Upgrading From 6d to 645d For $400

File: 6d.jpg (201KB, 1210x1104px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1210x1104px

The 645d is in good condition with 36k actuations

File: 6dstock.jpg (393KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1024x683px

I have 3 years left in university doing a BFA in photo. Im able to print cheaply with 43 inch printers, so the big printing quality is a huge drive. The major downside is that the pentax has no live view, which is key to taking installation shots of pieces, which is like half of what I do.

>>3104787
you don't need a medium format camera, hell you don't even need a full frame. I think you should stop coveting stuff you don't have. You're gonna end up broke selling and buying stuff for just a little more.

>>3104793
No coveting it tho. Ive seen the limits of what 24mp full frame can print and its nowhere near the sizes id want (30x40 inch and beyond). You just need to download a MF raw file from the internet and resize it to see just HOW much bigger you can print. Also Ive seen prints by masters students whom used MF and the results are drastically better than full frame. When it comes to large printing, there is a big difference, thats what they're made for.

>>3104787
>>3104792
fellow BFA student here though I'm in painting (I learned photo through assisting so I don't feel that I'd get anything from the Uni in that department).

I'm not sure the 645d offers that much more over full frame options other than a painfully slow AF and a viewfinder that is like looking down a tunnel. Sure the DR will be better but Phase and Fuji/Blad have cheap and better options now. I have been told though that the FujiBlad battery life is shit and they get quite hot. But they are first gen and any sane person would wait till 2nd or 3rd before jumping in.

if you want to jump systems and have slow AF, and live view there is always sony

K-1 with pixel shift might be enough

>>3104823
ps
Phase and FujiBlad developed new lenses for their digital sensors because the old glass was great on film but soft as hell on digital. Pentax on the other hand is largely relying on old designs and legacy glass. If I were looking MF, my money would be on Phase

>>3104787
I owned the 645D for a while, and it's a painfully slow camera, I'll tell you that. Practically no buffer, have to wait 3+ seconds just so you can preview the image you just shot and so on. It's still a better option than an old digital back as it's a fully integrated and sealed camera, but I can't see myself using something like that again. Also I hate it when cameras have a base 200ISO.
A lot of people gush over the "CCD look" but I can't say I was a major fan of the way it rendered images, as they seemed too "cooked" out of camera (yes, the RAWs) and deviating from that was pretty difficult, I'll take higher dynamic range and lower noise any day.
I ended up upgrading to the 645Z mainly for the live view alone, but it's a hell of a lot faster and the dynamic range is bonkers as well. I would stick with what you have and save up for that or something similar like a Fuji GFX if you desperately want that big sensor and resolution.
Also, I think it goes without saying, but these big cameras are very vibration-prone, so make sure to have a good tripod handy. The Z has a smoother shutter actuation than most similarly-sized cameras, but you still need at least twice the shutter speed of your focal length just to use it hand-held. You won't do those 40-50mp of resolution justice shooting hand-held or on a $100 chink shit tripod.

>>3104825
It depends... the new lenses Pentax is turning out for the 645 system, what few there are, are incredibly good. The 90mm and 28-45mm are absurdly sharp and the the zoom was compared favorable to an 80mp phase back with a 35mm prime, with the phase image scaled down to match.
The new 35mm lens Pentax has is also fairly decent and inexpensive, while the 55mm is kinda outdated but still holds up at 51mp, it's main issue is heavy field curvature near the edges.
These lenses are all quite expensive though, so for OP the better option is the system with the cheapest level of entry, and even after the increased prices with the Pentax system having been resurrected, used Pentax glass is still way cheaper than other competing options.

>>3104787
yeah sell the lousy 6d and buy the 645d

>>3104787
As a Pentaxian I would keep the 6D instead and get a better lens. The 645D is sloooooow, it is intended for tedious studio work and molasses landscape fetishists.
If you still need MF and can't get the 645z the 6D is the better alternative. Otherwise just save up or get a loan from family for the 645z.

File: JlPu0.jpg (44KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 700x525px

A7Rii

>>3104869
you never even fucking post your images on this board

>>3104787
>645d
no.

>too cumbersome
yes

>>3106774
I don't think it's something that anyone here would care about, just rote studio work 99% of the time, and random snapshits when I do have free time.

>>3106791
I shoot studio, I care. Especially since the 645z is my dream camera atm.

>not shooting Vlad/phase one backs

Only poorfag use Bentax and FungusFilms medium format cameras