Pentax 645D is here ! ! !

<p>Robin, oops, I missed that. Sorry.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I only had film cameras I would shoot with them, but much, much less than I shoot digital now. Some people love film and shoot it a lot (as Javier does on this very forum), but I know there are others like me. I have never bought a 645, and never will, because I know I wouldn't shoot it. Spending $2,000 on a 645 kit and film/development costs for a year would be a waste of $2,000. On the other hand, spending $10,000 on a 645D would be an investment for me—maybe not of money, but certainly an investment in my photography. I would shoot a 645D often, and I'm sure my photography would benefit from it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>gotta disagree, not with the premise but the #s. The premise I agree with, you will shoot more digital. However, what you aren't saying is you will also shoot more duds. I like to think people shoot faster with a DSLR, but not smarter.</p>

<p>For real #s, I paid $600 total for my 2 lens, 3 back, freshly factory recertified 645N. Was it a good deal? Sure, was it unbeatable, no. I got lucky on the body, I ebayed the lenses.Worst case, $750 for the kit I have. If I wanted a 645NII $1000 for the kit. However, unless you believe that Chinese back that is floating around Asia is real, there is absolutely 110% no real world advantage to the 645N over the NII (with the exception of being able to set the custom functions).</p>

<p>That is less than $2000 by a year or two worth of film.</p>

<p>As far as film. about 30-40 rolls now (probably closer to 30 shot, 10 sitting on or in my fridge). Total cost about $100 for film.</p>

<p>Processing: 1 bottle Kodak HC-110, using high dilution long duration stand development (better detail, more consistent results, lower grain, lower use of chemicals, plus superior technique when pushing) about $15, I still have 60% of the bottle left. Actually to be fair, I usually process a roll a time. I could get several per batch of developer so really my #s are skewed. In any case, 100s of rolls/$15 using the higher dilutions.</p>

<p>True, you also need fixer. That is a bit more expensive, however, it can be stored for a little bit once mixed. So if I do 5 rolls a week, I can use the same fixer throughout the week. Cost is like $4 a bottle. Hard to tell how much I really use per roll.</p>

<p>Stop bath not needed. Rinse it to stop developing.</p>

<p>You also need a final rinse agent. You use a few ml per roll tops, so that cost is insignificant.</p>

<p>Cost of setup, well I had a tank, but including tank about $50.</p>

<p>So for a reasonable first year...$750 for the 645N + 2 lenses + 2-3 backs, $200 film, lets say $100 in developing chemicals + the development kit at say $50.</p>

<p>We are talking $1100. Far less than the $4000 you are quoting.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot more, double the film and chemical cost (although as noted, chemicals can actually drop in batch processing vs. single roll processing).</p>

<p>So even if you shoot 1 roll per week, you average about $1700 for the first year (including the camera and lenses).</p>

<p>Years 2-infinity you average approx $3 average per roll (unless you shoot Delta 3200 every roll then add at least $1). Since processing doesn't add much, lets say $3.50 per roll average. If you shoot 2 rolls a week, (52x2)x3.50=$364 film cost.</p>

<p>As an example I get my Acros 100 for about $2 a roll. If I buy a lot of rolls I get a discount. There are cheaper films, some actually just rebranded Acros or Ilford. But most of what I shoot is Acros 100, Neopan 400, and Delta 3200. That covers ISO80-3200 (remember Delta 3200 is actually 1250 I believe).</p>

<p>it's really not that expensive to shoot 120 film or build a 645 system, the body cost probably drops if the 645D does live, but of course lenses will go up a bit. Although probably not that much since they don't match the sensor res.</p>

<p>The only spot I can see your cost going crazy, is a scanner or scanning images professionally. In all honesty for 90% of the stuff everyone produces, a decent flatbed is fine for initial scans, and maybe even small prints (up to 11x14). If the image is superior spend the $60 on a high end wet drum scan, or if you really are producing 10 Pulitzer images per roll, just shell out the $1000 for a Nikon 8000 scanner. But like Ansel said (loosely paraphrased), "12 images is a good year."</p>

<p>Now where I agree with you totally is the fact that IQ to cost ratio in 2010, 35mm is a waste of time and money (other than the portability factor). I've thought about picking up an MX from time to time myself, but I just can't do it. I have several 35mm cameras that I mostly use for messing around with cross processing (just bring E-6 to target 1 hour, they process anything). The bottom line to me is the quality is fine but the cost isn't significantly less (sometimes more) than 645 (120mm) where my money isn't better spent on 120 film.</p>

<p>On another note, the cost of the 645N system is so cheap, that you can afford to buy 2-3, 5, 10 bodies and create your own support system. Seriously, even if you are on a month long photo trek, you can leave a spare 645N body in the car, if it gets stolen you are out a few hundred dollars, which will probably be covered by some form of insurance (homeowners, car, renters, credit card, etc), or just eat the $400.</p>

<p>Sure Pentax might overnight a 645D to you but what is easier, opening up the trunk and pulling out the spare or waiting till the next day or longer?</p>

<p>Worse for me, although i really haven't ventured too far into the wilderness with my 645, if it breaks it breaks, there is no Pentax support or Nikon or Canon if you don't have a way to contact them or way for them to send you a camera. So reliability is really first and foremost.</p>

<p>Which camera do you think is more reliable 1) the proven design mechanical box that captures light 2) the power hungry, new fangled electronic box with lots of delicate internals that also captures light? I'm betting on the very basic box.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm not busting on the 645D, I think it's a great value, even better for those who fly rather than drive, but I heard this argument that digital was vastly cheaper and more effecient when digital SLRs came out for the masses a few years ago. The fact is when you really start adding up all the incidental cost digital had a very high initial cost. Then add in the fact that a camera might be state of the art today, and just ok in 2 years.</p>

<p>When talking about processing and scanning, not sure there is a huge savings in digital provided you don't have a deadline. Here is why, I get home, I copy to my hard drive, I make a backup. Depending on the size of the download I am looking at some time. Then I allow light room to build 1:1 profiles (slower initially, faster cumulatively) sort through hundreds of high res files, then a filter the obvious junk, followed by tagging the potential keepers, followed by editing the RAW, importing to photoshop for a final tweak, followed by exporting to JPEG web and/or high res JPEG/TIFF for print. Then I have to backup again. Sure scanning is a pain, but once you have the film profiles setup, it's not all that painful or more cumbersome than digital RAW.</p>

<p>The real advantage of digital is expediency, you can upload a file in between periods/quarters/innings (or during shooting if someone else is editing on site), you get real time feedback if you are shooting portraits or weddings or events, etc. You can also sell prints on site, at events. Yeah, it's great when dealing with clients as you can show them initial results and get feedback. But I'm not sure for slow photography that the advantages are really all that great. As it is, if I'm off the grid for 10 days I can't do anything with my images anyway till I get home, and then I still have many hours of editing ahead of me.</p>

 

<p>Justin,<br>

I think that there are multiple right answers when looking at this question. I would encourage a more holistic perspective on the real costs of choosing to develop film at home. It's pretty much out of the question for me. I have a home septic system. Not only would I have to capture the silver (that's the easy part), but the other not-so-friendly chemicals would wipe out my septic system. Not that I would expect to have to shell out the $25K it would take to redo the thing (I live in a county with among the most restrictive requirements in the US), but we need it to work right. After all, it drains into my water table, and that ends up in my kids' drinking glasses, not to mention my neighbor's. So, what's the real cost of developing film? It isn't even a choice to me.</p>

<p>I think I'll stop there.</p>

<p>ME</p>

<p>Justin, all valid points. My $2,000 for the first year was taking into account that I would NOT be home developing the film so it would be sent out to a lab for developing and hi-rez scanning. And I would most likely be shooting colour, not B&W.</p>

<p>Like I said, for <em>some</em> people, film works out (you've found a way you can afford and are happy with), but for others like me it doesn't. And there's nothing wrong with that :-)</p>

<p>Justin Serpico wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>On another note, the cost of the 645N system is so cheap, that you can afford to buy 2-3, 5, 10 bodies and create your own support system. Seriously, even if you are on a month long photo trek, you can leave a spare 645N body in the car...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Er, what car? Are we adding the price of a car to the system cost then? ;-)</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Which camera do you think is more reliable 1) the proven design mechanical box that captures light 2) the power hungry, new fangled electronic box with lots of delicate internals that also captures light? I'm betting on the very basic box.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll bet on whichever system has the fewest moving parts. Generally it's friction that creates wear and breakdowns. Film cameras tend to be built to higher tolerances, but Pentax bucks the trend for crappy digital cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then add in the fact that a camera might be state of the art today, and just ok in 2 years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's still the same camera with the same features. One may desire a more advanced system, but that is not photographic reality, that's just consumerism. (Hey, sucks me in too!) If anything this is an advantage to digital if you rephrase it in terms of the creeping pace of film improvement compared to the lightning advance of digital. But that is symptomatic of pretty well anything technological today.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here is why, I get home, I copy to my hard drive, I make a backup. Depending on the size of the download I am looking at some time. Then I allow light room to build 1:1 profiles (slower initially, faster cumulatively) sort through hundreds of high res files, then a filter the obvious junk, followed by tagging the potential keepers, followed by editing the RAW, importing to photoshop for a final tweak, followed by exporting to JPEG web and/or high res JPEG/TIFF for print. Then I have to backup again. Sure scanning is a pain, but once you have the film profiles setup, it's not all that painful or more cumbersome than digital RAW.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you saying you don't have to backup your digital images from film? And why don't you start working while the backup is progressing? I know I do, since I am not ever touching the actual RAW files while pre-processing (or editing). Perhaps Lightroom is a pig, but I can scan and select my images in a couple of moments with the free software I use.</p>

<p>Now that I have developed a processing workflow I can go from memory card to finished shots optimised for the web in very little time. More important, this work is fun and creative, with all the boring bits automated. I wish I could automate taking a strip of negs, placing them on the scanner, adjusting everything and putting them back in the protective sheet in the album, but I think that would require slavery... or much better robots!</p>

<p>Film and digital have their advantages but digital is so much more convenient I can't begin to say.</p>

 

 

<p>The cost comparisons between digital and film are pointless because MF fills a niche for many between their 35mm format DSLRs and LF. What MF presently does best is that it's too cheap to ignore for the very few things it does better than any other format. For me, this is the near-far scenes that are not planar and DOF has to carry the day instead of movements. The Pentax 645N and the 35mm f/3.5 SMC-A are nearly perfect for this niche and a helluva bargain even now.<br>

I shoot professionally and 95% of what I need digital for (wildlife, event's, photojournalism) is as well or better served in a smaller format than medium format. Large format film still does some things best at a cost/benefit ratio; I will still be shooting film in larger formats. Ektar 100 just became available in sheet film sizes, and I'll be shooting it in 4x5 for the first time later this afternoon)<br>

Medium format is the middle ground, something of a no man's land. Some of the venerable mighty names have already fallen and there's just no guarantee anyone will still be left standing in a couple of years. Much of this is due to overlap with smaller formats, which have drastically lower pricing due to high volume production. While it would be nice to have instant results on landscapes at moderately high resolutions, it's mostly unnecessary. Are there enough people who'll buy this 645D that Pentax will not only continue with it, but also rebuild the pro infrastructure that they've long ignored?</p>

<p>Ivan, i am intrigued by what you have said here, but can you please help me out by describing some examples of "near-far scenes that are not planar and DOF has to carry the day instead of movements" ?</p>

<p>That would be any subject where the movements of a larger format view camera cannot hold depth of field by tilting or swinging and stopping down, at a reasonable f/stop or shutter speed combination.<br>

An example of a difficult three dimensional subject matter I commonly encounter that's a challenge on LF is a beach scene with a nearby sea stack or rock. If you want to get the top, bottom and middle of the rock in focus it takes a lot of depth of field even when the lens is tilted for the plane of the beach and the ocean. Then you might motion-blur the cresting waves for the correspondingly long shutter speed that's needed with f/32. Likewise, when I want to stop flowers swaying in even a slight 2MPH breeze I'd want a shutter speed of 1/125s or faster-- a feat much more easily accomplished in late afternoon or evening light on smaller formats than 4x5. <br>

The natural advantage of the smaller formats is that the lenses are shorter in focal length for a given field of view. Shorter focal lengths carry more DOF for a given f/stop.</p>

<p>Thanks Ivan - good, clear explanation, and useful information for me, as i try to decide whether or not to take my landscape photography on from my K10D.</p>