Any reason not to buy a 645 ?

[jonathan_james]

<p>In terms of maintenance, I have used Newton Ellis in Liverpool for work in the past and nothing seems to have been beyond them. Why not give them a call and see what they have to say about it?</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Actually, more often than not I compose and print the square."</p>

<p>That explains it. I usually make rectangular prints. Only square on occasion.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

If you intend to shoot telephoto images, there is much to recommend either 35mm APS-C or FF over any 645 system. Size and weight differences of the lenses becomes substantial, especially given the "free" T/C effect that is obtained with APS-C. These are typically shot wide open for sports, wildlife, and action so diffraction is of little to no consequence. Features common to DSLRs and lenses (e.g. anti-shake sensors and coreless AF motors) leave Pentax 645 AF lenses in the dust; as well the lag time for the P645 mirror and shutter release is on the order of a quarter of a second (Nikon's DSLRs are typically 1/20 of a second or better, for instance).

 

That said, there's a sweet spot with wide to modest focal length lenses in 645 format where there is not likely anything surpassing the sharpness, at any price. There are several ultrawide lenses --38mm Biogon, the Contax-T Zeiss 35mm f/3.5 and the comparably sharp Pentax 35mm f/35 (either version) that are all so sharp they'll essentially be film limited in resolution (with real-world lighting ratios, at least), have vanishingly small amounts of visual distortion, and can be stopped down further without significant diffraction penalty (using film, as opposed to using them stopped down with digital sensors).

 

It will take a really fine digital scan or enlarging regime to exploit this 645 format film possibilities. If you're never printing beyond 11x17 or 13x19 a 12+ MP DSLR may be a better choice.

[mike_brown8]

<p>Digital has a different look then film. The lack of grain makes digital images (even Medium Format) somewhat sterile or synthetic when compared with film. <br /> This 645 Pentax should be compared on one hand to 35mm film and on the other to the 6x7 or 6x8 formats. My experience is that with 11x14 and 16x20 prints the difference between 645 and 35mm is noticeable, giving the 645 a real edge. Printing beyond 16x20 requites a larger format. However, if you limit yourself to 11x14 and 16x20 sized prints, the 645 format is an excellent choice. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Also consider what kind of film you plan to use. If black & white, will you process it yourself or have it commercially processed? For color, most local one hour labs likely can't process 120 film. Also consider film availabilty. Fewer shops carry 120 than 35mm. If these limitations don't bother you, then I think you will like the larger negative that 645 gives in comparison to 35mm.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>If you are prepared, as others have mentioned, to deal with the scarcity of purchasing and processing locations of film, the Pentax 645 or the N versions, offer the biggest bang for the buck in medium format, in my opinion. At the present time the bodies and lenses are extremely affordable. If Pentax does release the MF digital, then lens prices are likely to skyrocket.<br>

As for print size limitations, if the scan is of a high quality, you can easily make prints well in excess of 50 inches wide with excellent sharpness. But you'll need an Imacon or high quality drum scan to do that, you won't be able to do it with a regular flatbed scanner. </p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>If you are prepared, as others have mentioned, to deal with the scarcity of purchasing and processing locations of film, the Pentax 645 or the N versions, offer the biggest bang for the buck in medium format, in my opinion. At the present time the bodies and lenses are extremely affordable. If Pentax does release the MF digital, then lens prices are likely to skyrocket.<br>

As for print size limitations, if the scan is of a high quality, you can easily make prints well in excess of 50 inches wide with excellent sharpness. But you'll need an Imacon or high quality drum scan to do that, you won't be able to do it with a regular flatbed scanner. </p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>If you are prepared, as others have mentioned, to deal with the scarcity of purchasing and processing locations of film, the Pentax 645 or the N versions, offer the biggest bang for the buck in medium format, in my opinion. At the present time the bodies and lenses are extremely affordable. If Pentax does release the MF digital, then lens prices are likely to skyrocket.<br>

As for print size limitations, if the scan is of a high quality, you can easily make prints well in excess of 50 inches wide with excellent sharpness. But you'll need an Imacon or high quality drum scan to do that, you won't be able to do it with a regular flatbed scanner. </p>

<p> </p>

[charles_wood]

<p>My apologies for the triple post error.</p>

[hjoseph7]

The only reason that I have against not buying a 645 is that you will allways wonder if you should have waited a little longer and got a Hassy instead.

[chrise_boris]

<p>I bought a used P645 on the internet and I was surprised by how bulky it was when it arrived. It's shaped like a big box. It really feels bigger than my Pentax 67 although its lighter. It's a very nice camera however and takes fine images. I use it with my 67 lenses via the adapter. I seriously doubt that the P645 lens prices will go up if the digital 645 will be released.</p>

[mike_brown8]

<p>Charles - pints in excess of 50" ??? I think that's overly enthusiastic. By the same token, I could enlarge my 35mm negatives to 30" and I wouldn't do that...<br>

Harry - wait for what? Do you think Hasselblads get cheaper? I doubt it. Besides Pentax offers AF, while V series Hasselbalds do not.<br>

Chrise - What do you mean bigger then 6x7 Pentax? The 6X7 is monstrous and watch out when that mirror slaps... If you use it with its relatively small dedicated lenses, the 645 isn't bad with a grip, although more "cubical" then the relatively flat 6x7.<br>

If the digital version will be released one day, these lenses may be back in demand, unless Pentax introduces a new line of lenses for the digital body, like Hasselblad and Leica S2. That would be bad for all. <br /> In terms of size and ease of handling, Pentax 645 should be compared to the Mamiya 645 and Contax, but I can't tell which of these handles better.</p>

[ned1]

<p>If it does go digital and lens prices go sky high, that's a great reason to buy now since you can sell it at a profit later.</p>

<p>FYI: The 45-85 zoom is fantastic and can still be picked up cheap. Only lens you'll ever need for it.</p>

[chrise_boris]

<blockquote>

<p>What do you mean bigger then 6x7 Pentax? The 6X7 is monstrous and watch out when that mirror slaps... If you use it with its relatively small dedicated lenses, the 645 isn't bad with a grip, although more "cubical" then the relatively flat 6x7.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mike, you say the 645 is more cubical vs the relatively flat 67. That's what I mean by bigger. The P645 just feels like carrying around a big power drill when walking around with it. The 67 is heavier but since it's flat its more convenient in that respect.<br>

I doubt that many people will ever buy a Pentax 645D. I think there are just too many old 645 lenses out there for them to become expensive. Then the pentax 67 lens prices should also go up since they can be mounted to the 645 via the adapter. Look at the Mamiya lenses. As far as I know they didnt become more expensive after they could be used with digital.</p>

[terry_dent1]

<p>Any reason not to buy a 645 ?<br>

Yes 6x6 in the same size camera body.</p>