They make excellent cameras and have committed to DSLRs, perhaps foolishly, but it is so wonderful to not have to worry about the battery. I've been blown away by mine. If I had a spare $lots burning a hole in my pocket, I'd definitely buy their newest APSC or full-frame DSLR.
My understanding is that the 645Z is widely used in studio photography, but I might be totally wrong there.
I don't think it's foolish. There are countless examples of a successful niche player giving up their niche to go after a slice of the larger mainstream pie, predictably producing a middling product with little hope of attracting buyers from larger brands, and failing miserably.
There probably are some people using it in the studio, but among the notable features of the 645Z (and the 645D before it) are that it's weather sealed, and shoots in landscape format. So I'd say it's aimed more at field use than in the studio.
Still very happy with my K3 (Mark 1) for its combination of ergonimics, durability and image quality. (Of course, you wouldn't want to use it for video. Picking horses for courses.)
I have both film and digital Pentax, excellent cameras, unfortunately it seems after Ricoh bought the brand they are increasingly niche and don’t seem to care to sell outside their fanbase in Japan.
The 645z is at a discounted price lately, arguably because it’s older technology already w/ a CCD instead of CMOS sensor, although it still has enough resolution and colors to take excellent photos in adequate light. Not sure if Pentax will update it or discontinue medium format entirely and they haven’t announced anything lately.
Ian was very forthcoming and helpful when I had a few questions regarding shipping during the Brexit debacle. The prices are really awesome compared to the general market, too. Especially his GX680 stuff, which I ordered a few items of, was always top-notch in quality. Can't recommend ianbfoto enough!
I had one of these guys during my Medium Format days in addition to a Kiev 6C and a Holga (lol). Wonderful camera, but I really suggest anyone into photography give MF a shot, even a little Holga can be fun (I would say "cheap" but you'd probably spend more developing a few rolls of film than the actual camera)
Lovely format and lovely camera. The Bronica ETRSi is my personal preference but I do have a Pentax 645Z and it's absolutely fabulous, a ridiculous bargain. Even if it's not 6 x 4.5.
I can tell you that the hassle these days is more trouble than it's worth for film, because all the convenience has vanished AND it costs a fortune. I'd buy ten rolls of Fuji 35mm slide film, came with pre-paid envelopes, so I just needed to put a stamp on them and put them in a postbox. Post on a Monday, back on Wednesday. Easy. Anything else? Pop a stack of films into a pre-paid little card box and send to Peak Imaging. Back came a giant envelope of contact sheets and negatives. In a hurry? Middle of the night? Bike to Soho, drop off films at Joe's Basement, go to pub or cafe for an hour, come back and pick up stunning results.
The best now? Traipse to Khrome in Central Hamburg, drop off films, ask for scanning, results arrive by email several days or maybe a week later, but still have to head back to collect negatives, and all of this costs a bomb now.
I basically keep my ancient Contax T2 loaded with crap film and shoot it casually all year long like we used to and then develop it so you end up with birthdays, christmas, easter all on one film like the good old days.
Some people actually enjoy developing and scanning/printing everything themselves.
But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires. I stocked up with more than 100 rolls a few years ago. When I run out, I'll just continue with black and white.
Bulk rolls of Fomapan 100 are still very cheap. For 4x5, a single 50 sheet pack lasts me more than a year.
For 8x10, shooting X-Ray film is cheaper than Fomapan in 4x5 (but the film is very easy to scratch).
Absolutely, it's a brilliant hobby, but it takes a huge amount of time and space. And money now, because darkroom hardware and materials are super expensive. If I was learning now like I did when I was 18, I'd never be able to afford it. I've a huge box of film that's basically going to outlive me because of the processing costs, ha!
color has gotten more expensive, but its not that bad. Kodak recently released Gold 200 in 120 format (the type of film that the camera in the brochure uses.) A 5 pack costs USD$45,so $9 a roll. This camera shoot 15 shots per roll so 60 cents a shot. Sure, if you're snapshotting, but usually you get a big camera like this because you're being careful and deliberate composing your photos instead of machine-gunning. You can develop color at home, but scanning is harder without software to specifically remove the oeange mask.
>> But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires
I prefer B&W. But still admire lots of color photographers. One of them is Christopher Burkett, one of the few folks who still do Cibachrome prints these days. His prints are so marvelous that people may easily mistake them as digital images.
Of course, what he's doing takes lots of expertise and money.
Cibachromes? Really? I haven't been able to get Cibachrome/Ilforchrome for years, I thought the chemistry was long long gone. Sheesh my Cibas from the early 1990s are still stunning prints. Wish I'd made more.
I've only just gotten into film, being a total amateur with digital as well. Mostly because my parents were photographers for 40 years, so we have a Jobo ATL 2500 autolab and a FlexTight Precision II scanner. I'm honestly not sure I would have even tried film without them.
It's not /that/ expensive if you stick to B&W. I mean I can pick up a fairly good 35mm Praktica body, Zeiss nifty fifty, some rolls of Ilford, all the chemicals, tank, dark room bag and film puller for less than half the price of my Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 lens. As for scanning, you can do that with your DSLR/mirrorless, a lamp and some diffusing plastic.
Well, I've got all the kit already, still have all my darkroom kit but it's not worth setting up for such short runs. I have my film scanner still which has been busy scanning my archives but time is in short supply these days...
I went hybrid a long time ago and haven't looked back since, though YMMV - I develop B&W film in Paterson tanks and a light proof changing bag, reducing my darkroom setup time to seconds.
I then scan the negatives. Once every blue moon I dust off the enlarger and make prints - but inbetween those sessions, I am happy to be digital.
I really only shoot B&W so its still pretty cheap. There are also relatively inexpensive C41 color negative films. Slide/Chrome films on the other hand are all expensive. As for convenience, sure, there are no more drive through 1hr photomats, but the entire reason I went back to film is to immerse myself in the process, so I develop everything at home. I print B&W at home, and I scan at home (with a Pentax K-1ii mounted on a copy rig made froma Sinar P2). If you want snapshot, digital is certainly better in most ways, but if you want to understand and participate in a fascinating optical and chemical process, film is quite amazing.
Yeah, 645 is a great format. I prefer my Mamiya 645AF, but the Pentax is a very capable system, although a bit chunky by comparison to the mamiya/contax equivalents. These were all well thought out professional camera systems, and you really can't go wrong with any of them.
If you are interest in photography, and have dabbled with film (say a 35mm camera) then you really should try a 645 camera. Or, jump straight to a hasselblad and be done ;)
I have respect to Pentax's system, i.e 6x7 and 6x4.5, but their camera's look is not my taste despite the lens offering is great. Especially the 105mm f/2.4 is the legend.
I had a Fuji 680III and it was stupidly big, AND made from plastic everywhere, so it just didn't work as a camera to cart around, although I'm sure more gentle humans than I could make it happen. Was a bargain, though, came with the AE finder and all the gubbins, felt like trying to manhandle a reluctant cat and eventually I gave up, gave in, made a profit on the sale and never spoke of it again, until now. And then a couple of months ago I went back out with my Graflex and a Lomo back, thinking to myself as I was walking up the steepest slope ever back to my car, did I really cart this much crap out when I was younger? Why?
Perhaps this is like talking about KitKats at a Chocolatiers meeting, but when it comes to "Medium Format" I do love the Fujifilm GFX100S. I know, I know, its digital, and its expensive ($6000) but I had a chance to use a rental, and, for an amateur photographer, it was quite nice (and convenient). Blasphemous to say so perhaps, but I also enjoyed its "film" emulation modes (which is something like filters in Instagram but a little more refined and realtime).
As someone with a job and a family, I just couldn't find the time, budget, and space to do proper film photography. Digital has been much more forgiving for the kinds of documentary style family photography that I do.
The Pentax 645 was one of my favorite cameras, but years ago I saw that the future was digital. My second consulting contract was for Kodak in late 1990. They were developing a software/hardware platform to support digital media. A few years after that I sold off my medium format cameras (Pentax 645 and RZ67). I like working with direct digital much better. I do wish I still had my beautiful view camera; it was stolen by contractors working on my house :(.
Now, the majority of my photos are family and vacation photos taken on my iPhone.
Wow, surprisingly these aren't too badly prices these days. I'm fortunate enough to be able to shoot with a Mamiya 6, but not paying an arm and a leg for lenses is mighty attractive.
44 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 63.5 ms ] threadAutofocus really helps mitigate my poor vision.
Unfortunately Pentax seems to be barely holding on these days, which is a pity. They make decent cameras.
My understanding is that the 645Z is widely used in studio photography, but I might be totally wrong there.
I don't think it's foolish. There are countless examples of a successful niche player giving up their niche to go after a slice of the larger mainstream pie, predictably producing a middling product with little hope of attracting buyers from larger brands, and failing miserably.
Still very happy with my K3 (Mark 1) for its combination of ergonimics, durability and image quality. (Of course, you wouldn't want to use it for video. Picking horses for courses.)
if you want true medium format digital camera you need to buy digital backs for twin lenses cameras
says a 51MP CMOS sensor, and has been CMOS since 2015.
I have a Q2 and the Pentax compares favourably, even if not all the lenses are as modern. The 645Z is a crazy bargain second-hand.
Ah, memories.
Sometimes I want to go back to film. Not necessarily large format as I would hate to lug the things around now. Perhaps some East German 35mm stuff :)
The best now? Traipse to Khrome in Central Hamburg, drop off films, ask for scanning, results arrive by email several days or maybe a week later, but still have to head back to collect negatives, and all of this costs a bomb now.
I basically keep my ancient Contax T2 loaded with crap film and shoot it casually all year long like we used to and then develop it so you end up with birthdays, christmas, easter all on one film like the good old days.
It's so expensive to experiment now.
But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires. I stocked up with more than 100 rolls a few years ago. When I run out, I'll just continue with black and white.
Bulk rolls of Fomapan 100 are still very cheap. For 4x5, a single 50 sheet pack lasts me more than a year.
For 8x10, shooting X-Ray film is cheaper than Fomapan in 4x5 (but the film is very easy to scratch).
I prefer B&W. But still admire lots of color photographers. One of them is Christopher Burkett, one of the few folks who still do Cibachrome prints these days. His prints are so marvelous that people may easily mistake them as digital images.
Of course, what he's doing takes lots of expertise and money.
https://christopherburkett.com/about/cibachrome
But yeah, is it worth the hassle? Probably not.
I then scan the negatives. Once every blue moon I dust off the enlarger and make prints - but inbetween those sessions, I am happy to be digital.
If you are interest in photography, and have dabbled with film (say a 35mm camera) then you really should try a 645 camera. Or, jump straight to a hasselblad and be done ;)
Not complaining, but Pentax 67 FTW. :-D
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/bellams/20644686374
As someone with a job and a family, I just couldn't find the time, budget, and space to do proper film photography. Digital has been much more forgiving for the kinds of documentary style family photography that I do.
Now, the majority of my photos are family and vacation photos taken on my iPhone.