail and DOF with my Z images.

Thanks for checking out my website!

---------- Post added 08-16-21 at 07:03 PM ----------

I see you point very well. In 2016 I had multiple cameras and too many lenses , and I decided to simplify my kit around a single system to do all my photography, built around the Pentax K1, and now I've being thinking for a while about getting two systems again: full frame or apsc for wildlife, and medium format for wide to short telephoto focal lengths! And I'm going to tell you my reasoning here: I've figured my depth of field limits.

For me, ultra-wide up to 35mm FF equ. benefit from larger formats, it is so for 3 reasons:
1) Depth of field increases by the square of decreasing focal length, required shutter speed also decreases with decreasing focal length => direct image resolution + image quality gain with larger format
2) Image stitching without seams: very difficult to do with FL wider than 35mm equ. on full frame => advantage single exposure medium format
3) Autofocus requirements are low for wide angle imaging => medium format fits the bill.

On the other side of the spectrum, smaller formats win for supertele, sports, wildlife, macros, thanks to the extra "crop factor", choice of lenses, auto-focus performance, faster frame rates and mobility. Furthermore, the need for resolution is lower for single subjects (such as wildlife, portraits, macros..) due to the subject magnification in the frame. In other words, one can shoot an elephant with an apsc camera, make an XXL print that still show plenty of subject detail.

So, after trying to rely on a single system (K1) I realized the old Pentax approach of dual systems (apsc + MF) was a good approach. And I can see Fujifilm copied the old Pentax dual system approach: Fuji X + Fuji GF, having enough separation in terms of speed vs image quality for the two systems.

Full frame is the most versatile but at the same time it is a compromise.

Thanks for this story it obviously directly relates to me. It has also occurred to me that I could get rid of the K1 system and get a different system for wildlife whether it be the k3/150-450 or a used Canon or Nikon DSLR.

[barondla]

I had an interesting photographic experience on the weekend. I went to a coastal location to do some photography despite the forecast not being the greatest (boring blue skies a high possibility). I was in a poor frame of mind - it has been hard to get inspired recently due to covid travel restrictions and feeling like I've visited all the locations in my area too often. I only pulled out the z with 28-45 to use and found the beach had been eroded by about a metre since I was there last due to winter storms and the composition I had been hoping to reshoot just didn't exist so I had to scramble to find something different. I shot mostly in the blue hour because I knew the sky was going to wash out super quickly then I really underexposed my shots later to ensure 1-2 second exposures for the best water blur effects. I didn't think I was getting anything good then for the first time since I have owned the Z my tripod toppled over while my back was turned. Lucky I was higher up the beach getting a filter so it just landed in soft sand. It is a measure of my respect for the durability of my gear that I was only annoyed at now having to somehow get all the sand off my filter not concerned about damage. I simply got my water bottle and poured it over the camera and lens to wash all the sand off, dried off the filter and carried on shooting.

When I processed my images the amazing DR and malleability of the Z's files enabled me to end up with actually a couple of decent images with a soft pink glow in the sky and perfect detail in the recovered areas. They weren't quite gallery quality but they were enough to keep me inspired to go out again next time which is what I needed.

Suffice to say maybe I needed the reminder about why I chose pentax and the 645z in the first place! I still haven't decided what to do and am in no hurry but will look at other options including just abandoning my K1 system and going all-in on the Z (maybe just not worrying about the ultra wide at all) OR getting rid of my 15-30 with its much hated 150 filter system and get the irix 15mm and the pentax 70-200 F4. This doesn't solve my desire for wildlife photography though so that brings me back to square one....

---------- Post added 08-16-21 at 06:59 PM ----------



I'll check out the video. I'm not sure what it says but I have noticed I always get better background detail and DOF with my Z images.

Thanks for checking out my website!

---------- Post added 08-16-21 at 07:03 PM ----------



Thanks for this story it obviously directly relates to me. It has also occurred to me that I could get rid of the K1 system and get a different system for wildlife whether it be the k3/150-450 or a used Canon or Nikon DSLR.

Excellent website and images. Looking it over, most wildlife images didn't seem to be of rapidly moving subjects. The 645Z and FA400 could probably handle them. The 400 can be had for $500-600 used. I would try that before getting rid of the Z or K-1. The 1.4 converter goes for $100 used. Unfortunately AF is lost when adding the converter. But it isn'tthat tough to focus with the big, bright, viewfinder.

Thanks,
barondla

[biz-engineer]

Thanks for this story it obviously directly relates to me. It has also occurred to me that I could get rid of the K1 system and get a different system for wildlife whether it be the k3/150-450 or a used Canon or Nikon DSLR.

I see your point, I know the itch when something is missing in a system. So far, I resisted the temptation to switch , simply because every time I looked at the cost / benefit analysis I concluded that switching from Pentax to Canon, Nikon, or Sony wouldn't be worth the money spent. Switching is a lot of money, if only for one lens not available for Pentax, it would really hurt to switch systems. For me, the problem is there will always be something missing to a camera system, so I tell myself not to listen to marketing and make do with what I have.

[BigMackCam]

I see your point, I know the itch when something is missing in a system. So far, I resisted the temptation to switch , simply because every time I looked at the cost / benefit analysis I concluded that switching from Pentax to Canon, Nikon, or Sony wouldn't be worth the money spent. Switching is a lot of money, if only for one lens not available for Pentax, it would really hurt to switch systems. For me, the problem is there will always be something missing to a camera system, so I tell myself not to listen to marketing and make do with what I have.

Wise words, if I may say. You have to truly need (or really, really want) the specific capabilities of a different system, be prepared to accept any compromises therein (for there will be some), be willing to invest additional funds, time and effort to make switching systems a worthwhile proposition, IMHO. Unless you're rolling in disposable income and happy to risk it, comprehensive research is vital to ensure you don't end up trading one set of comprises for others that are different but equally frustrating. In most cases, I think it's better to simply embrace what you already use, accept and work with (rather than against) any limitations it may have, and get on with the fun (or work) of photography.

Upgrading cameras or lenses within an existing system - even, perhaps, adding a larger or smaller format in the same mount for different use cases - makes a lot more sense to me. In the OP's case, though, if adding another system isn't practical and it must instead be a replacement, I can see why a switch to the more versatile but smaller 35mm "full frame" format (in whatever brand) might make sense - if he can accept the difference in sensor IQ...

[biz-engineer]

Unless you're rolling in disposable income and happy to risk it, comprehensive research is vital to ensure you don't end up trading one set of comprises for others that are different but equally frustrating

Well, there will always be newer better cameras and newer better lenses, it's made on purpose to keep selling cameras/lenses. If I want to always have the latest best camera system there will always be something better, my camera spending could quickly spiral to unreasonable amounts. So, I've got to stop looking at marketing reviews, and check if my current gear produces good enough pictures, and if so be happy with what I have.

[Jonathan Mac]

Demanding landscape shooting with utmost IQ and also shooting wildlife sounds like a perfect example for running two systems. You could move to a high resolution FF camera system and you'd lose a little in IQ (though not necessarily resolution) but you'd gain AI AF for wildlife, as long as you went mirrorless.

[Foamberg]

i use a f2.8 400 but i realized there is little wildlife left because of the stupid human race...! ;-)

Demanding landscape shooting with utmost IQ and also shooting wildlife sounds like a perfect example for running two systems. You could move to a high resolution FF camera system and you'd lose a little in IQ (though not necessarily resolution) but you'd gain AI AF for wildlife, as long as you went mirrorless.

[biz-engineer]

i use a f2.8 400 but i realized there is little wildlife left because of the stupid human race...! ;-)

Yep, there aren't many places on earth that aren't occupied by the human species, it's very visible when looking for dark sky areas for astro-photography, the only dark places are in the middle on oceans, seas, desert areas and top of mountains, everywhere else is covered with light bulbs that are automatically switchd-on every night and burn electricity the whole night even if there is no one around in the streets, these are megawatts (terawatts...) of power burned every-night for nothing, the whole year around, for decades, centuries...

[KiloHotelphoto]

Excellent website and images. Looking it over, most wildlife images didn't seem to be of rapidly moving subjects. The 645Z and FA400 could probably handle them. The 400 can be had for $500-600 used. I would try that before getting rid of the Z or K-1. The 1.4 converter goes for $100 used. Unfortunately AF is lost when adding the converter. But it isn'tthat tough to focus with the big, bright, viewfinder.

Thanks,
barondla

The problem with trying to use the 645Z for wildlife is the lack of focus points and the ones you have are clustered in the center of the frame, also moving them with that stupid four way touch pad sucks.

I bought the 400, got a great deal from a seller in Tokyo $400 it was practically brand new, and tried it on dear grazing and having to focus and recompose was such a pain, especially when I was used to using a 1DX2 at the time.

If I was you I would keep the 645Z for landscape, it's incredible for that and then get a wildlife specific set up. You're not going to find a camera that can do both great they are just two different types of shooting, the closes you will find for both will be the R5 or A1.

[TDvN57]

The problem with trying to use the 645Z for wildlife is the lack of focus points and the ones you have are clustered in the center of the frame, also moving them with that stupid four way touch pad sucks.

I bought the 400, got a great deal from a seller in Tokyo $400 it was practically brand new, and tried it on dear grazing and having to focus and recompose was such a pain, especially when I was used to using a 1DX2 at the time.

If I was you I would keep the 645Z for landscape, it's incredible for that and then get a wildlife specific set up. You're not going to find a camera that can do both great they are just two different types of shooting, the closes you will find for both will be the R5 or A1.

For wildlife you will have more success with manual focus, no matter which system you use.