Hello Nick, Interesting questions. I'll preface my response by telling you what I did. Couple of years ago I went into medium format with the 67II. I love the output from that format. But I have found that it is not inexpensive to shoot. In the neighborhood of $1.20 per shot (film, develop, proof). The 645nII would be a bit cheaper but not much. I have done quite a bit of portraiture, weddings and some landscape/scenics with it. I recently got an *istD and ended up selling all my 67 gear to pay for/outfit the *istD.
For large subjects (people, etc) the *istD does a fantastic job. For detailed landscapes, the 67 is still better - I would suspect that the 645nII would be the same. Cost to shoot, ease of shooting (speed, fun, preview, weight, size) won out for me. Since you are not being paid to shoot, I would take a good, hard look at the cost to shoot the MF camera. Rest of the answers below: Saturday, January 10, 2004, 2:00:25 PM, you wrote: NC> I'm trying to decide whether to make the 645NII or the *ist-D NC> this year's main purchase, so I've got a couple of questions I'm NC> sure the experts here can help me with. NC> I take pictures entirely for pleasure, and enter Camera Club NC> competitions and a few magazine competitions (the latter without NC> much success although I was in the last 6 for having an image on a NC> Royal Mail postage stamp), as well as displaying prints in various NC> local venues as part of the club. All of my print output is NC> digital, generally A3 on an Epson 1290 inkjet, and the source is NC> currently 35mm transparencies on (mostly) Velvia or Sensia NC> scanned using a Niikon LS4000 film scanner. The slides are also NC> projected in club evenings so I'll need to continue taking 35mm NC> for that unless I can find an inexpensive way to convert digital NC> images to transparencies. I also own an Epson 2450 Photo flatbed NC> scanner with transparency hood. I, too, have the Epson 2450. For scanning 67 negs, you can get reasonable 8X10's. I wouldn't consider them to really show off the format all that well. I did much better having the lab make the prints. NC> My favourite types of photography are close-ups of insects NC> and plants, and landscapes/scenery particularly wide angle. NC> I'm tempted by the 645NII but am not sure if it's a logical decision. So to the questions: You have two conflicting likes here. The smaller format is going to be easier to deal with macro type stuff. The smaller *istD body and lenses make it much easier. A 100mm macro is effectively a 150mm macro. The 645 will be bigger, heavier, wider FOV, and less DOF. *IstD wins on this front. For landscape, the 645 is going to be the better choice. Much more small detail is captured. At least the same as comparing 35mm to 645. One more thing to consider here, the *istD can use the lenses you are using on your 35mm gear, the 645 will require new lenses. NC> 1) Does the 645NII work properly with the AF-360FGZ and NC> AF-140C flash units in TTL mode? I believe they do. NC> 2) I know the 645NII doesn't have interchangeable backs as NC> such, but can they be changed mid-roll in the dark or in a NC> changing bag? If yes how does the camera keep track of the NC> exposures, and will this affect the printing of exposure info, or NC> does the back handle this? Don't know the answer to this NC> 3) Can the 220 back take 120 film? No NC> 4) What's the chance of Pentax releasing a digital back for NC> the 645 range in the near future? This will potentially solve my NC> dilemma, although cost may be prohibitive. I believe the Baby D is the most likely next release. I have to believe anything for the 645 will not be cheap - different league. I would figure significantly more than the *istD. NC> 5) Are the advantages of the 645NII over the 645N significant? Don't know. NC> 6) How do the 645NII and *ist-D compare for macro NC> photography, particularly on location rather than studio? I would favor the *istD - see above explanation. NC> 7) How do they compare for landscape and wide angle photography? I would favor the 645 - see above explanation. NC> 8) Would the Epson 2450 be good enough for scanning 645 NC> slides or will I need to upgrade and to what? Will the quality of NC> a flatbed scanned 645 slide be as good or better than the *ist-D NC> output? It's unlikely I can afford a MF film scanner. My eperience with my 2450 and 67 slides/negatives is that you will get quality similar to a good scan of 35mm. If you really want to take advantage of the bigger negative, you will need a better scanner or use a lab. NC> 9) What would you do? I'm interested in the responses to this NC> question, but probably won't take it into account when deciding! What I did - Sold my 67 gear and went with the *istD. I am really enjoying it. My clients haven't seen any difference (except better at some things - closer focusing, tighter headshots, capturing of more spontaneous moments, etc). Cost of film and slowness of changing rolls put a serious crimp on my shooting. The *istD has been a refreshing change. NC> Sorry for all the questions and thanks in advance for your NC> replies. I may of course think of some more questions! NC> Nick.
