[Reportage]

Has anyone written a write up of the above scenario?

[stormcloud]

they not really in the same league but lets face it its gonna be a huge step up in image quality in just about every respect - though options for iso dont go quite as high the iso you do get is less noisy so cn probably be pushed in raw further than k20

abit heavier though and the obvious price difference means i doubt many will consider this upgrade path

[Zubati Kit]

for given print size high ISO is very good, a lot better than APS-C cameras, if K-5 will be as good as 645D I will be suprised, probably not...

So if money is no issue, I would question the use, ie size and lens availability. Will you be willing to lug the camera and (especially) lenses around with you? If I had the $ I would probably go around with only 55 f2.8 and that's it.

Other than that, the only loss is slower FPS, and all the rest is a win, especially the viewfinder!

[benisona]

What do you need a medium format camera for? I Have had my K10D shots blown up to be bilboard size (literally, bilboards all over Denver, with multiple different ad campaigns) and it looked great. I have 40x60 prints all over my hose from the K10D's 10 mega pixels that look stunning. if size is what you want spend a couple hundred on genuine fractals (which is now called perfect resize). Or save about 8,500 and buy a K-5 ...
Perfect Resize 7 - onOne Software

[alohadave]

Other than that, the only loss is slower FPS, and all the rest is a win, especially the viewfinder!

Well, that and the fact that RAW files are over 200MB.

[Pablom]

645D has no left side. this is unacceptable by me



Hoya will probably sell it as an accesory in a few months

[redrockcoulee]

Sorry there is no comparison between enlargements from dslr and medium format film or digital. Those pros that spend the big bucks on MF digital are not doing so because they are stupid or do not know how to use Photoshop. I probably have mentioned on this site that my wife shot a project with both MF film, scanned on a Nikon scanner and a D3 and for the enlargements (60 by 85 inches) there was no comparison, medium format was much smoother. And she had someone who teaches digital processing at an art institution aiding her so it was not lack of skill. She also made a billboard and for that she used the digital

The images, resolution on billboards is not that much, many were from 35mm film. I even have a 14X18 from a Sony point and shoot that looks great, until compared next to a higher resolution, larger sensor image.

By the way Genuine Fractals were used and again would not the pros that are the major market for medium format digital know about that program and how to use it? At one time I used to think 35 mm fine grain black and white could be enlarged quite large and it still can but once you print from a medium or larger format negative you see that there is a difference. The same in digital, point and shoot sensors compared to K10D size compared to one that is almost twice the size ...

Perhaps with the look that your images are the difference might not be as much. This is not a put down of your images, it is just that for all I know the more processed look or HDR might not benefit as much. I would be interested to know otherwise.

The show at the local gallery has the local club with their digital images and Edward Burtinsky's large format images and the amount of detail in his shots compared to the club members speaks loudly of the advantage of a larger format (film or sensor all other things being equal)

If you looked at the ads for when the D3X came out they mentioned approaching medium format quality and that is from a full frame 24 Megapixel camera...size does matter for some things.

Beyond the crop sized sensors I am sticking to film and mostly black and white so I am not trying to defend any future purchases of the 645D.

[benisona]

Sorry there is no comparison between enlargements from dslr and medium format film or digital. Those pros that spend the big bucks on MF digital are not doing so because they are stupid or do not know how to use Photoshop. I probably have mentioned on this site that my wife shot a project with both MF film, scanned on a Nikon scanner and a D3 and for the enlargements (60 by 85 inches) there was no comparison, medium format was much smoother. And she had someone who teaches digital processing at an art institution aiding her so it was not lack of skill. She also made a billboard and for that she used the digital

I never said that one wouldn't gain resolution from a larger sensor/film. What I am saying is that the gain to price/bulk/decrease in shooting flexibility, differential is not that great. Sure if you blow up a 50mega pixel shot and you stand 2 feet from the extremely large shot no doubt you will see differences. But large shots are usually only viewed from a distance in order to see the whole picture. Enlargment software, such a genuine fractals (which every major marketing firm, and most professionals either use, or use some similar software) doesn't ADD resolution (fine details) because this is impossible. What is does is keep the lines sharp and distortion from happening.

So to reiterate you are right, medium or large format will capture more resolution to start with which means they will look better blown up really huge, which will be much more noticeable at very close distance (real world pixel peeping). However the drawbacks seem to overshadow the pluses for that small amount of resolution gain. Buying all new glass, luging a huge camera around that can only do 1600 ISO, and shoots 3 fps. Not to mention the cost of the camera itself (which like all digital cameras will be hopelessly outdated in 3-4 years), and with every RAW file taking up 200 megabytes you are going to need a lot of SD cards and untold HD space. All of this to gain a bit of resolution? It may be worth it for some, but to me I just don't think it would be. I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, just giving my opinion.

Here is an example of a picture done with and APS-C 10 mega pixel K10D, and then it on a bilboard (again none of these are full resolution)...



sorry for the crappy pic (from a camera phone) this shot is actually a collage of two of my pics (the marketing people did it so don't blame me)...

[adamfogerty]

I never said that one wouldn't gain resolution from a larger sensor/film. What I am saying is that the gain to price/bulk/decrease in shooting flexibility, differential is not that great. Sure if you blow up a 50mega pixel shot and you stand 2 feet from the extremely large shot no doubt you will see differences. But large shots are usually only viewed from a distance in order to see the whole picture. Enlargment software, such a genuine fractals (which every major marketing firm, and most professionals either use, or use some similar software) doesn't ADD resolution (fine details) because this is impossible. What is does is keep the lines sharp and distortion from happening.

So to reiterate you are right, medium or large format will capture more resolution to start with which means they will look better blown up really huge, which will be much more noticeable at very close distance (real world pixel peeping). However the drawbacks seem to overshadow the pluses for that small amount of resolution gain. Buying all new glass, luging a huge camera around that can only do 1600 ISO, and shoots 3 fps. Not to mention the cost of the camera itself (which like all digital cameras will be hopelessly outdated in 3-4 years), and with every RAW file taking up 200 megabytes you are going to need a lot of SD cards and untold HD space. All of this to gain a bit of resolution? It may be worth it for some, but to me I just don't think it would be. I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, just giving my opinion.

Here is an example of a picture done with and APS-C 10 mega pixel K10D, and then it on a bilboard (again none of these are full resolution)...



sorry for the crappy pic (from a camera phone) this shot is actually a collage of two of my pics (the marketing people did it so don't blame me)...

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts - it's always nice to read the opinions of someone who has 'been there and done that'.

Great photos too!

There is just one problem - you make me feel guilty about wanting to replace my K10D with a K-5, since you're proof there's a lot of life left in the ol' K10D yet.

Thanks,

Adam

[redrockcoulee]

I never said that one wouldn't gain resolution from a larger sensor/film. What I am saying is that the gain to price/bulk/decrease in shooting flexibility, differential is not that great. Sure if you blow up a 50mega pixel shot and you stand 2 feet from the extremely large shot no doubt you will see differences. But large shots are usually only viewed from a distance in order to see the whole picture. Enlargment software, such a genuine fractals (which every major marketing firm, and most professionals either use, or use some similar software) doesn't ADD resolution (fine details) because this is impossible. What is does is keep the lines sharp and distortion from happening.

So to reiterate you are right, medium or large format will capture more resolution to start with which means they will look better blown up really huge, which will be much more noticeable at very close distance (real world pixel peeping). However the drawbacks seem to overshadow the pluses for that small amount of resolution gain. Buying all new glass, luging a huge camera around that can only do 1600 ISO, and shoots 3 fps. Not to mention the cost of the camera itself (which like all digital cameras will be hopelessly outdated in 3-4 years), and with every RAW file taking up 200 megabytes you are going to need a lot of SD cards and untold HD space. All of this to gain a bit of resolution? It may be worth it for some, but to me I just don't think it would be. I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, just giving my opinion.

Here is an example of a picture done with and APS-C 10 mega pixel K10D, and then it on a bilboard (again none of these are full resolution)...



sorry for the crappy pic (from a camera phone) this shot is actually a collage of two of my pics (the marketing people did it so don't blame me)...

Sure it might not seem worthwhile to you and the type of work you do but not everyone does the same type of photography. Think about a company that wants their product to look outstanding, they spend thousands on lighting, models, scouting locations, food and transportation for the shoot and then want to skimp on the camera..I think not. And how heavy is the camera after having to haul in the tripods, lights reflectors diffusers, beer cooler, computer gear, ?

If I shot a lot of colour I would seriously think about a CFV-16 or -39 back for my Hasselblad. From people who have used both them and the top of the line Nikon and Canon there is apparently no comparison in image quality even at moderate enlargement and this is from people who need to earn their money totally from their shots. 90 percent of the film I have shot in the blad was 160 or slower and there is no motor drive. Twenty years ago I knew someone who shot birds of prey in flight with a Hasselbad that had the speed of 1 fps and in the past many sports photographers used them and even slower cameras. People with 645 or 67 do not need to buy all new lenses either as well.

You are fairly new to photography and throughout my 35 years or so in photography I have commonly run into people like you who might have some success (and talent) but just do not seem to know enough about the field yet to truly realize that the reason there are so many types of equipment (types not brands) is there is a need or purpose for them. What is telling is bringing up fps or high speed ISO as if that was important, try shooting with a view camera and see that it is more like shots per hours not seconds. If I was shooting sports I certainly would not think about a medium format camera, not the right tool for the job and I have shot some sports starting back with a Spotmatic F.

I do not know what the weight of the medium format systems all are but if I did add a back to my MF camera the system would still be lighter than a D3X or Canon (letters and numbers Mark more letters and numbers) with some fast glass.

In my previous job I shot high speed video , with cameras that could do up to 400 000 frames per second but would be totally useless shooting a game or a wedding and these cost 75 K each and would use 5 or 6 at a site and sometimes we 'lost' cameras due to collateral damage but the gear was still cheap compared to what we were filming. Equipment are tools for producing money if you are not amateurs like myself. Go to John Deere's web site and look at the vast array of sizes of tractors and nobody wonders why an apple grower and a grain farmer do not have the same needs and the same size tractor. Image the cost of a Kenworth and they also have a limited lifespan but they earn their keep. There is more than a little gain in resolution and more than resolution. Perhaps a trip to the forums at GetDPI.com would be educational.


Stitching can often compensate to obtain more detail on an image but then the subject matter and conditions but the cost in labour need to be factored in and for some studios perhaps the cost of MFD is much less than stitching as the time at the computer is time not spent shooting or promoting. I believe there are many pros who have chosen that route as best for them and their clients.

For most of your images I do not like the treatment you give them but that is just my own personal taste ( I really like a few of them), but I have seen enough photographs to recognize that you have talent, a very good eye and seem to have a great drive to succeed and to get better. You should be successful. And just as there are a vast range of personal taste there is a large amount of variety in the demands from the jobs that are photography. I would be very surprised if over the years you do not become a lot more understanding of the reasons why others select different types of gear than what you would find useful for yourself.

Thanks

[benisona]

f I shot a lot of colour I would seriously think about a CFV-16 or -39 back for my Hasselblad. From people who have used both them and the top of the line Nikon and Canon there is apparently no comparison in image quality even at moderate enlargement and this is from people who need to earn their money totally from their shots. 90 percent of the film I have shot in the blad was 160 or slower and there is no motor drive. Twenty years ago I knew someone who shot birds of prey in flight with a Hasselbad that had the speed of 1 fps and in the past many sports photographers used them and even slower cameras. People with 645 or 67 do not need to buy all new lenses either as well.

You are fairly new to photography and throughout my 35 years or so in photography I have commonly run into people like you who might have some success (and talent) but just do not seem to know enough about the field yet to truly realize that the reason there are so many types of equipment (types not brands) is there is a need or purpose for them. What is telling is bringing up fps or high speed ISO as if that was important, try shooting with a view camera and see that it is more like shots per hours not seconds. If I was shooting sports I certainly would not think about a medium format camera, not the right tool for the job and I have shot some sports starting back with a Spotmatic F.

I do not know what the weight of the medium format systems all are but if I did add a back to my MF camera the system would still be lighter than a D3X or Canon (letters and numbers Mark more letters and numbers) with some fast glass.

In my previous job I shot high speed video , with cameras that could do up to 400 000 frames per second but would be totally useless shooting a game or a wedding and these cost 75 K each and would use 5 or 6 at a site and sometimes we 'lost' cameras due to collateral damage but the gear was still cheap compared to what we were filming. Equipment are tools for producing money if you are not amateurs like myself. Go to John Deere's web site and look at the vast array of sizes of tractors and nobody wonders why an apple grower and a grain farmer do not have the same needs and the same size tractor. Image the cost of a Kenworth and they also have a limited lifespan but they earn their keep. There is more than a little gain in resolution and more than resolution. Perhaps a trip to the forums at GetDPI.com would be educational.

Great points and well taken. I respect my elder photographers and try to learn as much as I can from their wisdom.

In the end I think that what I am most concerned about, and what drew, and continues to inspire me about photography is the impact of the still image. Like you say, camera's are merely tools by which we are granted the latitude to capture images that impact people. I guess that is why I sometimes I wish people in this forum would stop worrying so much about the tiniest details of comparing every little pixel from every camera, and in doing so forgetting how little effect that may have on the impact of their images. Even if they are just taking pictures of their kids, I feel like all photographers should strive for capturing emotion and conveying humanity, feeling, beauty, ugliness, decay through their images, because that is one of the joys of photography, isn't it? Evoking human characteristics even from inanimate objects..

That being said, if cameras are just tools, and there is the right tool for every job, then if you don't even know what specific characteristics you are looking for in a camera, then you must not be hitting the ceiling of your current gear. I find that when you are in a situation where you just can't possibly get the shot you want due to a limitation of your gear is when you really know that you need to look for something new, and you also know exactly what characteristic you are looking for. All to often I think photographers just aren't happy with their shots, and then they think that getting new gear will suddenly make everything that comes out of their camera more pleasing to the eye. You and I know that 90% of what comes out of the camera is a disappointment in some way or another, but that is how you learn and get better.

Reason why I bring all of this up is because the OP was asking about the pro's and con's of switching from a K20D to a 645D. This is such a different setup that is begs the question of why? If they knew WHY they would ever want to switch, I feel that knowledge would inherently answer the original questions because they would be hitting the ceiling of some very specific characteristic of the K20D. The main advantage the 645D would offer would be resolution. Now, the reason for my original post was to point out that this so called limitation of APS-c cameras is not as bad as people want to imagine, and unless you are a high end pro, that is only concerned with extremely large prints, than it's disadvantages far outweigh the advantages, which was supposed to answer the OP's question.

For most of your images I do not like the treatment you give them but that is just my own personal taste ( I really like a few of them), but I have seen enough photographs to recognize that you have talent, a very good eye and seem to have a great drive to succeed and to get better. You should be successful. And just as there are a vast range of personal taste there is a large amount of variety in the demands from the jobs that are photography. I would be very surprised if over the years you do not become a lot more understanding of the reasons why others select different types of gear than what you would find useful for yourself.

I really value your opinion of my work. It is very interesting to me the dichotomy of reactions and criticisms that I get from other photographers. I find that many traditional film photogs prefer in camera traditionalism. It seems that their visual system is more tuned to in camera editing and because of this find a lot of my work "unpleasing". I would not call myself strictly a photographer though, I have always been an artist too, and since I put the paints down, my new canvas takes its form through my digital images. I don't make collages, but I do like to push traditional photography into the surreal, and in doing so often find that I can strike a more realistic (closer to the human visual systems representation of a scene, rather than a single exposure systems rendering) feel. I am getting better at creating visually challenging images without pushing the boundaries too much, I think at least. In the end I am simply trying to create images that stand out, and whether you like them or hate them you will at least remember them.

No matter how nice the pencil is that you use to sketch the image, it is still a pencil....

[paperbag846]

His signature says sports photographer... I'm wondering if the slower FPS/limited tele selection might work against the OP at the moment, disregarding image quality between the two cameras. I would suspect that ease of use and speed would be of paramount importance for sports photography (admittedly, I do not do any). For 10,000, you could go to the K-5 which is a pretty big upgrade over the k20d and buy all sorts of top of the line pentax lenses for ASP-C.

The pros of the MF might be optimally seen in portraiture/landscape work?

Take that opinion with a grain of salt .

[benisona]

His signature says sports photographer...

very good points. In that case a 645D would probably be very unsuitable...