thomas_janik

<p>Ok, Leo has been stuck with starting this for too long and he did offer a detailed flow chart for us.<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TIzW4d_W6WI/AAAAAAAAXRQ/ECOhAMHMOXA/s1600/8+Pt+Gratiot.jpg" alt="" width="1368" height="960" /> Here's an "end of summer" shot with a Pentax 645N and 35mm on provia. It also reminds me somehow of the river Styx</p>

<p>pentax 67, 200mm, provia. Vampire Gulls? (some have no reflection)<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TIeJgaZWpjI/AAAAAAAAXNk/7CvlahUEfOc/s1600/10.+No+Reflection.jpg" alt="" width="1224" height="881" /></p>

<p>Wave packet, Lake Erie. <img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/THq3p_5q6hI/AAAAAAAAXDM/BqXiMTSLNOk/s1600/1.+Perturbation1.jpg" alt="" width="1224" height="857" />Pentax 67, 45mm</p>

<p>Pentax 67, 45mm. The highlights are not blown in the scan, just this jpeg. Brad, love the French markets.<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/THnJCTYI55I/AAAAAAAAXB4/qFGE8pBj8Z0/s1600/6.+Pt+Gratiot+2.jpg" alt="" width="1224" height="936" /></p>

<p>Hi Chris:<br>

Thanks for your posts. I've seen very little else on the web from this camera. I too am interested in the handling; I'm assuming it is much like the 645N, which is wonderful. Have you compared 67 scans to the 645D output? I'm really curious as to how they compare.<br>

You might consider posting in the medium format forum; there is considerable interest in this camera in that group.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

 

<p>Hi Guido:</p>

<p>I have been scanning 67 film with a Nikon 9000 for several years. The files are over 500 MB when 16 bit and 4000ppi. I am not sure why you're concerned about storage space. A 1 TB external HD is around $100US - enough to store almost 2000 scans. The real problem is computer speed working with such big files and that means RAM in this case. When I was using a PC limited to around 4 GB of RAM, I tried and used a number of the workarounds suggested to handle those large files. I couldn't use smart sharpen at all. Even with reduced file sizes it might take 20 minutes. Last year I bought an i7 with 12GB RAM and 64 bit operating system for around $1100 ( Dell refurb). Smart sharpen on a 500 MB file takes about 15 seconds. Heck, I can have a duplicate of the background without noticeable effects.</p>

<p>Nir:<br>

I will disagree somewhat with the previous responses. I have an AUB and it's fine for many applications, but I have had some trouble with a Pentax 645 and the 120mm macro lens. The lens is heavy and introduces a lot of torque. The Acratech tends to sag a bit unless you really tighten the lock. If I had only one head, I would choose the arca-swiss Z1;it's about the same weight, but is much more secure. I use that head exclusively with a Pentax 67 and long lenses.</p>

<p>Hi Leo:<br>

Coincidentally I passed through your part of the world last week: Hwy 401 east to 20 through Montreal and Quebec and 138 <img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TGviWkmHvkI/AAAAAAAAW1k/IhAKIwVBsYU/s1600/whale.jpg" alt="" width="1224" height="971" />to Paradis Marin campground just beyond Tadoussac. My wife and I went there for kayaking and whale watching. What a beautiful place. The shore is exposed rock of the Canadian Shield and many of the campsites are right on the shoreline and whales are so close to shore that you can hear them clearing their blowholes. Here’s a shot from my last trip there. Whale watchers on the shore</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Thanks for doing this Leo; it's great to see these images. Here's another storm from the northern plains.</p>

<p>(Pentax 67 ) An approaching storm in South Dakota<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TFw0eXlZAwI/AAAAAAAAWtA/Qzj0UYPPbWc/s1600/IMG688mod.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Pentax 67II, 45mm taken on US route 90 in Wyoming (July 2010). Rain, thunder, rainbows and bright sun in my eyes<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MuCFC81kV7o/TFw0lonH5_I/AAAAAAAAWtI/wZywyiuT7kE/s1600/US90.jpg" alt="" /> all at the same time</p>

<p >Matt:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I’d offer $150 for the lot of the four Takumars. It’s a deal for him since he sells most of the lenses and it’s a steal for you. The Pentax M42 adapters from Pentax are very well made and work perfectly. I use them with several old Pentax lenses. I removed the spring and attach the adapter to any M42 lens I want to use. It then mounts and is removed as any K lens would be. The only caveat: the lens is not locked in position so it will freely turn. So far that has not been a problem and is easier to deal with than removing the adapter from the body.</p>

<p >I hesitate to get involved in a “which camera is best” discussion, but I will anyway. I have used the Pentax 645 and 645N for years; it’s a great camera and it’s as easy to carry as a DSLR. I have no experience with the Bronica so I can’t compare. I will comment on the lack of interchangeable backs for the Pentax. I have seen this criticism posted for years and what I don’t understand is that if you want to shoot different films, why not have a 2^nd body? Nowadays you can get a used 645 for about $200 and if your camera fails, a 2^nd body is much more useful than a 2^nd back. </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>“</em></strong><strong><em>Tough. It was easier finding a wife than picking out a camera. (-_*)” </em></strong>Your wife should consider that a compliment (I think).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >PS Don’t worry about the batteries in a 645N; you can shoot at least 200 rolls/set.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>Robert:</p>

<p>Something like this?<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656021-REG/Canon_3562B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_D.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656021-REG/Canon_3562B001_Tripod_Mount_Ring_D.html</a></p>

<p>Chris:</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply and generous offer. I'm very happy to hear about the English menus. If I do travel to Japan, I'll send you an email.<br>

Looking forward to your impressions of the 645D,</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Hi Chris:<br>

Very exciting. Like you, I use a 67II (and a 645N) and so have great interest in the 645D.<br>

I look forward to your comments. I may be traveling to Japan this summer and if so would be likely to purchase a 645D. Do you know if the menu includes an English option? </p>

<p>See: <a href="http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Ryck">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Ryck</a><br>

or <a href="http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html">http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/coolscan-vista-64.html</a><br>

Instructions for 64 bit Vista, but works with 7 64 bit as well. I used the procedure for both a Nikon 9000 and a Minolta 5400. They both work in 64 bit 7. I tried the XP mode with the Minolta, but the scanner isn't detected by the computer. I may pursue that option since the Minolta is much faster in 64 bit. That may sound like a good thing, but even the motor is faster and gives the impression of straining. The Nikon sounds and behaves as normal.</p>

<p>My thanks to Steel Chn as well. I had some problems with Vista 64, the scanner occasionally would hang. I used a similar scanner.inf file to enable the Minotla 5400 as well<br>

I recently installed Windows 7 (64) and both scanners installed using Steel's file. <br>

However, I'm curious if anyone has used either scanner in XP mode on 7 using the Nikon and Minolta supplied drivers, seems that it could avoid some of the issues reported above.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Ed:</p>

<p>The pixel pitch of the 5DII and 645D are not very different (6.4 vs 6.0 microns), so not a big resolution drop even if the lens is at its limit. The only 67 lenses I use on the 645 are the 300 and 500, so I can't comment on shorter focal lengths. I suspect they would be fine; the problem is their larger size.</p>

<p>Ed:<br>

The 67/645 adaptor is listed as an accessory for the 645D, so it must work. Very easy to change the lens with exisiting adaptor; I use my 67 300mm ED on a 645 all the time. It functions like any manual focus lens, including automatic diaphram.<br>

As to quality, I did an informal test of a 50mm f1.4 SMC (35mm) vs the 67 55-100mm zoom on a K20D; the 67 zoom lens is the equal of the famous Pentax 50mm (at f8). I've used the 300mm on the K20D as well, it's outstanding.</p>

<p>My experience is not unique. Leping Zha uses his 67 lenses on a Canon, see:<br>

<a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LBHE">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LBHE</a></p>

<p>Hi Sean:<br>

Try taking the film out as Peter suggested; if that doesn't work, send the camera to Eric as Leo suggested. My 67II had the same problem, Eric took care of it in less than two weeks including shipping time.</p>

<p>Daniel:</p>

<p>Do you have a link to Les Sarile's comparison? If so, I would appreciate it. I have a DSE 5400 and a 9000 and have kept the 5400 since it generally does a better job with Kodachrome (most of my 35mm). The extra resolution is worthwhile with sharp photos and the Nikon yields some strange worm tracks with Kodachrome not present with the DSE. In the attached photo the 9000 scan is on top, the 5400 below. Look at the clear skies in the Nikon scan and you will see patterns absent in the DSE (looking closely, patterns may appear in th DSE scan, but they must be jpeg artifacts since they are not in the original scan). ICE used for both.</p>

<p>J Marrs: try manual focus with the DSE, it can make a big difference, the auto focus is not reliable.</p><div></div>

<p>deleted duplicate</p>

<p >O.G. de Bakker said:</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>“</em><em>Low volume shooting amateurs however should not spend that much on a digital machine, when they can get better results using good old MF film. At that pace of shooting, having to scan is not a problem either.<br />And even if you choose to use a decent scanner, like the expensive Nikon 8000/9000, you will still have saved enough money for a lifetime supply of film.”</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >That describes my exact procedure for the past several years, including the Nikon 9000. There are some factors to consider however. The Nikon now lists at over $2000, approaching ¼ the cost of the 645D and they are hard to find (although not as difficult as getting a 645D). The 6x7 transparency film I use entails approximately $1.00 in film and processing costs per exposure and then requires some time for scanning. 50,000 exposures would cost me $50,000 plus any expense to keep the Nikon (and my cameras) running. If I could purchase a 645D, I’d break even after 8500 shots and get a $2000 rebate when I sell the Nikon 9000.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>So for whom did they make this thing exactly?</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Someone like me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p>My, this thread has gotten off topic and nasty. No need for <em>ad hominem</em> attacks. As I stated earlier the 645D seems ideal for an amateur like me. Why is inconceivable that not everyone needs hundreds of exposures per day?<br>

For anyone still reading this thread, I suggest you visit David Henderson’s web page. He might be a bit harsh on the forums, but he’s an outstanding photographer. David, that is a remarkable collection of images you have. I was particularly impressed with the uniform color palette in all the images – saturated, yet muted. I'd love for you to explain your method. The gallery reminded me of Kodachromes on a light table.<br>

I enjoyed your picture of the Louvre. I was there on a similar evening (a little too late), attempting a similar shot from the inside of the pyramid – didn’t work.</p><div></div>

<p >The 645D is of particular interest to me since I have many Pentax MF lenses and have been following the development of the 645D since I was a young man:). The significance of the shutter life is, in part, dependant on the cost of replacement. That said, Pentax stated that this camera is aimed at amateurs, particularly those who enjoy landscape photography. That describes me and, I suspect, many others perfectly. I haven’t taken 50,000 exposures in 30 years of film photography. This is not the camera for people who need 8 frames per second and fast auto focus and who then spend hours editing the thousand exposures made in one day. Canon rates the 5D shutter at 100,000 exposures, but to achieve the resolution of the 645D with a 5D would require the stitching of at least four exposures, yielding an effective shutter life of 25,000 – and you have to do all that stitching and hope that nothing moves.</p>

<p >Even if the 645D died after 50,000 exposures the cost (based on $8500 for the body) is about 17 cents/exposure – much less than I currently spend on film. Looks like a winner to me, but then I’m the audience aimed at.</p>