When I first saw the description, I thought why, but then I saw one - compact, sleek & stylish.

There's a market where 'form factor' and style trump the peculiarities of 'perfection' as a tool (which is itself subjective). As a photography nut and K-5 owner, I'd go for a K-3 but if I wasn't, a 20MP AA filterless body might be just the ticket.

Putting a telescope on a camera is quite an arduous task, they're not ideally suited to photography unless it's deep sky astro work (where you really need a very good guided 'scope, expertly setup). I have a 4.5" 900mm Newtonian reflector with a 20mm (45x magnification) eyepiece which (for eye viewing) is pretty much equal to a Tamron 500mm f/8 mirror lens and 10mm eyepiece adapter (50x magnification). The Tamron is much more compact and portable (a big telescope with tripod in it's box takes up a whole wardrobe).

The detail in shot 5 stands out for me. Doing justice to medium format shots (film or digital) on the web is almost impossible. It's not just the captured image that counts though, it's the whole package (performance, weather sealing, unbeatable price, lens selection etc.) no wonder the 645Z was included in the BJP's 'Cool & Notable' gear selections for Dec '14.

I use a laptop, the angle of the screen (as you see it from your perch) can hugely affect the contrast/brightness of the image you see compared to a 'normal' monitor (i.e. where you're looking perpendicular to the image). Angling the laptop so the screen is vertical can help.

The clue is in the name Portra comes in 'NC' (natural colours) and 'VC' (vivid colours) options. You might also like to try Fujicolor NPS160 (if it's still available).

Picking a portrait lens is as much about deciding how far away from your subject the camera & background are likely to be as anything else.

The real benefits from a mirrorless design is that the manufacturer doesn't have the cost of making the mirror, penta-prism & focusing screen and making sure they all sit in exactly the correct plane and position (in the same way that 'lens corrections' meant lens designers could relax their quality criteria). The slightly smaller size and extra 'shiny shiny' factor makes them attractive to the mass market, having looked through a few while panning the camera, I'm very unlikely to buy one on a serious camera.

As has been mentioned, the 'R' in (D)SLR means Reflex (or reflected), the Penta-prism is an optional extra but a mirror (moving or pellicle) is definitely a requirement.

I haven't used the Pentax 645 but have a Mamiya 645 - it handles well and is only slightly more cumbersome than a large 35mm film SLR. Whilst the camera/lens combination is slightly bigger, the actual bag can be same size and weight (you just carry fewer lenses and other bits you rarely use). I do have a P67 which is great (but can be temperamental).

When shooting in 'portrait' format (verticals) you need a prism finder unless it's a 6x6 or has revolving backs. The second tripod mount on the side of the Pentax 645 bodies would be a real help (it takes a very good tripod head to hold an MF camera vertical without an 'L' bracket). That said, you can crop a 6x7 image quite effectively.

The hardest part is probably loading/unloading film until you get the hang of it (most MF cameras are fiddly for the first few rolls). The P67 isn't that much bigger as a camera and I prefer the form factor to my Mamiya 645 Pro. A 6x7 transparency is easily worth it though (although if scanning at a high enough resolution to show it at its best, you'll end up with a huge file).

I guess in 35mm terms, the handling and features of a 645 are similar to a Super-A, the 645n/nII similar to an MZ-5n and the the P67 similar to a large K1000.

Personally I prefer the 6x7 format as it's almost twice the area of 645, and when you're halfway up a mountain (not that I often get that far) I feel I can do the image more justice with a larger format.

EDIT: P67 lens focal lengths are roughly twice that of their 35mm equivalents. Good choices for portraits are likely to be the 105/2.4 or 165/2.8 (50 & 85mm equivalents respectively). All the lenses are good, some are excellent, the focal length & apertures are probably the most import criteria.

Note that a lot of MF gear has had hard professional use and a lot of P6x7 lenses are nearly 40yrs old. They're well built metal lenses but can look a bit shabby on the outside.

John.

Hi Karlo,

I think you took the right approach getting in close, places like this are horribly 'cluttered' from a photographic point of view.

John.

If Pentax (Ricoh) launch a K mount 'FF' DSLR camera I would buy one (I doubt I'd buy a mirrorless one though). As somebody who shoots more film than digital (including Pentax 6x7 gear), I have no interest in moving away from Pentax (I've tried and been burnt before).

The 'razor thin' DoF on 135 format bodies gets a whole lot of attention, but in reality it's nothing special (you can get the same effect with care and creativity on APS-C). more importantly for me is that my lenses get their 'proper' focal lengths back. A new film camera would be a refreshing change though along with more prominent marketing of the FA lenses.

I've just had some HP5+ 120 roll film processed that was originally exposed in 2003 (long story link). I had it processed & scanned by Ilford Lab Direct (Mobberley), the resulting negs look fine (I don't know if they modified development to compensate for the old film).

IIRC, Ilford's recommended agitation is four tank inversions at the start of each minute followed by a tap to dislodge air bubbles.