Switching Systems....Time To Move On

[mountainvisions]

 

<p >....Sort of....</p>

<p > </p>

<p >After dragging my ass like a dog with worms for the last few years (since 2005) as I watched 645 plummet to the point where it's almost a joke in terms of price to quality (hey nothing wrong with buying in at the bottom), I took the plunge. I have an excellent condition 645N in my possession today, a 55mm 2.8 (35mm equiv which is my "normal" lens, as 35mm has always been "normal" to me) on it's way, 20 rolls of Provia 100F in the freezer, and I'm currently tracking down the other 2 lenses I need. I'm not going to go crazy with a kit up front (or ever), I'm going to go back to the basics and use the FLs I am most comfortable with, and most likely to actually use for the intended subject matter. Really I have a total of 4 lenses (all primes) on my 645 list which should be ideal since my initial 35mm kit that I carried for the formative years actually had 3 out of the 4 effective FOV on the list. Not surprisingly I still gravitate towards those FLs despite having many more options.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A lot of the reason I held off was I was investing so much into my digital system starting around 2005, and at this point I really have nothing else to add to the system (Nikon or Pentax...other than that 15mm F/4 and that is such a low priority since my Sigma 10-20 is absolutely exceptional, that I might just hold off and find a used copy in a year or so, maybe a longer or faster Nikkor but again, not a priority, rather add a 1.4x TC to the 300mm f/4 for outdoors shooting). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Digital is absolutely great for 90% of my shooting, and the quality of the images are very close to on par with 35mm film, if not slightly better in some respects. So I've lost nothing shooting mostly digital APS since the K10D (the ist D was a little low res for my needs in comparison to film since I was getting about 10 quality mega pixels from my 35mm Provia scans at home, with option for more if I sent it out), and as a result I've struggled to run off more than a few rolls of 35mm film over the last few years.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The draw of Pentax 645 is that it's actually amazingly compact for a 645 system, and it's built like a tank. I mean some 645s were studio cameras but it's clear why the Pentax 645 seemed to be the landscape photographers camera of choice for many years. Part of this compactness is because Pentax didn't use interchangeable backs, which is why there is no digital back for these great cameras. While I admire the LF people out there, 645 is largest format I see usable based on size, albatross factor, and cost per shot.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So what was the deciding factor? Well a lot of people are photographers AND lens collectors. They enjoy trading up lenses and creating the perfect system, and all that good stuff. Unfortunately, I neither have the desire, the space, the time, or money to mess with that stuff. My equipment is merely a tool, and while at times I’ve been critiqued for being a fan boy, the reality is I just use whatever works for me and get rid of the rest of it. The epiphany was when it occurred to me one day that I'm splitting hairs on lenses to get a few more lines of resolution, when I could simply blow APS-C digital away, and rival high mega pixel FF digital (if not surpass it) for about the same cost as a 31mm Limited! It then occurred to me that I hardly ever use a lens over 200mm, or below 20mm (equivalents on film and digital 35/APS) where I expect to use the 645. The MF system is practically custom ordered to these constrictions.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>Well, thanks a *LOAD*, Justin for giving Matt more ammo in his "need" for a 645!!!! :-D<br>

He's been watching 645 bodies go for nearly dirt-cheap on ebay and crying, cause the extra $$ isn't there to throw at one.</p>

[jtk]

<p>How are you scanning?</p>

<p>645 was always a convenient and inexpensive wedding photographer's format...IMO serious landscape people either shot 35mm or large format, less often 6X6 and less still 645, back when film ruled and good labs existed. The main reasons for 645 were that wedding/portrait-oriented photo labs favored 120 and square format was uncomfortable for people raised on 35mm.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I'll do initial scans at home, anything worth printing LARGE will go off for a proper scan, like I would do with 35mm. Although generally I found my 35mm scanner was adequate for my needs.</p>

<p>Larger format is too big to expensive per shot, most large format photographers shoot from a car trunk, or do very specific photo excursions. I carry my gear with me all weekend, or for extended trips. I don't need highly specialized ways to carry it to bog me down. While I probably wouldn't take the 645 on a week long trip, I'd have no problem taking it on a moderate weekend adventure. Or humping it a few miles up a mountain for a day trip. It also should be capable of fitting into my existing paddling storage for summers on the water.</p>

<p>I recall Hardie Truesdale talking about humping his LF up the Gothics via Orebed Brook trail (if you don't know Hardies work look it up, he is an amazing photographer from my part of the country). He was camped at an interior outpost and still thought he was going to die on the day hike, Hardie isn't exactly your typical over weight butterball who decided one day he was going to become a landscape photographer, I'm pretty sure he's an accomplished climber, and been at this for decades. If he is cursing his LF system at times, I can't imagine myself enjoying it. I love photography, but I love enjoying the adventure of getting the images I do. Being weighed down with LF gear just doesn't appeal to me.</p>

<p>In the end, photography is all about compromise, 645 was used for a long time for landscapes. it's not really that I think 645 is better than say a D3X for my needs, but I can build a full system for $1200 that will probably just be edged out by an $8000 camera with $1500 lenses mounted to it (don't forget I still need lenses for that camera). That is $6800 of film and processing after my full setup. Also, keep in mind that landscape photographers did use 35mm film, and APS-C digital matches 35mm film. So, I will now have two very capable and relevant systems, combined that cost less than a top of the line, high resolution FF sensor. And the utility/cost/quality ratio of these IMO still exceeds the alternatives. I mean if for some reason I am forced to toss my K10D at a bear to save my life, I'm out $700 to replace it. If I need to use my 645N to pound pitons on a wall, I am out $295. No insurance cost, no worries. Someone jacks it from the car on a long trip, get home, login to Craigslist, buy another!</p>

<p>I still have a very good pro film lab here in Albany (actually 2 I think but I only use the one), and I can process my own E6 if need be. It's amazingly simple, although I typically only do it when I push (it's not really that much cheaper for standard processing vs. home). I push Provia 100F a lot to EI 160 and 200. I've even gone to 400, and it's actually amazing in this role. At 160 it still has better grain than most Kodak 100 ISO films. Pushing usually doubles the cost of film processing, so it's worth processing at home. Interesting to note, while I have not seen Provia 400X in 35mm in some time, Provia 400X is still avail in 120/220. This film pushes well to 800 and 1600 if need be, but for a 400 film is extremely solid performer.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Congratulations on your 645! I hope you enjoy it. </p>

<p>I guess I have a lot to say about Pentax 645; but, basically, I think you can't go wrong. I know a lot of people seem to say this or that about the format; it's there for portraits; I read another thread which implied it was no good for portraits because hand holding the camera on it side was inconvenient (I don't really know what to say to that one; squeeze a tennis ball, go the gym, get a bigger wrist; people have their opinions). I like the format, and I think the equipment is great. Congratulations. </p>

<p>I recommend you consider the Ole 80-160mm workhorse zoom. That one lens and a wide angle will keep you covered most of the time. The zoom is enjoyable in the field because of tripod setups. What lenses are you considering? </p>

<p>I know you understand this will add, not subtract, layers of work to your existing process. But, you make great photographs anyway. Welcome to 645!</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I think you'll really this. No, I don't think you'd need a D3X. Pentax 645 rocks. That 55mm lens you're interested in; coincidentally, it's very powerful in macro applications. Wider and more telephoto lenses somehow don't offer as much power as that lens. With bellow, it's basically a field microscope. My 55mm is nicknamed, "Stubby."</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>As a continuing film-shooter myself, Justin I see only logic in adding such a tool, for highest quality in certain applications. You have been among those who have not totally abandoned film and ignore its merits. Slide film comtinues to offer the most accurate represenation of exposure.</p>

<p>Although it is now apparent that higher mp FF digital has the capability to approximate the IQ film MF, its cost now is high indeed. It will take years for that cost to come within a reaistic range for most people. So in the meantime, you are achieving such elevated quality at a great price!! </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>There's a hard to find reversal ring for that lens. I do not know, because I don't have one, but suspect, that that lens on a reversal ring would be one of the most compact and powerful macro setups. Definitely would be very convenient in the bag. J.</p>

<p>P.S. If you need to economize further, because of the filter costs for those different diameters, I recommend the Lee Gel Holder. It's held on with a rubber band, so I am sure someone thinks it's not very good; but, I have one, and think it is very good. $60 effective solution for what would otherwise be hundreds in glass filter costs. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>hey John O,</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I shot film for a long time, so I'm not worried about the work flow. I was lucky to be on the edge of the digital revolution in that I've been digitally working with film since the late 1990s, and didn't go full digital till 2005. So when I shot my first DSLR, my only issue was learning RAW processing, I had the other aspects of photoshop and digital workflow figured out. No doubt that was a big curve, especially once you throw in different sharpening techniques for film and digital, but I wasn't overwhelmed with all the other stuff. Likewise, going back to film will be fairly smooth, moreso since I never really left the scanning end of it.</p>

<p>I'm still actually catching up on old film, snapshots mostly as my better slides have been digitized for a long time. However, not every shot you take needs to go in the trash just because it's not a Nat Geo moment, I enjoy the old shots of my wife and I, and I've also stolen some of the negatives from my dad of my family growing up. I don't like scanning, but I'm expecting with the large chromes to be able to weed out the losers immediately. Keeping scanning to a minimum. What I do with 35mm negatives, is scan everything in bulk, then delete the crap. I can do about 30 negatives per scan so when I'm dedicated I put a roll on before work, and before bed. luckily I shot most of my real photography on slide film which is easier to edit on the light box.</p>

<p>I was looking at the 80-160 zoom. But I kinda figured with only 4 lenses on my list, I'd just go prime. Here is the list 35mm f/3.5 (best wide angle made), 55mm 2.8, 120mm macro and 200mm f/4. That gives me 20mm, 35mm, 75mm, and 135mm. I wish the 120 was a 150 (making it 90mm equiv) but that should be everything I need. I could add a 45, but I don't need a 75 for sure, I never liked the 50mm FL. I like when the FLs match what I am used to because I can see the images I am trying to create before I waste time setting up.</p>

<p>Of course if I find a deal on the 80-160 that might be a cheaper short term route, but since I want the 120 for the macro, it seems like I'd be replicating my FLs.</p>

<p>And yeah, I read the recent 645 is a wasted format thread on the MF forum. I didn't get it either. I do actually like the square format, but not for 100% of my shots, so 6x6 would be wasted a lot more than the more rectangular 645 for my needs. I figure if you are shooting portraits (bearing in mind I am not a portrait photog) in a studio you probably have the camera on a tripod most of the time anyway to shoot vertical portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>John,</p>

<p>Good tips, I might actually go this route then.</p>

<p>35, 55 (with macro adaption), 80-160, 200mm. still 4 lenses, but better coverage and good macro.</p>

<p>thanks for the advice!</p>

<p>@ Mike K, nail on the head...It's a stop gap, with little downside. Plus, you will never hear me utter the words full frame (not to say I won't use FF ever, just no need to worry about it anytime soon). It's all about cost to quality to portability, which I'm pretty sure has been the holy grail quest of photography for decades. Right now, for me, this is as good as it gets. In 2,3,5,7 years this might not be the case but on 4/2/09 it is, and 4/2/11 is a lot of photo opportunities away!</p>

<p>@ Maria, get one, I love looking at 35mm provia on a lightbox, but what I've seen of 645 just blows it away. You guys should be able to get away with a 645 rather than the N or NII since I assume you will probably shoot Portra 160 or a black and white emulsion. for the cost of about $150 it will at least give you an idea of if you want to mess with film again. I know you guys still shoot a little film if I am correct, so this should be a cheap route to figure out if you want to put more time and money into it, or go further with digital only. I also think a lot of people seem to request real film for weddings, even if just as a second photographer. I know my brother was close to hiring a second set of photogs to just shoot true B&W film for their wedding. The escalating cost of the wedding/honeymoon/life nixed that. They already dropped $3500 on the digital crew (but that included, pre wedding engagement shots and some other stuff, plus they get the original files, no printing cost, etc).</p>

 

[leo_papandreou1]

Do you have a medium format projector? Man, I think I'd give my Y chromosone for 6x7 projector.

[markus maurer]

<p>Justin, do you expect to use the 645 lenses later with a digital 645D body when the price comes down? Is that even possible?</p>

[guy_gervais]

<p>Justin,</p>

<p>What decided you for the 645 VS the 67? If I may ask.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>G</p>

[david_barts2]

<blockquote>

<p>And yeah, I read the recent 645 is a wasted format thread on the MF forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As did I. I wrote that post off as a fairly transparent attempt at trolling. Enjoy your new camera!</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I haven't shot it yet but ended up building a 645N + FA645 45-85/4.5 + 75/2.8 + 80-160/4.5 kit late last year mostly because I tracked down some pretty good deals on like-new equipment. I don't think I'll buy anything else for it until I determine I'm using it enough to miss it...though there's some temptation in the direction of 120/4 macro, 150/2.8, 200/4, 35-55 zoom, etc. It's a pretty sweet body, controls are very much like those of the MZ-5n though build-quality is higher.</p>

<p>Unlike Justin though I am still needing to figure out a film workflow that makes me happy as I was never a high-mileage film shooter and haven't been in a darkroom since high school (1989-90). I am tempted to try developing B&W myself, but will need to get a decent 120-capable scanner.</p>

<p>Personally-speaking the 645-system appealed to me more because it's a somewhat more manageable size...but one could easily take most of Justin's arguments and apply them towards 67 as well...and those kits are plentiful and economical too. I don't really anticipate using flash much with 645 but the slow X-sync (especially the 1/30 on the 67) sounds kind of limiting (unless you go with LS lenses).</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>Show some cool DOF effects when you guys get the chance. What did your 645N setup (with lenses) run for cost? Just wondering if it's worth playing around with...</p>

 

[wtlwdwgn]

<p>I'll be waiting to see a few images from your 645N Justin. I've had my eye out for one of these too but I keep getting outbid past my budget ceiling. Michael Reichman has taken a ton of teriffic images with his 645's and 67's. I was thinking of just one lens (yeah, right!) a 35 or 45mm strictly for wide landscapes. I have to say that I'm green with envy. Enjoy and good shooting.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Justin, that you know how to process your own E6, that you trust your labs, and that you scan your own, answers my questions. Congratulations! There don't seem to be many Pentax Forum folks who still mention personal skills and resources like that. Time flies, I guess.</p>

<p> I was amazed when I came across one of those butterballs you described, deep into Arches National Monument, deploying a wooden field camera, tripod, light stand, and folding reflectors. 645's easier than that, for sure.</p>

<p><br /> When he has a heart attack back there some day he'll be having fun and will undoubtedly leave some fine sheet film in his estate.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Justin, any chance of a side-by-side shot of your new arrival next to your trusty K10D...? I'm curious how they compare, size-wise...</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>When you say 35mm, you mean the 645 35mm? With the way I read the OP, I understood that you felt 55mm 645 is about as a 35mm lens in 35mm format. That seems about right to me. </p>

<p>I have a 35mm 645, it is extreme wide angle in my opinion. I don't know the field of view in degrees, but it will show four handspans wide at arms length, and two handspans tall. This will be about double the area of the 55mm 645 lens. I think 75mm in this format is "normal"; really, I suspect the only advantage to the 75mm Pentax 65 lens is the incorporation of a leaf shutter. This would up synch speed and reduce vibration, I think; but, I haven't experienced any limitations that I recognize without the equipment.</p>

<p>That 35mm 645 lens is one of my most frequently used; carried daily. So also with 80-160. Now, I would caution you on the 80-160; I have low standards, compared to a lot of the photographers here. My 80-160 has black painted glass, and I suspect that other used ones on the market are also fleck filled. I saw one at Samy's advertised that was flecked, but not filled, for a discount; the appearance of that ad made me realize how likely this problem was to be. I'd almost recommend, with your level of refinement, to consider a seller like KEH for the 80-160 purchase; they'll have high quality and good disclosure, and, more importantly, a good returns policy. If the zoom action is not going to work out for you, then KEH support might be the answer. </p>

<p>I have that 120mm. My lenses were a package deal on consignment. That lens is awesome. It's the only proper macro lens I've ever owned or operated; I shot everything in macro for a week; and used it hard for month. A good many of the flower photos in my portfolio have been made in black and white with that lens. </p>

<p>Are you getting a 645, or going for one of the more advanced models? The 645 does have autofunctions in them; I think I've shot maybe one frame on auto; I'll use TTL meter, it's convenient with the display. I mention this because all of this that I've had to say has been about the old all manual lenses; I am sure there are autofocus 645 lenses out there; they may be in the same lengths; I don't want to pass this off as knowing about those. </p>

<p>I don't want to nickel and dime you to death, but you know I recommend Adapter K. I use that, too, quite a bit. Pretty much eliminated most of my 49mm diameter lenses. I keep a Takumar 50mm on the K200D; that's about it. I was thinking that 645 Adapter K might ease your transition; you might get into using the lenses with your digi-cam. If you do, you'll need to use the offset bolt to set the ring for mounting and dismounting, and then return to straight up if you want. That might sound confusing, but it's just a hand motion when you use it. I mention it because it means that 645 lenses with adapters will clear the chassis, even though at first it might look like they'll rub the on-board flash projection. </p>

<p>That 645 fully automatic Andrew's described above is probably awesome. I was shooting a simple footrace for charity last weekend; there were a lot of dolly shots, and in that application, I think I would have to concede that one good fully automatic lens in the arsenal might have been a good choice. Keep in mind, though, that I think you would need one of the later generations to use the robotic functions. I don't know for sure because I don't have an FA lens. I don't usually like automatic; but, in a 645 lens, I could see that having a good one might be a good idea. Part of the reason why I dislike the fully automatic smaller format lenses is because I perceive that people are paying several hundred extra in each lens. I'm skeptical about the frequency with which fully automatic might be a good idea; but, it's been successful for some reason, and I think Andrew has probably brought up a good point to consider. </p>

<p>I just shot the dolly shots on trap. Pulled focus as needed. Well, you got me fired up about the 645. It's a good camera. You're gonna love it. </p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>John Kelly mentioned E-6: I like E-6 processing. I haven't done very much of it, but I would encourage people to give it a try. I found with the Single Use Chemistry Kit, E-6 processing was easy and fun and yielded pretty good results. Far less complicated than people made it out to be. It's probably very difficult to design and engineer a color system, but basic use of an E-6 kit is a simple matter of following the on-the-box directions.</p>

<p>I suppose that if a high degree of accuracy was desired, that's when you get into the very specific and tightly controlled labwork. For general purpose color slides, I have found E-6 to be enjoyable.</p>

[mc2imaging]

<p>My boss is actually thinking about selling his 645 rig, so I might work something out there. One of my concerns has been the cost of glass going up with Pentax going "on again" with the 645D. Another is Pentax's announcement that they would no longer support the original 645's. I wonder how many will become paperweights sitting in the back of someone's closet when the battery dies and they loose their programing...</p>

<p>I also know that instead of keeping the 35mm classic 28/50/135 FoV, I'll probably prefer a something on the wider end. I think a 35/55/75 kit would be nice, and 35mm 645 lenses are not all that cheap! A 45mm would drive me nuts, leaving me wishing it was just a little wider.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I found this thread on P645's internal battery. http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/000FIR</p>

<p>Apparently, it cost $2 and some know-how. I bet as long as there are charged AAs in the grip, this would be a do it yourself situation.</p>

<p>I just checked mine; with 6 charged AAs in camera, with the power on the grip "on", I removed the cover, removed the battery, reinstalled; turned the unit off and on again. No change; works fine. The battery inside my Pentax 645 is<strong> CR 1220, Lithium, 3V</strong>. Looks like a wide and flat watch battery. Too easy.</p>

<p>As far as lack of support goes, I have a 1946 movie camera, and I found someone to work on it. That sort of thing happens all the time. It's not impossible. Proceed with confidence. J.</p>

[mc2imaging]

<p>Finding a guru to tweak a camera is one thing, but reprograming it is a different story...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>We are all different, but I wonder how long this will last Justin? You will very soon end up wanting a good MF scanner and then you are talking about the same price as a FF 20-25MP camera, and then you have to add in the slowness and flatness issues that go with scanning MF film and the future compatibility and availability of affordable scanners. I have a Hasselblad system and rarely use it due to the processing issues for E6 and the expense and just pure pain in the ass of scanning the film. I don't find it the same pain with 35mm film scanning, strangely enough.</p>

<p>However, I'm not selling my 'blad kit as I hope one day to have a real black and white darkroom, although I suspect it will never happen! </p>

<p>It's a lovely idea, but I do wonder if it "has legs" for someone so used to a digital workflow.</p>