[w2ck]

Hi,

I have posted a few shots from my (pretty much) new to me 645D in my own thread regarding all that. But, it dawns on me I have not posted any here. The main use for the 645D is to print quilt blocks on a specialized textile printer with the subject being the lighthouses of the North Carolina coast. Seven of them in total.

I got the camera gear just in time to not be able to go shoot any of them. Two weekends ago, I got my first chance and so headed out. The most I can do in one day is two, so I chose the Northernmost two as they are the quickest to get to by road (three need boats or ferries). Currituck and Bodie Island.

Here is Currituck, taken with the 645 FA 45-85 lens. Have to get this one around noon. This is the clearest shot available. The lighthouse is surrounded by trees surrounded by other park facilities.



Here is Bodie Island. This one needs late afternoon light as the land in on the West Side and there is a marsh on the East. More room to work with and I used the 645 80-160 lens. I wanted to use the 200mm prime here but they had a lot of rain the night before and part of the parking area was flooded. This was as far back as I could get, so the zoom was used.



Both shots were cropped to 5x7 as that is the aspect ratio to be used for the quilt block prints. Later on, I will be adding shots of the printing process and the blocks themselves and then the final quilt my wife makes from these.

I did get to Hatteras Island. This is the most famous lighthouse. They moved this back around 2002, IIRC. The ocean was about to topple it. Quite the project. They did repaint her after the move, but it needs it again. I will have to take the shot as it is, of course. I doubt folks buying the quilt block sets will care all that much. Now, the light was way late and this is the wrong time of day for Hatteras. This needs morning light. But, I was in the area, so I went further South and took this anyway. They had a lot more flooding than Bodie Island, so used the 80-160 again.



But, a poor shot is better than no shot.

There were some other folks about. No one noticed the P 645D and the tripod. But, folks at all three spots noticed and commented on my Nikon Df. All thought it was an old film camera yet they figured the 645D was digital. And, no one but my wife and I with something other than a cell phone.....

Stan

[Aaron28]

some very expired 120 film (fuji 50D slide film)....Yashica C TLR....yashinon 85/f3.5

[itshimitis]

First post in a while and it is a photo from 8 years ago...

Pentax 645D FA 120 f/4

[RICHARD L.]

New try of the 645 FA 33-55 mm f/4.5 on the Batiscan River. This is a "really sharp" lens. We're having a severe drought so the water discharge is getting quite low.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 07-04-2020 at 03:31 PM.

[barondla]

Hmmmm....photos I've seen of this lens show a foot---I know the f4 has a foot, but even on the ricoh site I'm pretty sure it shows a foot....

I asked about the backpack because I felt as you do, hated to work from one. But also there's backpacks for walks and backpacks for hiking in rough areas. I'm so happy with my Mindshift Ultralight 36L that I bought a second one to store away when I heard they were being discontinued. It has been really great, and several things i love about it are that it's the lightest bag of its size, it is airline acceptable (although it doesn't look it, looks bigger), it's very comfortable with 30+ pounds of gear, and extremely durable. When it's fully loaded it's a chunk to pick up, but once on and adjusted, it's like some of the best camping packs---it's something I used to love about Lowe packs as well. But it can be deployed as a sling for access to the bottom section, although not quite as easily as sling packs. and that bottom section can be removed as a separate case. Highly recommended if you can find one! We can discuss it more if you like...

Ordered the MindShift 36L at 20% off from ThinkTank. Can't wait until it arrives.
Thanks for all the help,
barondla

[TDvN57]

First post in a while and it is a photo from 8 years ago...

Pentax 645D FA 120 f/4

Very nice picture, reminds me of a picture I took many years ago of the Hex river valley near Cape Town, South Africa with 6x7. It has the same "dance" of colors and layers upon layers details. Exceptional, thanks for sharing.

[RICHARD L.]

@ TDvN57 : Sir, please know I had no intention to show disrespect towards you when I said the performance of the 645 FA 400 mm f/5.6 ED seemed below par compared to my experience with this lens and after I posted pictures of my own. Maybe my response seemed a little too emotional or high-strung and I hope you will accept my apologies. We all love our lenses and we like to see them deliver shining results. I didn't intend to criticize you in any way. Once again, my apologies.

Regards

[TDvN57]

@ TDvN57 : Sir, please know I had no intention to show disrespect towards you when I said the performance of the 645 FA 400 mm f/5.6 ED seemed below par compared to my experience with this lens and after I posted pictures of my own. Maybe my response seemed a little too emotional or high-strung and I hope you will accept my apologies. We all love our lenses and we like to see them deliver shining results. I didn't intend to criticize you in any way. Once again, my apologies.

Regards

Richard, I honestly did not see it the same way as you and I definitely did not take your posting as a criticism. I fully agree with your comments and that we treasure or gear.

Thank your for posting your pictures and for taking the leadership of example to ensure that we remain respectful.

Please also accept my apologies if my posting came across as criticism or defensiveness.

Peace to us all...

[RICHARD L.]

Thank you !

P.S. I didn't know you had this "300 mm full size" banner over the mountains in your area just like the "HOLLYWOOD" sign in Los Angeles ... (just kidding).

[ivanvernon]

Richard, I honestly did not see it the same way as you and I definitely did not take your posting as a criticism. I fully agree with your comments and that we treasure or gear.

Thank your for posting your pictures and for taking the leadership of example to ensure that we remain respectful.

Please also accept my apologies if my posting came across as criticism or defensiveness.

Peace to us all...

As said earlier, I happen to have all three of these lenses, and never knew which one was best. I took this sort of test and close looks to pick one over the other. I knew t300 and 400 were more than acceptable, but just assumed the 150-300 was just a convenience glass with the usual zoom sacrifice of optical quality. The main value of the test for me was to show that the 150-300 is truly a quality glass, while confirming that the 300 and 400 were also excellent. The 300* has always been my choice for optical quality, but now I consider that I can have both convenience and optical quality. Thanks for taking the time to do this for us.

[RICHARD L.]

My "quartet" of 645 zoom lenses is now complete : FA 33-55 mm f/4.5, FA 45-85 mm f/4.5, FA 80-160 mm f/4.5 and FA 150-300 mm f/5.6. Now I know how each one performs and I have full confidence I can achieve whatever image I wish with this arsenal. I purchased these 4 lenses used on eBay from Japan and they cost 1250 $ in all. I have learned in the last few months to read technical reviews with a "grain of salt" (this was particularly the case for the FA 150-300 mm and then the FA 33-55 mm) and I know each of us has to make their own experience by themselves.


Regards

[RICHARD L.]

I set up my 645Z on a solid tripod, composed a vertical view of the Batiscan River and made a series of pictures with apertures varying from f/8 to f/32 (8 - 11 - 16 - 22 - 32, check the EXIFs) at a constant focal length of 33 mm. Here are the resulting images. Uppermost image is at f/8 and lowermost at f/32. Choosing a "winner" is practically impossible (f/16 maybe, or f/11, no, no, f/22 ... ARGH !).

[TDvN57]

My "quartet" of 645 zoom lenses is now complete : FA 33-55 mm f/4.5, FA 45-85 mm f/4.5, FA 80-160 mm f/4.5 and FA 150-300 mm f/5.6. Now I know how each one performs and I have full confidence I can achieve whatever image I wish with this arsenal. I purchased these 4 lenses used on eBay from Japan and they cost 1250 $ in all. I have learned in the last few months to read technical reviews with a "grain of salt" (this was particularly the case for the FA 150-300 mm and then the FA 33-55 mm) and I know each of us has to make their own experience by themselves.


Regards

I agree that these lenses make up the most essential kit and if I had to start over again, this is definitely the first set I would buy.

For those of us with "GAS" the lenses I would consider would be the 25mm DFA - not the DA in my opinion (very scarce to get) for those seldom super wide shots like the Northern Lights; the 120mm macro ( or the new 90mm macro depending on budget); the 600mm A* for the long reach shots.

To top out the lens kit, I must say I am very impressed with Ed's shots with the 67 400mm on the 645z, so that would be a potential add-on, and I am also wondering about the 67 800mm with its 1.4 converter. For those far reaching birds or for some elementary deep sky astro shots. Although the best shots I got of Orion with the 645z was with the 400mm. I tried with the 600mm but it needs a finder scope or else you have no idea what you are looking at. I also don't have a tracking mount that can carry the 645z and 600mm lens. Tried with my small iOptron but it didn't work.

[ivanvernon]

A few flowers with the Pentax 135mm f 4.0 LS, a sharp alternative residing between two brilliant alternatives, the 120mm and the 150mm, used here in its non-LS setting.

[texandrews]

Ordered the MindShift 36L at 20% off from ThinkTank. Can't wait until it arrives.
Thanks for all the help,
barondla

I hope you like it as much as I do. Get in touch about potential top compartment inserts (although it's pretty easy to work that out...). Try a dry run at home to see how much you can stuff into it---it's surprising. Although very stuffed is best for flying/location to location travel. In use it's better to have a bit less because really stuffing it is a little "tetris", which doesn't make for the smoothest work flow while shooting.

One thing I haven't yet tried is adapting some of the Think Tank lens holders I have (belt system). I've though about that for use during an actual hike, to have one lens on the camera and another likely one in the lens pouch. I use that belt system on pre dawn shoots a lot, and stash my flash in a pouch as I move---often I have it corded and attached to the camera. I'll explain more if you're interested.