Photographers that want to shoot MFD are going to use MFD, not FF 35mm. It doesn't matter that the D800 has a similar number of pixels.
The DoF is different, handling is different, sensor performance is different. Having held and looked through a D700 (close enough to a D800) and a 645D, they are nothing alike. You'd never want to pick one over the other without actually using them. Deciding only based on specs is foolhardy. On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: "P. J. Alling" <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> >> >> DxOMark gives sensor in the D800E with an overall rating of 96 for >> quality, and the Pentax 645D an 82. The Nikon has an effective EV range >> of over 14 stops the Pentax about 12. The Nikon has a 36.3mp sensor >> with linear values of 7360x4912, which gives a 300dpi print size without >> undue manipulation of 24 1/2" x 16 1/3". The 645D has a 40mp sensor >> with linear values of 7264x5440, which gives a 300dpi print size of >> roughly 24 1/5" x 18 1/10". Now the actual sensor size of the Nikon is >> 35.9mm x 24mm, and the Pentax is 44mm x 33mm so given that both >> manufactures decided to give 100% viewfinder coverage with say 90% >> magnification the Pentax would win out, but since neither manufacture >> decided to do that and I haven't actually been able to look through >> either finder, but only go by written specifications* I can't say which >> finder is better, at the cost differential, if I needed the resolution, >> I'd have to buy the Nikon. Especially as I'm starting from zero with >> both systems. >> >> Based on this it's evident that Pentax must upgrade the 645D to stay >> competitive, but that said the same is true of any maker of medium >> format backs for existing systems. The only advantage Pentax has here >> is that the whole 645D camera body usually costs less than a back for >> another system. Pentax's other disadvantages are it's lack of lenses, >> only two currently in production, and the fact that it was designed to >> medium format requirements, where as the Nikon is a general purpose >> camera, designed to near sports photography requirements, that delivers >> medium format image quality. >> >> *Based on those specifications of 100% coverage with 70% magnification >> for the Nikon and 95% coverage and 65% magnification for the Pentax, I'd >> say it's a wash anyway, once again given that I've never actually been >> able to look through either. > > The price difference is roughly $5700 ($6000 if the non-E D800). One > could have 2 D800's and almost $2800 left over for lenses or 1 D800 > and $5800 left over for lenses, or a new computer to process the > images, or photography vehicle, or X months mortgage payments. > > Not, to beat 'a dead horse until it's nothing but a smoking crater > where a greasy spot used to be', as Larry so eloquently put it. > > By the time the 645D was released many medium format shooters were > already moving from film to high-end Canon 24x36 DSLR's. It just > wasn't/isn't Pentax medium format that's feeling the pressure, it's > medium format in general. > > Tom C. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
