Pentax 645D medium format digital camera

I've been thinking about upgrading my Pentax K10 to the new K7 when I saw this on a website. Pentax is going to release a new medium format digital camera next Spring called the 645D and boasting 30 million pixels with a price tag around £5000-6000. Would anyone seriously think about buying this camera, bearing in mind the price tag, and would there be any huge difference in image quality from a normal digital slr to a medium format digital? Personally, I'm still probably going to splash out on the K7 but it has made my mind waver a bit as a 30 million pixel digi medium format camera is tempting to buy. But then with the price tag it comes with I'd probably be too scared to take it out of the house for fear of damaging it at a gala or charter.

Here's the link for the information.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=868986

And another link at the photo of the camera.
http://www.devicedaily.com/cameras/pentax-announces-2010-release-of-30-megapixel-645-digital.html

 

would there be any huge difference in image quality - are u joking, be like diff between a ford pop and a rolls royce.

 

Professionals would spend that sort of money on a medium format digital. A friend of mine worked in a portrait studio and they changed from film Hassleblad to digital Hassleblad. The results were stunning by all accounts and they saved a fortune in film and chemicals. Having 30 million pixels at your disposal would allow printing to A2 with ease or allow quality selective enlargements of quite small areas of the original image. It will need top notch optics to get the best out of the sensor.

 

I think most photographers would agree with this, but then the issue for David would be whether he would want to enlarge to A2 or do selective enlargements of the type you describe. He would have also have to bear in mind that in order to do this he would have to invest further large sums either to buy the equipment that would permit him to do this or go to professional firms who do possess the equipment to have the work done. This would also cost quite large sums of money.

If he decided to eschew prints but just give slide shows, he would need to spend a large sum for a high quality projector so he would get an image on a screen that would reflect the quality of the original equipment.

The expenses just get greater and greater with medium format; it isn't an accident that the DSLR is so popular. The format offers high quality for reasonable cost with the inherent flexibility of being able to change lenses which are themselves of high quality and reasonable cost.

Regards

 

Thanks Ian, this is what is getting my mind wavering, if I stuck with my K10 and saved and saved and saved I could just about afford to get a 645D by next Summer. With the cost rumoured to be around £5000-6000 that's actually not bad considering a Hassleblad medum format digi camera costs around £15,000-20,000. But then would I be better off getting the new K7 or waiting to see if Pentax also bring out a new digi slr by Spring/Summer as the print out sizes my Dad and I do are 7x5 and A4. Problem is that today's technology is tomorrow's old technology.

 

If you chase technology David you'll never win the race. There is always something better just round the corner. Since a top end DSLR will print to A3, any sensor that will output even bigger images is arguably a waste as you'll be discarding an awful lot of pixels when you downsize to A4 output. MF lenses don't come cheap either. I'd have a serious look at a Canon 5D Mk.2 or the Nikon equivalent if you're looking to step up from your K10.

 

Thanks for the advice Ian, I'll definately have a look at the Canon and Nikon camera's. I may well go for the K7 in January as it's a bit cheaper at Park Cameras and would leave me more money in the bank until inevitably the missus comes asking:-k. Also there's a Pentax dealer shop just up the road from Eastbourne in Hailsham which would come in handy for any future lenses or other kit and with my Dad owning a K10 he'll no doubt want a play with it to compare the results. The K7 does look a very good upgrade from the K10, http://www.parkcameras.com/11769/Pentax-K-7-Body.html, it was just that the K645 looked a real tasty bit of kit but ultimately is probably not worth the price tag for just print-outs that my dad and I do which are no larger than A4.

 

Having attended a Nikon Workshop recently it seemed the view of the professionals was that the DSLR market is settling at 12 mp cameras for the mass market with the appropriate lenses. In addition limited cameras will be produced to cater for the specialist markets such as the new D3s which is geared to video and stills photographers by providing separate card files for each use and the larger 20-30 mp cameras for specialist markets such as studio and advertising work. In my own case I have recently upgraded from D300 to D700 only because of the ISO range of the latter which helps me with night work; a recent shot of 60163 Tornado at Preston taken at 12800 ASA has impressed many when told that it was hand held 1/30 @ F4.

As suggested by Ian ( Spamcan81 ) it is best for you to decide your use of the camera, the size of prints you want ( remembering that 12 mp equates to 14" x 9" but can be blown up much higher without loss of quality ), the budget you are prepared to spend then visit your local photographic dealer and try cameras within your price range to see if they feel right - for you.

Answering the above points should quickly decide your choice then it's a simple case of buy and shoot - Enjoy !

PS Forgot to mention - make sure your PC is powerful enough to handle the software of your chosen camera; my 80 GB hardrive on my DELL kit slows noticeably when I use Nikon Capture X to work on my RAW images so allow for any upgrades in your budgeting as this is a hidden cost that few photographers allow for.

 

David,

I've taken a look at your photos and I don't understand why you have a need to change your equipment. Your photos are very good, why change to something more expensive when you clearly don't need to?

As for technology, I agree with 'Spamcan81', what is good enough at a reasonable price is always better than the latest expensive gadgetry.

Regards

 

Thanks for your comments regarding my photos. One of the reasons I would like to upgrade my K10 to the new K7 is that my Dad and I have found the K10 strugggles quite badly in low lighting conditions with a high ISO setting and produces a lot of white noise. The shot I published on here at while ago of 9017 with freight at Giants of Steam taken on 400 ISO is an example and I had to use Photoshop to reduce much of the white noise. The K7 has received some very good reviews, imparticular on improved high ISO noise control, also it comes with an HDMI socket on the body for High Definition video shooting which is something I'd like to have a play with. I think the Pentax 645D just made my mind race away a bit with the thought of having 30 million pixels to play with and with the advice given I'll go for the K7.

Cheers

 

Just to throw you a curve ball David, a friend of mine would argue in favour of the D645. He'd much rather have a huge file that he'll never use to it's maximum potential than one that fulfils his current needs. No doubt this is in case he ever needs to enlarge a picture to the size of his living room wall. It's the same when he scans his 6x7 slides. He uses the highest resolution possible and ends up with files the size of the iceberg that sank the Titanic.

 

Based on the present crop of MF digital backs, I wouldn't be expecting much in the way of high ISO performance. The Phase One and Hassy backs are getting better, but they're no match for digital SLRs above 400ASA unless you put a lot of effort into post-processing.

It's also worth considering that the MF cameras are generally much less responsive than the 35mm/crop format cameras, both in terms of frames/second and AF performance. While they're usable, I'm not sure they're entirely suited to action subjects, but are hard to beat for landscapes when the camera's locked to a tripod at low ISO and you're in no hurry.

As regards the Pentax, I wouldn't hold my breath that it'll appear at all, and if it does whether it'll be any good. Mamiya's first go at an MF camera (ZD) wasn't in the same league as the Phase One and Hassy/Imacon backs, so I'd certainly wait until you see reviews of the camera before stumping up that kind of cash.

Personally, I think you'll struggle to see much difference between the output from a MFDB and a Nikon D3x / Canon 5DII for typical railway subjects. However, if all you want is A4 (or even A3 prints) and high ISO capability, I'd look seriously at the Nikon D700.

 

There is a review here of the K7:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaFfaTkoUn4

David,

As the video feature is of particular interest I think you ought to be told that this DSLR does not do video as well as a middle price camcorder.

Regards

 

Thanks for the link unfortunately is doesn't seem to work. I've just watched some of the reviews on youtube and the K7 does seem a major leap forward from the K10. I didn't expect the video to be as high quality as a camcorder but the video option it's just something that I can experiment with at a gala when I've already photographed an engine a number of times amd I can do something else. Thanks for all the advice from everyone it has been very useful.

Cheers

 

Sorry David, I always seem to get finger trouble when I use the 'Insert Link' function. If you try it again it'll work, promise.

Regards

 

Yep link now works, cheers.

 

Have to agree with DalryPaul that if you want noiseless images at high ISO then the D700 fits the bill but be aware that (1) the body alone costs £1700-1800 ( depending on offers ) and (2) the supplied Capture NX2 software is a trial package that lasts for 60 days before you need to pay £100 - 120 ( depending on supplier ) for the Product Key to unlock it.

 

A small hard drive isn't really ideal for current file sizes and with 1TB drives available for around £60 it's not worth struggling with an 80gb one, same goes for ram, 2gb minimum.

 

Yeah the cost of the body alone for the D700 is quite pricey compared to the K7 which on Park Camera's website is £939, plus they've offered me a reasonably good part exchange deal for my K10 body. Also I've accidently let slip to the wife that I've been saving up to buy an updated camera, so with what money I'll have left over from buying the K7 she's already started making a list of what I'm gonna buy her!

 

Swiss Tony wrote:


A small hard drive isn't really ideal for current file sizes and with 1TB drives available for around £60 it's not worth struggling with an 80gb one, same goes for ram, 2gb minimum.


Which was the problem I identified. When I bought my computer kit some 5 years ago 80Gb was more than adequate to handle the JPEG files produced from my Fuji 6900 but as I upgraded my cameras to take advantage of RAW capability I couldn't afford the parallel expenditure to upgrade my computers. With the D700 I am now forced to consider a computer upgrade and that is expected to cost around £1000:00 - which is more than the cost of any reasonable Nikon D- series body except the D700 [ which I use for low light / night time exposures that I could only previously have taken with a tripod mounted camera ].