645D

The 645D got an excellent review in the Outdoor Photography magazine this month

Would like to get my hands on one to try, that's for sure!

I have never handled a medium format so I am not sure what to expect, but I am always willing to give something new a try, so please pm me with an offer Mr pentax...

I wish also... but it does handle like a d-slr... it isn't much bigger or heavier than the big Canikon ff'ers really.. it is thicker, but well balanced.... so I've heard...


I did shoot the 645 a couple times, a friends... not mine... the film version wasn't too big to handhold...

I'd love to try one also.

I'm not sure I'd ever want to move to a medium format system though. Even if I had the money. I mean unless you are in the business of snapping professionally to have shots enlarged to poster/billboard/etc size ...

Maybe I'd change my mind if I tried one. But £8k better?

It is awesome - if you try one I can guarantee you *will* want one. Worth £8k though? Trickier to say, but if I had that sort of money laying around then I'd buy one.

having shot everything from the k1000 to the 645 as well as 4x5 and an 8x10 view camera.... and having used evf and compact, as well as d-slrs...
I would have chosen a 4x5 over the old 645 just for the tilt and swing movements...
right now... I'd kill for a 645d with video.... ok kill is a little extreme...

I'm way more extreme than that... It is more inhumane to just wound 'em and leave 'em suffering... but I digress, I want a 645-d that shoots video.

I love MF. The viewfinder is LARGE. It is so much easier to see the little details that can ruin an otherwise perfect picture. And you can ENLARGE those pictures to cover a wall if you are so inclined.

The downside is that they are slower to use. It takes longer to save a picture to the card and have it show up on the rear screen, and they don't take three gazillions pictures a second.

But, in a studio, they are wonderful.

Good point! When playing with the one in SRS we did notice the write times were a little on the slow side. To be fair though it is having to write huge amounts of data and my memory card (being quite elderly) probably didn't help. Plus it will let you take the next shot while it's still writing the last one.

Why though?

Surely the resolution limit for playback is HD/1080p so using a 40MP camera seems like complete overkill. Plus the amount of time a computer would take to edit video files shot at full resolution could be measured on a calendar. I'm not really interested in video personally so maybe I'm missing a trick here, but I'd have thought something around the size of an APS-C/35mm sensor would be perfect (with lots of pixel binning to lower the resolution to HD size).

Let's face it, if you can afford a 645D with a set of lenses then you could probably break out some spare change for a K5 to take on video duties..?

Red One
think big

I am with Don. Also it is out of my range for some time to come but when they would bring out the Pentax 645D with Ultra High Definition Video (UHDV), this way they could make use of the larger sensor, I would seriously consider selling everything to get a decent set with an 645 together.
I do shoot Video, also not as often as I take Pictures, and the only real problem is storage rather then the editing side.
When HD came out there was the same argument and it does not take 'hours' to edit as you can edit in the native format and with the emergence of Video Streamers you don't have to change the format in most cases either.
If you got the money for a camera like that then you cot the money for the hardware needed to edit.
The real problem is storage. Within the camera and on the editing computer.
It is nearly impossible in the near feature to bring out a camera that is small enough (with that I mean the size of an 645 or just slightly larger) with the UHDV format.
But then again, once it is there, here I come

Well I read through the links but they rather confirm what I thought anyway.

Yes, the resolution is higher (by some margin) than "Full HD" as shot by most digicams, however, the physical sensor size of the Red One is roughly that of a Micro FourThirds camera and the "Massive" (Red's words, not mine) sensor on the Red Epic has about the same surface area as APS-C (albeit in a very different 2:1 aspect ratio).

So it looks to me like in Red's view, the 4K future of cinema depends on sensors physically smaller than that currently in the K-5, but with less pixel binning to obtain those high resolutions.

Which brings me back to the question; why would you want video in a medium format camera? Sorry Don, but I struggle to think of a machine less suited to the job in all honesty...

Well said Hefty. I think it's just a case of "I want it but don't need it". Unless you guys (Don and Smutje) are shooting films destined for the big screen, in which case why not just buy/rent the Red One (or more to the point, get your investors to buy/rent it for you).

Otherwise I don't see the point of a UHDV video camera if you're never going to display it on a UHDV display.

well, "HD" is just the start... 1440p is coming and the race for mindshare in terms of what Hi-Res really means continues.

4K is coming and I'd give it 3-4 years before it's being demanded and another 3-4 before blu-ray is "too small". Just like DVD before it....

Bret

I don't disagree, but those are all measures of resolution *not* sensor size. Red's cameras are already capable of 4K video but use a sensor(s) smaller than/equal to APS-C size-wise.

Ultra-high resolution video is a niche market. Medium format still imaging is a niche market. Other than both being niches though I don't see where they have common ground.

The video part will no doubt cross over into the mainstream sooner rather than later, the medium format sensor likely never will - remaining a premium niche product for high-end art/scientific photography and the like.

Personally I'd view the addition of video to the 645D as being akin to the addition of a tow bar to an F1 car - technically feasible but bafflingly pointless...