If People want a Pentax FF so bad.. Go buy a 645d ??

John Wrote>>>"Having said that, I've printed 1:1 crops(RAW) from both the 645D and D800E and found no differences between the two in terms of spacial resolution, contrast, color etc. And so I'm thinking the D800E would suite most anyone longing for a FF camera at this particular time. To which I'd add, does the 645D hold any advantages? Probably... though I wasn't able to substantiate it in any of my own tests though I'm sure a regular MF shooter will found otherwise."<<< (end quote)

John, differences are not going to be found by printing crops nor in small-average sized prints...but in print sizes that represent why some shoot medium format digital (such as the 645D, Hassy HD-4 (bigger or smaller backs), or any number of MFD cameras.  The larger prints shows the depth and other attributes as to why some shoot MFD for themselves or more importantly their clients and isn't going to be seen one bit from the methods you described in your evaluation.  Been there, done that!  The Pentax 645D at it's price point when introduced and along with dirt cheap legacy lenses did a very credable job...actually better than that! It was only because of the D800....that price structure of the medium format world was "shook"!

Printing crops and looking at web images isn't going to show much differences between all these systems...not even between the old istD and the current crop of Pentax DSLR's nor Nikon's D800!

I'll leave you with one last thought. You keep mentioning Nikon's D800 as a more suitable FF alternative. It's not! Do you own one and shoot with it for extended periods of time? It's actualy a more specialized camera that needs not only impectable techniques like a 645D but also lenses that are abolutely the best available. If not, then all you have is a 36mp DSLR that will produce images of far lesser DSLR. Do you realize the extensive test some have done to determine the inadaquacy of most lenses with the D800 if you want to do something moderately substatial with it's image? It's a poor choice to recommend for many with regards to a full frame DSLR. The D600 is more appropraite and I'll say more "below". There is so much espouced on-line but few have actually used, tested, and printed large from all these camera's. They give all sorts of advice but don't really have the on hand experiences with these cameras. As I said, Monday morning arm chair quaterbacks comes to mind. One only needs to be out on the football feild and be chased by the pro defence to realize it's totally different out there that sitting behind a TV (or a computer).

If one wants a very good value in a incredable performing FF 35mm DSLR, that has the image quality of the D800...but more versitile in the choice of lenses they can use for almost anything, especially for printing big when desired, it's the D600, not D800 when it comes to Nikon DSLR's. Sometimes more $$ spent and more MP, doesn't translate to better images...on the contrary, often times worse if everything is not in the DSLR's favor. If all one is going to do is basically post to the web and print 8x11 to 18 x24 (even with some cropping ability)..then one need not spend very much to post fabulous images at screen resolution and make average size prints

By the way, if there are many spelling mistakes and syntax errors in grammer (in this posting), it's simply I'm on the tinest of cell phones at the moment. again, not being argumentitive, but so much information is posted here in gereral and most pro's have left this site a long time ago but of the inability of many to want to listen and learn, rather than keep passing on web read information (as oppsoed to presenting what they have actually experienced. It makes a website much better, stronger and more well respected.

Dave