Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait? Locked

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
roustabout66
Regular MemberPosts: 467Gear list
Re: Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait?
In reply to The Davinator, 6 months ago

Dave Luttmann wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

nvlass wrote:

Hello to everybody,

Lately I am serious thinking about the Pentax 645 Mark II.

I should say that I never had a MF before so its is a new thing for me.

Right now I have the canon 5d mark iii with 17mm tse, 24mm tse, 24-70mm 2.8 mark II, 70-200mm 2.8 IS mark II, 50mm 1.8, 15mm fishey, plenty of flashes and CamRanger to control the camera from far

As you see I have plenty of 'good' lenses but my mind comes to the dynamic range of the new sensor.

Mostly I shoot landscapes and architecture, architecture for me is something that I love really and I like to take the time to "study" the image.

So what do you think shall I wait until canon brings out something that is comparable with the other sensors regarding dynamic range and megapixels? Or shall I start to find a new home for my equipment and move to the side of Pentax MF

PS I am not a professional but when I am really ready them maybe yes I will start my own business, you can check some images here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/envylight/with/8494916858/

Thank you for your time

Nikos

You have some really nice images! I think the Pentax would be an improvement over your 5DM3 for landscapes due to the increased resolution....if you print large. The difference in DR may or may not be important. Do you plan to print? If you print, the dynamic range will be 8 1/2 stops or less in the print so whatever you use will have much more DR than the print. If you do not plan to print, why do you need 50 MPs? MF does have a "look" that is hard to duplicate in FF 35. I am not that familiar with Pentax lenses but I doubt they have the tilt/shift lenses that Canon does for your architecture shots. For me, resolution is important for landscapes but DR not so much since my goal is a print.

The DR of the print is not relevant. What is relevant is being able to capture the DR of the scene, and then be able to compress it to print.

It is quite relevant if a print is to be the final output. I agree it is an exercise in the best way to compress down to the 6-81/2 stop DR of the print. I just do not think the difference in say 12 and 13 stops DR is all that significant when you are going to, as you say, compress down to the DR of a print. If you just want to look at your pics up close on a computer or TV, sure you can see the difference, but why do you need big megapixels for that? I just think many new photographers hear all this drumbeat about DR and do not understand how little of the available DR actually gets onto that piece of paper. If DR were the end all and be all that some would like people to believe, Canon would not dominate press photography (print medium) the way they do.

Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NiceNew
TrueNew
trueNew
easyNew
SeeNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow