I am looking at MF, digital for landscapes. I am not familiar with it. So it is confusing.
specifically I am interested in Pentax 645D, 40MP. confusion starts there. Lenses? how do I find which one is which? I am interested in lenses 24 to 120 mm (35mm equivalent), zoom or primes (3 of them).
Can some one help?
You can calculate an extremely rough equivalent using the same factor of 1.6 as APS-C to 35mm.
50mm is normal on 35mm, 80mm is normal on 645, 80 / 50 = 1.6
The numbers are a little off because the 645D isn't full frame (it's 1.3 crop), neither 50mm nor 80mm are exactly perfectly normal, and that only takes into account field of view, but it's a starting point.
colinm wrote:
You can calculate an extremely rough equivalent using the same factor of 1.6 as APS-C to 35mm.
50mm is normal on 35mm, 80mm is normal on 645, 80 / 50 = 1.6
The numbers are a little off because the 645D isn't full frame (it's 1.3 crop), neither 50mm nor 80mm are exactly perfectly normal, and that only takes into account field of view, but it's a starting point.
So instead of x1.6 I would multiply the focal length with 1.45 (1.6+1.3/2)?? right?.
In addition, there are many different lens mounts of Pentax, so which one is which one. I looked at Adorama and BH, they all over the map.
In short, I need recommandation for 3 specific lenses. From there I would know what that focal length means.
nugeny wrote:
In short, I need recommandation for 3 specific lenses.
What's the 35mm equivalent for the 3 specific lenses of which you are interested? Another way to consider it is angle of view.
I wouldn't touch the Pentax 645D unless I could get my hands on one to try, go through the post-processing workflow (software), and be comfortable with the dealer support. That's truly the only way you're going to be able to determine if the 645D is the right body for you. There is quite a bit of information available about lenses. One thing I've learned with MFDBs is that just because you can attach the lens, doesn't mean you should....
I would contact other MF digital dealers and try the different platforms and MFDBs, go through the post processing workflow, etc---before settling on one system. If I were looking at buying a landscape rig, I would seriously be considering a technical camera with a MFDB.
kdphotography wrote:
I wouldn't touch the Pentax 645D unless I could get my hands on one to try, go through the post-processing workflow (software), and be comfortable with the dealer support. That's truly the only way you're going to be able to determine if the 645D is the right body for you. There is quite a bit of information available about lenses. One thing I've learned with MFDBs is that just because you can attach the lens, doesn't mean you should....
I would contact other MF digital dealers and try the different platforms and MFDBs, go through the post processing workflow, etc---before settling on one system. If I were looking at buying a landscape rig, I would seriously be considering a technical camera with a MFDB.
As previously stated the new 645D has a somewhat smaller sensor then it film equivalent which was 6x4.5. To convert 645 film or 645D lens to a full frame 35mm equivalent you just multiply the 645(N-film or D-digital) lens by .8. Therefore if you take some of the 645 film glass that I own and want to see what it would be in the FF 35mm world it would look something like this
645 FF 35mm
__________________
35 mm 28mm
55 mm 44mm
75 mm 60mm
120 mm 96mm
150 mm 120mm
200 mm 160mm
45-80 zoom 36-64mm
80-160z00m 64-128mm
I own an extensive Pentax 645NII film system which I still use every week. Currently trying out a new 645D and it is stunning to say the very least. You can use any of the
film lenses on the new 645D but with varying results. The 645 system lenses for film came in A (manual focus) and FA (auto focus), both of which work on the the new 645D as do the new 645D lenses announced with the camera. Most of the film glass works just as good as they did on film with some exceptions which I will defer to others since I have just begun trying out the 645D. As to lenses go the the Pentax format and you will get a terrific amount of information about the camera and lenses systems both film and digital.
nugeny wrote:
Thanks for the generalities, that I do know myself at my age. Opening this thread, I was looking for specifics by the name and the number.
Sorry if you're put off by my stating the obvious and the "generalities." But from your opening post you stated that you were "not familiar with it" and found medium format digital "confusing." Visiting a dealer would quickly give you the "specifics and numbers" to determine if the Pentax 645D is a good choice---or if a different platform would be a better choice.
Frankly, I'm rather surprised, as I recall you seemed put off by medium format digital about a year ago, and didn't seem too impressed by what the Pentax 645D had to offer: "Over 30MP is way too much for 99.99999% of mortals" and with regard to the 645D, "Well after seeing it and touched it, I kind of feeling down. Not what i expected. To big to bulky." (sic)
Thanks, this really helps and good to know that most old lenses work with 645D. The manual ones are great for landscapes and much more affordable.
davenfl wrote:
As previously stated the new 645D has a somewhat smaller sensor then it film equivalent which was 6x4.5. To convert 645 film or 645D lens to a full frame 35mm equivalent you just multiply the 645(N-film or D-digital) lens by .8. Therefore if you take some of the 645 film glass that I own and want to see what it would be in the FF 35mm world it would look something like this
645 FF 35mm
__________________
35 mm 28mm
55 mm 44mm
75 mm 60mm
120 mm 96mm
150 mm 120mm
200 mm 160mm
45-80 zoom 36-64mm
80-160z00m 64-128mm
I own an extensive Pentax 645NII film system which I still use every week. Currently trying out a new 645D and it is stunning to say the very least. You can use any of the
film lenses on the new 645D but with varying results. The 645 system lenses for film came in A (manual focus) and FA (auto focus), both of which work on the the new 645D as do the new 645D lenses announced with the camera. Most of the film glass works just as good as they did on film with some exceptions which I will defer to others since I have just begun trying out the 645D. As to lenses go the the Pentax format and you will get a terrific amount of information about the camera and lenses systems both film and digital.
Mark_L wrote:
+1. The only real area where it is discussed it detail after the demise of the RG forums.
+1+1
You need folks who rea;ly know what they are talking about. Too many poseurs about.
Spend a few weeks redaing the archives at Luminous.
as far as lenses. i used to shoot 6x7 (Mamiya 7II) and 645 (Mamiya 645AF and Pentax 645N)
You can compare lenses on the short side, long side, or diagonal. The reality is that you have to see what the feel of the image proportions are for your work. They are all different. I came to love 6x7, with the huge sky, for landscape.
Honestly, why even bother with MF? If you how to properly sharpen and up-res, the 21 megapixel sensor of today's DSLR's such as the Canon 5dMark2 pretty much are medium format already. This isn't just my opinion, either. Some of my collegues, like the renowned Marc Adamus, will tell you the same thing.
I can make huge, sharp, vibrant prints with the 5Dmark2. Unless you're going for billboard-sized, I really don't see the point in spending big bucks on MF. Large format, maybe, although its days are numbered as well.
Kory Lidstrom wrote:
Honestly, why even bother with MF? If you how to properly sharpen and up-res, the 21 megapixel sensor of today's DSLR's such as the Canon 5dMark2 pretty much are medium format already. This isn't just my opinion, either. Some of my collegues, like the renowned Marc Adamus, will tell you the same thing.
I can make huge, sharp, vibrant prints with the 5Dmark2. Unless you're going for billboard-sized, I really don't see the point in spending big bucks on MF. Large format, maybe, although its days are numbered as well.
If depends on what you (and your clients) want. I have been to many landscape photography exhibitions where the prints are falling apart at the size they have been printed (almost all shot on dslrs) and extra resolution would have been a big benefit. I stitch between 9 and 12 D700 frames together because DSLRs just don't have the resolution to deal with big prints in my opinion.
40MP+ of non-AA filtered pixels with the new digital lenses WILL make a difference at large print sizes but different people have different ideas of what is acceptable to them.
Mark_L wrote:
If depends on what you (and your clients) want. I have been to many landscape photography exhibitions where the prints are falling apart at the size they have been printed (almost all shot on dslrs) and extra resolution would have been a big benefit. I stitch between 9 and 12 D700 frames together because DSLRs just don't have the resolution to deal with big prints in my opinion.
40MP+ of non-AA filtered pixels with the new digital lenses WILL make a difference at large print sizes but different people have different ideas of what is acceptable to them.
Really"? How big do you print? 12 MP of D3 gives me excellent 12x16", I often print 16x24 and even some 16x28"., good enough to frame.
Kory Lidstrom wrote:
Honestly, why even bother with MF? If you how to properly sharpen and up-res, the 21 megapixel sensor of today's DSLR's such as the Canon 5dMark2 pretty much are medium format already. This isn't just my opinion, either. Some of my collegues, like the renowned Marc Adamus, will tell you the same thing.
I can make huge, sharp, vibrant prints with the 5Dmark2. Unless you're going for billboard-sized, I really don't see the point in spending big bucks on MF. Large format, maybe, although its days are numbered as well.
I will make my move as soon as I see D4.
You are right. I used to shoot 1DII with only 8MP, that gave me really good prints up to 14x20".
The quality of the pixels is so important.
nugeny wrote:
Really"? How big do you print? 12 MP of D3 gives me excellent 12x16", I often print 16x24 and even some 16x28"., good enough to frame.
If you are talking landscape photos, those sizes are on the small side. People buy landscapes to hang up above their couches... 6'x4'. I am just printing out some photos on canvas that are 60"x40".
