Anyone famous using Pentax 645?

[davidgarth]

I love my Pentax 645 for landscapes; I was contemplating investing in

a long telephoto for nature/wildlife

work. I was curious if anyone knows any published photographers

using Pentax 645. I am familar with long

lens 35mm practices, but I'm wondering if it's practical in 645. I

never did very well with my Pentax 67 and

a rented 800, but it seems possible with 645. Am I crazy?

 

Dave Garth

[photomark]

Yes David, You're Crazy.

But that probably shouldn't stop you because when its all said and

done you'll have a big 645 slide when eveyone else is looking at those

rather diminutive 35mm miniatures.

 

Regarding your question, Robert Glenn Ketchum uses and speaks very

highly of both the Pentax 645 and 67.

 

Good luck.

 

Mark

[rob_black]

Sorry, I can't help you with the "famous" part of your query. I have no interest in anyone elses photographic results, I'm alot more interested in how my shots turn out.

I can help with the long lens question. I am currently shooting with the manual focus 300mm/ 2x tele converter combination. A lens support is absolutely necessary, even using the 300 alone. Unfortunately Pentax did not make one for the 300mm so I picked up the Kirk Enterprises custom Arca bracket for the 300. Pricy but extremely solid. Using it with a sturdy tripod has given me **superb** results. Extremely sharp. The 300/2x combo is the 35mm equiv. of 360 mm-- not bad but not really super tele. I'm planning on getting the 400mm AF lens soon. With a 2x converter it would be roughly 580mm (35mm equiv.). Whew! The 400 even has a tripod mount.

 

Hope some of this helps.

Rob

[don_feinberg2]

Who cares about the famous?!?!

 

I'll give you my all-purpose answer: A camera is a tool. Within its technical limits, it is as good or bad as you can be.

 

The Pentax 645 is a good machine. Lots of pros use it, but this statement is meaningless -- lots of pros use anything you can find in the B&H and calumet catalogs, plus also Lubitels. So, even if you can get an answer to your question, it won't help you.

 

The Pentax is reliable, and most of the lenses are really pretty good. The negs are aboud 42x56mm, about three times the area of 35mm. This gives the *potential* for far better prints.

 

On the other hand, it is MF. To some extent, you get what you pay for; you're going to work harder for your images. No MF camera -- even with autofocus -- is going to be as easy/fast/sexy as the latest Canon XYZ10,000 or the latest Nikon PQR50,000-X1.

 

Now: What to **you** want to do with the camera?

 

You want a long tele for nature/wildlife. Do you have the patience to put up with an "even longer" lens in MF than you would in 35mm for the same apparent image size? Ths "slowness" that implies? The expense that implies?

 

So, let's ask again: just *why* are you interested in MF? When you answer that question, you won't have to know what "the pros" are doing.

 

Don Feinberg

donf@cybernex.net

[davidgarth]

Sorry I apparently touched a nerve with some people. I wanted to know if any "famous" people were shooting medium format wildlife so I could check out their books or web sites to see what they've done. Not to copy it, but to see if it's technically feasible. I didn't mean to imply that anyone "famous" does better work than anyone else.

[watson___]

Hi David..

 

The P645 is great for landscape, large animals, medium critters, and macro. It is not convenient for small birds or distant birds because of the magnification needed. Lots of MF shooters switch to 35mmm for small bird stuff. The most accessible collections of MF nature photos seems to in various Haaselblad pamphlets and books.

 

Cheers..

[_____]

Hi Watson

 

I'm not sure that I agree with you. Yes, if one wishes to cover the whole negative solely with your subject then any MF lens with an equivalent angle of view may be cumbersome or impossible as the FL may not exist. However, if one talks about using the same numerical focal length, say a MF 400mm compared with a 35mm format 400mm, one finds that the slightly wider angle of view of the MF 400mm will give you the bonus of capturing the environment of your subject. You have greater freedom in cropping creatively around your subject; the image size of your subject remains the same. I think there is too much concern with filling up the whole negative space with one's subject. I've found through experience often that its environment helps to enhance the subject. At worst, the MF system using the same numerical focal length as 35mm format allows you to crop down to an image size which is no smaller than what 24X36mm covers. Lens speed and speed of autofocus are other issues though as these fast F2.8 long teles (>300mm) with USM or AF-S only exist in 35mm. Cheers...Rene.

 

P.S. Ah yes, Patrick Demarchelier uses the Pentax 645 and also, Hasselblad. Make of that what you will.

[paal_jensen1]

Mattias Klum, who shot the august(?) '97 front page of National Geographic, uses the Pentax 645 for wildlife and nature. He also uses Pentax 35mm gear.

[ShunCheung]

Rene, keep in mind that 6x4.5 requires a much larger image circle than that for 35mm. While a Canon or Nikon 300mm/f2.8 AF lens is already very expensive at ~$4000, the Mamiya 645 300mm/f2.8 APO is a huge lens and costs ~$12,000.

 

So while a 400mm lens will give you the same image size on eithr 35mm or 6x4.5 film and on 6x4.5 you'll get additional sourandings, those 6x4.5 lenses will cost a lot more in terms of price as well as size and weight.

[patrick_drennon]

Don't know if this will help, but..... There is an adaptor for P67 lenses for the 645. The P67 600 f/4 is a monster but it is affordable ($4000) and should yield eqivalent angles of coverage to a 35mm 400 lens on the 645. Once it is conquered (no small feat for me) it produces gorgeous images. I would think it is suitable to wildlife photography in blinds or on a double tripod setup. You would NEVER want to try an extended hike with it.

 

I am sorry but I do not know of any pro wildlife photographers using the P645 but it is a great system from what I've heard.

[_____]

Shun Cheung don't state the obvious. I was referring to the Pentax 645 system specifically as that was Dave's concern, thus my reference to the 400mm focal length. Cheers...rene.

[_____]

As addendum to my above post, I wish that people who maintain that MF lenses are bigger, heavier, blah, blah than 35mm would actually go down to the shops and take a good look at them, or better yet use it out in the field before they say their piece. Don't merely look at the pictures in the catalogues. And question whether you have any real need for the fastest and the'baddest' long range lenses before repeating the mantra 'F2.8, F2.8, F2.8'. Sorry, I'm getting tedious.

[ken_dunn]

David, I am not famous by any means, but I just got a 500mm for my Mamiya 645 (and a ball head off Shun, thanks) and although it takes a little effort, I feel the results are worth it. I had shot wildlife before with a 300 and had very good (not great) results and think the 500 is going to work out much better. I have just played around thus far (If I can keep this thing on my hyper-active golden retriever the deer don't stand a chance), but I can see it being very usable. Good luck.

[patrick_drennon]

Ken,

 

Sort of a wild experience when the focal lengths get that long, huh?

[tom_goodrick]

I believe Art Wolfe is using the Mamiya 645 for nature shots now and then. You can get the P67 adapter for $130 (B&H) to use P67 lenses. The 300mm f4 lens for the P67 is medium size and very sharp. It would do well on a P645.

[bobatkins]

I'd think the major drawback is a lack of long telephoto lenses. Most

serious nature shooters in 35mm consider a 400mm lens to be the very

minimum that's usable for most WILDlife work. That means mammals and

birds in the wild. Most use 500/4 or 600/4 lenses much of the time.

500 on a 645 is about the equivalent of a 300mm in 35mm, which is

usable for a lot of subjects (captive wildlife, macro shots of

reptiles etc.) but is still a little short (even with a 1.4x TC) for serious WILDlife work.

 

Of course 500mm is 500mm and you could always crop the MF negative, but the difference might be that the 35mm lenses are usually ED (APO) designs, whereas many (but not all) of the MF telephotos are not, so

there might be a sharpness penalty. Pentax do have a 600/5.6 ED lens,

which could be a pretty nice option.

 

As for "famous", Jim Zuckerman shoots some wildlife with a Mamiya 6x7, so compared with that 645 should be easy!

[_____]

If memory serves me, the AF 300mm f4 and 400mm f5.6 for the Pentax 645N are made out of ED glass.

 

My point is this: if one can get away from the hackneyed thinking that MF is neccessarily bulky and slow to work with, and that with long lenses one has to fill up the negative all the time then one can see the advantage of having both 35mm and a larger MF format at the same time in the MF setup. One has the the bonus of extra acreage when one needs it. Millimeter for millimeter, MF lenses are similar in size, weight, and quality to their 35mm counterparts. To those who are so wedded to the technological gizmos in their 35mm systems that they feel they can't function without them, well, I can't say anything other than it may help to turn off auto-pilot, take over and fly manual occassionally. Yes, AF may help you to capture shots 'never before possible' but great photographs were made way before there was AF (circa 1985); 'old-time photographers' call it learning to anticipate the decisive moment. These days, it is 8 frames-per-second, 36 frames in 4, and then let's see what I've got. There are two ways to use technology; use it to enhance the way you work or dumb down and let it control the way you work. For many of us, the latter applies. Turn this dial, twist this knob, push that button...Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya choice.

 

P.S. The only justifications for 35mm are its look of its ultra-wide angles, unique 35mm emulsions, and oh yes, F2.8 teles for those who can't live without F2.8 but some will pipe in and say, "look there's the Mamiya 645 300 f2.8 and the 500mm f2.8 and they cost a lot of money and yadda, yadda".

[watson___]

Hi all..

 

I agree with Rene that 645 cameras and lenses are not much bulkier and are almost as convenient as industrial strength 35mm slrs. The bigger negative resuts in more pleasing quality of prints. My 35mm stuff is relegated to long lens work which means that it does not get out of the house often.

 

For wideangle to short telephoto shots the P645 has no problems keeping up with 35mm for landscape and large wildlife work. For medium telephoto work the 300mm and 1.4x converter on 645 gives me the equiv of 200mm and 300mm on 35mm. (The next step up might be the 400mm and 1.4 which would give the equiv of 250mm and 400mm in 35mm.) This is plenty of length at convenient weights to keep me happy. It is interesting that the lenses can be from the P645 series or the P67 with adapter.

 

The 500mm and 600mm lenses on 35mm needed for small birds and critters also require bulging muscles, monster tripod techniques, and big bucks. This specialized activity is beyond my attention span and financial reach so I have not bothered to duplicate the capability in 645. Indeed, I think that it is better to concede that this stuff to 35mm.

 

Dave, P645 instead of P67 for monster telephoto work will allow you to use shorter monsters to fill the frame. The P645 using 500mm or 600mm with 1.4x will be only a bit more difficulty (assuming enough light) than 35mm slrs using the same lengths without the extenders. The 35mm slrs might still be king in this 10x+ despite the smaller negative because they have more headroom in lens speed, can get the magnification without extenders, and can get additional range with extenders.

 

Cheers..

[joe_machado]

I saw an Audobon Society nature magazine recently - an old version - and the cover had two members each using a 645 with the 300mm lens photographing nature/birds. It was supposed to be the official camera of the organization. The photos in the magazine were National Geographic quality - good, IMHO.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Does Ricky Martin count?

[andy_wall1]

You probably forgot you posted this question. And may own a lng lens for your Pentax now.

Check out UK Wildlife photographer Andy Rouse at andyrouse.co.uk. He uses a Pentax with outstanding results.

 

PS i am not that sad that i cruse the 1999 archives but i was looking for something else.

 

Cheers