what have i done

Gooshin · 08-07-2009, 09:56 AM

Last week i swiped Andy Lo's 645N, preloded with film and the FA75 f2.8 lens..

now its on my desk

all i need now is 6 batteries and i'm ready to roll (damn this thing is heavy)

k100d · 08-07-2009, 11:09 AM

what batteries does it eat?
once you go medium format, it's hard to go back to puny film

Gooshin · 08-07-2009, 11:15 AM

6 double a's

it weight around 4 pounds with the lens before the batteries.

séamuis · 08-07-2009, 02:14 PM

what you have done is purchased a medium format film camera. enjoy!

Gooshin · 08-07-2009, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

what you have done is purchased a medium format film camera. enjoy!

yes, but, the question i always trouble myself is, why?

as i have mentioned in other posts, i do not see film as being superior to digital.

higher dynamic range? sure, but with the current bracket/blending softwares, digital can surpass any film in that regard

format issues? again, APS-C is good enough, with plenty of lenses.

Depth of Field? that is perhaps the only attribute i am after, however, perhaps i am fooling myself, as my F1.2 55 lens is currently in a box and not used.

plus the sheer size of this think, yuck!

anyway i'll shoot some and figure this out... good or bad...

**fs999** · 08-07-2009, 02:52 PM

One word : detail...

séamuis · 08-07-2009, 02:53 PM

I had no real idea why I purchased my 6x7. still dont. I wont really get into the format war, as I dont know enough to really debate it. but I will say that the beast is sure fun to use from time to time. is the 645 heavier than the 6x7?

Damn Brit · 08-07-2009, 03:00 PM

Go on a hike with it.

Gooshin · 08-07-2009, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

I had no real idea why I purchased my 6x7. still dont. I wont really get into the format war, as I dont know enough to really debate it. but I will say that the beast is sure fun to use from time to time. is the 645 heavier than the 6x7?

edit:

my bathroom scale says around 4-4.5 pounds with the batteries and the FA75 lens (which is plastic)

**fs999** · 08-07-2009, 03:10 PM

I walked two days in Paris with my 645N + Arsat Fisheye (2.5 Kg), my *ist and my K20D...

Wonderful days...

645N + Arsat 30mm fisheye

séamuis · 08-07-2009, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Gooshin

edit:

my bathroom scale says around 4-4.5 pounds with the batteries and the FA75 lens (which is plastic)

then im going to assume a 6x7 MLU with waist level finder and Takumar 90mm 2.8 is likely heavier. even more so if I go with the metered-prism. though I don't actually know the weight. the 645 always looks like this unwieldy monster in photographs though. maybe its just because of the shape of the body? then again I always thought a hasselblad was a big thing until I used one.

**Avenger** · 08-07-2009, 06:08 PM

I'm waiting for a couple rolls to come back from the lab that I shot with my 6x7II. Hopefully there is a shot worth posting. Is it just convenience to shoot digital, instant gratification! Why can't Pentax make a digital back for the 645. :-) Wish mine hadn't died!

Andi Lo · 08-08-2009, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by Avenger

I'm waiting for a couple rolls to come back from the lab that I shot with my 6x7II. Hopefully there is a shot worth posting. Is it just convenience to shoot digital, instant gratification! Why can't Pentax make a digital back for the 645. :-) Wish mine hadn't died!

I wonder if in the end the digital back can be attached to the 645N body...

I had fun when I had this camera and really enjoyed the results. I think that's what it boils down too right? fun?

troyz · 08-08-2009, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

higher dynamic range? sure, but with the current bracket/blending softwares, digital can surpass any film in that regard

Especially Velvia!

Originally posted by Gooshin

format issues? again, APS-C is good enough, with plenty of lenses.

There are too many K-mount lenses! Medium format is much less prone to inducing LBA because you run out of useful lenses (and room in your bag) quickly!

Originally posted by Gooshin

Depth of Field? that is perhaps the only attribute i am after, however, perhaps i am fooling myself, as my F1.2 55 lens is currently in a box and not used.

I wouldn't choose medium format over 35 (or 35 over APS-C) solely for increased shallowness of field, because I don't need it. . . but medium format (in general) provides a more useful viewfinder and (in my experience) is easier to focus, especially for parts of the image outside the center-of-frame focus aid. . .

Originally posted by Gooshin

plus the sheer size of this think, yuck!

If film makes you happy, bigger film will make you happier!

Seriously, I think it depends on whether you use a tripod. On tripod the size of the camera isn't a big issue (as long as the tripod is stable enough for the camera/lens/exposure time you're using). Off tripod you'll probably wish for a smaller camera.

Scanning, however, will drive you nuts. If your lab offers scanning at time-of-development, get it!

Gooshin · 08-08-2009, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by troyz

Scanning, however, will drive you nuts. If your lab offers scanning at time-of-development, get it!

i enjoy scanning though, scanned all of my europe photos last week ago, 400 of them

08-07-2009, 09:56 AM	#1
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	what have i done Last week i swiped Andy Lo's 645N, preloded with film and the FA75 f2.8 lens.. now its on my desk all i need now is 6 batteries and i'm ready to roll (damn this thing is heavy)

08-08-2009, 01:06 AM	#13
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by Avenger I'm waiting for a couple rolls to come back from the lab that I shot with my 6x7II. Hopefully there is a shot worth posting. Is it just convenience to shoot digital, instant gratification! Why can't Pentax make a digital back for the 645. :-) Wish mine hadn't died! I wonder if in the end the digital back can be attached to the 645N body... I had fun when I had this camera and really enjoyed the results. I think that's what it boils down too right? fun? Last edited by Andi Lo; 08-08-2009 at 01:29 AM.

08-08-2009, 10:28 AM	#14
troyz Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 389	Originally posted by Gooshin higher dynamic range? sure, but with the current bracket/blending softwares, digital can surpass any film in that regard Especially Velvia! Originally posted by Gooshin format issues? again, APS-C is good enough, with plenty of lenses. There are too many K-mount lenses! Medium format is much less prone to inducing LBA because you run out of useful lenses (and room in your bag) quickly! Originally posted by Gooshin Depth of Field? that is perhaps the only attribute i am after, however, perhaps i am fooling myself, as my F1.2 55 lens is currently in a box and not used. I wouldn't choose medium format over 35 (or 35 over APS-C) solely for increased shallowness of field, because I don't need it. . . but medium format (in general) provides a more useful viewfinder and (in my experience) is easier to focus, especially for parts of the image outside the center-of-frame focus aid. . . Originally posted by Gooshin plus the sheer size of this think, yuck! If film makes you happy, bigger film will make you happier! Seriously, I think it depends on whether you use a tripod. On tripod the size of the camera isn't a big issue (as long as the tripod is stable enough for the camera/lens/exposure time you're using). Off tripod you'll probably wish for a smaller camera. Scanning, however, will drive you nuts. If your lab offers scanning at time-of-development, get it! Last edited by troyz; 08-08-2009 at 10:34 AM.

08-07-2009, 11:09 AM	#2
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	what batteries does it eat? once you go medium format, it's hard to go back to puny film

08-07-2009, 11:15 AM	#3
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	6 double a's it weight around 4 pounds with the lens before the batteries.

08-07-2009, 02:14 PM	#4
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	what you have done is purchased a medium format film camera. enjoy!

08-07-2009, 02:45 PM	#5
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by séamuis what you have done is purchased a medium format film camera. enjoy! yes, but, the question i always trouble myself is, why? as i have mentioned in other posts, i do not see film as being superior to digital. higher dynamic range? sure, but with the current bracket/blending softwares, digital can surpass any film in that regard format issues? again, APS-C is good enough, with plenty of lenses. Depth of Field? that is perhaps the only attribute i am after, however, perhaps i am fooling myself, as my F1.2 55 lens is currently in a box and not used. plus the sheer size of this think, yuck! anyway i'll shoot some and figure this out... good or bad...

08-07-2009, 02:52 PM	#6
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,646	One word : detail...

08-07-2009, 02:53 PM	#7
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	I had no real idea why I purchased my 6x7. still dont. I wont really get into the format war, as I dont know enough to really debate it. but I will say that the beast is sure fun to use from time to time. is the 645 heavier than the 6x7?

08-07-2009, 03:02 PM	#9
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by séamuis I had no real idea why I purchased my 6x7. still dont. I wont really get into the format war, as I dont know enough to really debate it. but I will say that the beast is sure fun to use from time to time. is the 645 heavier than the 6x7? edit: my bathroom scale says around 4-4.5 pounds with the batteries and the FA75 lens (which is plastic)

08-07-2009, 03:10 PM	#10
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,646	I walked two days in Paris with my 645N + Arsat Fisheye (2.5 Kg), my *ist and my K20D... Wonderful days... 645N + Arsat 30mm fisheye

08-07-2009, 03:13 PM	#11
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Gooshin edit: my bathroom scale says around 4-4.5 pounds with the batteries and the FA75 lens (which is plastic) then im going to assume a 6x7 MLU with waist level finder and Takumar 90mm 2.8 is likely heavier. even more so if I go with the metered-prism. though I don't actually know the weight. the 645 always looks like this unwieldy monster in photographs though. maybe its just because of the shape of the body? then again I always thought a hasselblad was a big thing until I used one.

08-07-2009, 06:08 PM	#12
Avenger Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Toronto Photos: Albums Posts: 60	I'm waiting for a couple rolls to come back from the lab that I shot with my 6x7II. Hopefully there is a shot worth posting. Is it just convenience to shoot digital, instant gratification! Why can't Pentax make a digital back for the 645. :-) Wish mine hadn't died!

08-07-2009, 03:00 PM	#8
Damn Brit Guest	Go on a hike with it.

08-08-2009, 12:11 PM	#15
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610 Original Poster	Originally posted by troyz Scanning, however, will drive you nuts. If your lab offers scanning at time-of-development, get it! i enjoy scanning though, scanned all of my europe photos last week ago, 400 of them