Got a spare 10 G's?
  • User avatar
    Plays with Light
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1352
    Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:34 pm
    Location: Lost In Thought
    Contact:

    Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Plays with Light » Tue Apr 15, 2014 4:19 pm

    Pentax Medium Format 645Z looks pretty good...
    Feedback and honest, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
  • User avatar
    LOZ
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2888
    Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:48 am
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by LOZ » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:48 pm

    Wait 24 months and you can pick it up for $500
    Calm down its not real life its a internet forum:)
  • User avatar
    Plays with Light
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1352
    Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:34 pm
    Location: Lost In Thought
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Plays with Light » Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:54 pm

    LOZ wrote:Wait 24 months and you can pick it up for $500


    Did you lose a "0" from that figure LOZ? I could see them going for 3.5 - 5K in a couple of years, secondhand. I reckon that they are going to be pretty well sought after by folks that enjoy working with stationary subjects.
    Feedback and honest, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
  • W G
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2125
    Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:25 am
    Location: Sydney
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by W G » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:37 pm

    i used the pentax 645 film camera for a number of years and maintained that it was the best kept secret in photography. it really was quite something. this digital jobbie is possibly quite good but they have not produced a line of digital resolution lenses for it and thereon founders the wreck.
    Walter Glover

    "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." —Robert Galassi
  • User avatar
    Doug
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Doug » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:49 pm

    Its a quarter of the price of the Hasselblad equivalent that has the same Sony sensor, so I guess that make it a bargain.

    I tend to just glance over the spec's of these cameras, it was only recently that the dimensions of these so called Med Format CMOS sensors actually sunk in.

    They are 7.8mm wider than a FF sensor (nothing to be sneezed at) but 16.2mm shy of a full 60mm med format width (well the 6x6 and 6x4.5 width).
    The non CMOS Hasselblad sensor is 10mm wider than this one.

    I wonder if Sony will make a mirrorless MF with this sensor, that is packaged like a Sony A7 and FF body size.
    It would be less expensive still, no markup on the sensor for a start.
  • User avatar
    Plays with Light
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1352
    Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:34 pm
    Location: Lost In Thought
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Plays with Light » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:42 pm

    W G wrote:i used the pentax 645 film camera for a number of years and maintained that it was the best kept secret in photography. it really was quite something. this digital jobbie is possibly quite good but they have not produced a line of digital resolution lenses for it and thereon founders the wreck.


    That is an interesting tidbit, Walter, thanks for piping up with that. Are we talking the original 645, the 645N or the 645N MkII? What lenses could you recommend for this camera with architecture and landscapes in mind? Would you suggest using Pentax 67 lenses on the 645 format so as to be in the sweet spot of the lenses? Is there any chance of doing daytime long exposures with one of these?

    Sorry for the noob questions...
    Last edited by Plays with Light on Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Feedback and honest, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
  • User avatar
    Plays with Light
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1352
    Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:34 pm
    Location: Lost In Thought
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Plays with Light » Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm

    Doug wrote:Its a quarter of the price of the Hasselblad equivalent that has the same Sony sensor, so I guess that make it a bargain.

    I tend to just glance over the spec's of these cameras, it was only recently that the dimensions of these so called Med Format CMOS sensors actually sunk in.

    They are 7.8mm wider than a FF sensor (nothing to be sneezed at) but 16.2mm shy of a full 60mm med format width (well the 6x6 and 6x4.5 width).
    The non CMOS Hasselblad sensor is 10mm wider than this one.

    I wonder if Sony will make a mirrorless MF with this sensor, that is packaged like a Sony A7 and FF body size.
    It would be less expensive still, no markup on the sensor for a start.


    I discovered that too about the sensors size discrepancy to the traditional ratios for medium format, after posting the original message here and then reading about it further.

    As one that doesn't know diddly-squat about these things, I am just amazed at the ability to knock 'em out so cheaply! lenses, as Walter rightly pointed out, above, are a whole sad and sorry story.
    Feedback and honest, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
  • User avatar
    Doug
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Doug » Wed Apr 16, 2014 2:01 am

    W G wrote:i used the pentax 645 film camera for a number of years and maintained that it was the best kept secret in photography. it really was quite something. this digital jobbie is possibly quite good but they have not produced a line of digital resolution lenses for it and thereon founders the wreck.


    Well only three new ones it seems intended for this camera.
    A 25mm f4 $5000 =19mm in FF
    55mm f2,8 $1200 probably the kit lens =43mm
    90mm f2,8 Macro $4500 =70mm
  • W G
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2125
    Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:25 am
    Location: Sydney
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by W G » Wed Apr 16, 2014 3:58 am

    they must be quite recent additions doug,

    pentax made some absolute cracker optics for the 645 and some, like the 300mm, were very expensive as some of these are. their 120mm macro was a stunna too. part of the appeal was that pentax supplied an adapter for 6x7 lenses on the 645 – my favourite was the 105mm .... it beat anything zeiss made for the mighty swede. like i said, the best kept secret in photography.

    but for mf digital the pentax, like the leica s is limited by not having a detachable back like the hasselblad, phase one, sinar, etc. the old problem of the size and optical impediment of a mirror box is quite prohibitive with short focal lengths and also with lens movements.

    granted the pentax is a bargain, but it comes at a significant cost in terms of functionality.
    Walter Glover

    "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." —Robert Galassi
  • User avatar
    Doug
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by Doug » Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:41 am

    I would not have thought having a detachable back was a biggy with digital MF unlike film.
    One way to look at it is an entire Pentax body is probably still cheaper than a Hassleblad digital back.
    So you could just buy whatever Pentax body variations you wanted and end up with a backup camera or two.
  • W G
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2125
    Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:25 am
    Location: Sydney
    Contact:

    Re: Got a spare 10 G's?

    by W G » Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:10 am

    cost is what the pentax has going for it but the savings come at a high price with regard to functionality. mind you, the uber-costly leica s has the same physical restrictions.

    the mirror box is the core of the issues. the slr and dslr concept has always been very compromised when it comes to focal lengths shorter than about 35mm and so invariably wide angles are actually retro focus teles. never as good as the real thing.

    for 10 grand all you are getting is a bigger canon or nikon but without the range of optics.
    Walter Glover

    "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." —Robert Galassi

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest