Pentax 645 [pdf]
ianbfoto.com
ianbfoto.com
Unfortunately Pentax seems to be barely holding on these days, which is a pity. They make decent cameras.
My understanding is that the 645Z is widely used in studio photography, but I might be totally wrong there.
I don't think it's foolish. There are countless examples of a successful niche player giving up their niche to go after a slice of the larger mainstream pie, predictably producing a middling product with little hope of attracting buyers from larger brands, and failing miserably.
Still very happy with my K3 (Mark 1) for its combination of ergonimics, durability and image quality. (Of course, you wouldn't want to use it for video. Picking horses for courses.)
if you want true medium format digital camera you need to buy digital backs for twin lenses cameras
says a 51MP CMOS sensor, and has been CMOS since 2015.
I have a Q2 and the Pentax compares favourably, even if not all the lenses are as modern. The 645Z is a crazy bargain second-hand.
Ah, memories.
Sometimes I want to go back to film. Not necessarily large format as I would hate to lug the things around now. Perhaps some East German 35mm stuff :)
The best now? Traipse to Khrome in Central Hamburg, drop off films, ask for scanning, results arrive by email several days or maybe a week later, but still have to head back to collect negatives, and all of this costs a bomb now.
I basically keep my ancient Contax T2 loaded with crap film and shoot it casually all year long like we used to and then develop it so you end up with birthdays, christmas, easter all on one film like the good old days.
It's so expensive to experiment now.
But it's true that colour photography is essentially dead for non billionaires. I stocked up with more than 100 rolls a few years ago. When I run out, I'll just continue with black and white.
Bulk rolls of Fomapan 100 are still very cheap. For 4x5, a single 50 sheet pack lasts me more than a year.
For 8x10, shooting X-Ray film is cheaper than Fomapan in 4x5 (but the film is very easy to scratch).
I prefer B&W. But still admire lots of color photographers. One of them is Christopher Burkett, one of the few folks who still do Cibachrome prints these days. His prints are so marvelous that people may easily mistake them as digital images.
Of course, what he's doing takes lots of expertise and money.
But yeah, is it worth the hassle? Probably not.
I then scan the negatives. Once every blue moon I dust off the enlarger and make prints - but inbetween those sessions, I am happy to be digital.
As someone with a job and a family, I just couldn't find the time, budget, and space to do proper film photography. Digital has been much more forgiving for the kinds of documentary style family photography that I do.
If you are interest in photography, and have dabbled with film (say a 35mm camera) then you really should try a 645 camera. Or, jump straight to a hasselblad and be done ;)
Autofocus really helps mitigate my poor vision.
Now, the majority of my photos are family and vacation photos taken on my iPhone.
Not complaining, but Pentax 67 FTW. :-D