Simply Stunning! - Pentax 645D (almost as if there myself)
- Thread starter pinholecam
- Start date
airconvent
Senior Member
Europeans pros had picked the 645 as the best pro camera in Europe!
http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/european_pros_pick_the_pentax_645d_as_the_best_dslr.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/european_pros_pick_the_pentax_645d_as_the_best_dslr.html
Last edited:
erm... DSLR? someone needs to tell those europeans this is a digital MF... :sweatsm:
Howabout being poisoned by this Pentax 6x7 more affordable.
see those the best seem to come from Pentax 6x7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/4967600353/in/photostream/
see those the best seem to come from Pentax 6x7
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/4967600353/in/photostream/
Thanks for the link. Certainly looks different from digital in terms of tonality. Though his PP style is quite a bit digital (ie.esp. in terms of sharpening or maybe its the smaller web resolutions).
How have you found the process of digitizing the 67 neg/slides?
I seem to find that Canon 9000F I am using is just 'entry level' in terms of detail capture. Compared to the lab scans, its quite a step away.
I have just finished my first roll of medium format random shots sent for lab development, very interesting learning experience and I am very happy to have bought this wonderful camera with 105mm f2.4 len. although I am only able to collect it next week after the slide are processed and scanned to disc . "This first roll is learning roll nothing serious"
I am still researching on scanners for films / heard about drum scanner but that's way too crazy for prize, so I rather let developer scan from lab i can afford it.
I also notice some come back of the camera spare parts, such as the mirror buffer when i did a general search, on ebay...
I am still researching on scanners for films / heard about drum scanner but that's way too crazy for prize, so I rather let developer scan from lab i can afford it.
I also notice some come back of the camera spare parts, such as the mirror buffer when i did a general search, on ebay...
Have to agree that the MF price is so low now that its a good time to play with it.
Dev is no problem, but scan to CD cost is so scary (~$15 from Konota; generally that price everywhere else). That is why I got a Canon 9000F.
I've read that using the DSLR to 'scan' can actually be as good if not better than 8800F/V600. Its the hassle to DIY something up that has put me off it ATM.
Probably give it a try eventually.
So far, I've found that only the 67 can match a 14+MP camera only if the scan is good (obviously). Low end scanner (Canon 9000F) only marginally makes the grade to match up. I suspect at least V700 and/or lab scan to match up to FF DSLR. Tonality and 'look' is different nonetheless.
Last edited:
evolutioner
New Member
Absolutely stunning pictures!!
But i think it's not impossible to produce similar results with a k5.. haha
But i think it's not impossible to produce similar results with a k5.. haha
oceanpriest
Senior Member
Pardon me, but his shots is too digitally sharpnened. Too 'razor sharp' to be real. Again tonality is great though.
At such web sizes, any scanner will do. Large files (eg. 3200x2400), will reveal which scanner cuts the cake.
I do think that K5 at ISO80 already conviniently 'cuts the cake' in most situations. Certanly not at the level of detail compared to a megapix monster like the 645D when viewed BIG, but really very very good at most viewing sizes.
here is the v700 scannned I found in flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/tobba-b/3887449544/in/faves-nc_chia/
hellfire88
Senior Member
hi how much does it cost to get a MF camera and a standard lens?
Depends on which system.
A TLR w/ a fixed standard 80mm lens is about $80-$250 depending on brand, model reputation and geneology
A Mamiya RB67 system is cheap. Within $1K you probably get body +3 lenses
Pentax 67 and 645, no longer as cheap as the lens has become more expensive due to the 645D (probably $600-$800 for a Pentax 67 body plus 1 lens)
Hassleblad is not cheap at all (but of course cheaper than before digital)
Be prepared for the running cost.
Film is about $8 per roll (10 shots only on a 67 camera). ($5 for some B/W film)
Dev is about $5.50 to $6.50
Scan to CD is about $15
So 10 shots, you pay ~$28.50 (assuming color film)
6x6 you get 12 exposures for the same film roll.
645 you get 14 exposures.
If you can scan, of course cost goes way down after the initial investment of the scanner.
Then again a better quality V700 costs $900;
Even cheaper if you can dev on your own which is dirt cheap AFAIK from various threads around here.
If you want to do this for fun, enjoying the process, tonality, look of film, its ok.
If you are looking for current (esp. K5) like ease and quality, don't even try.
So far, from my own trials, at best, you get quality like a K5 with a so-so scanner (unless you pay out more for a better scanner, software and work hard to find the optimal scanning method).
If you print from negative and print big, I certainly believe they can be different.
Eg. I see much more detail on the neg just using a loupe than from my scans, so I'm certainly not bringing up the full potential of the neg.
Frankly, for 1024x768 size screen presentations, any option can do it (ie. even 35mm film, 6mp camera, etc) .
My few cents
hellfire88
Senior Member
hi pinholecam, thanks for sharing. got interested in film again after seeing this thread. used to have a MX but sold it away after moving to digital.
i agree the running costs is high and it was one of the reasons why i stop shooting film. the colours and tonality of film is still unmatched by digital thou imho
for self developing i think it only applies to black and white film and although that is my preference for street shots, i feel that the biggest reason for me to get a MF is to make a large print of Velvia 50 film and hang on the wall in my room.
thanks for sharing your experiences. i hope that in future when i'm an old man film is still around and i will carry a MF cam with rolls of velvia film and go to places like yosemite, antelope canyon etc
i agree the running costs is high and it was one of the reasons why i stop shooting film. the colours and tonality of film is still unmatched by digital thou imho
for self developing i think it only applies to black and white film and although that is my preference for street shots, i feel that the biggest reason for me to get a MF is to make a large print of Velvia 50 film and hang on the wall in my room.
thanks for sharing your experiences. i hope that in future when i'm an old man film is still around and i will carry a MF cam with rolls of velvia film and go to places like yosemite, antelope canyon etc
