Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Tom - the 40-150 Pro - is that the one, which, when combined with the EM1x - provides 7 stops? is $1500.

$3000 plus $1500 - is $4500. The least expensive Fuji MF body is $4000 Body Only …

Add in just ONE of those lenses listed earlier, and you're up to $6500. The D5 Body Only is $6500.

All of this is hypothetical, at the moment. But, would I rather have a Medium Format Digital WITH LENS, for the same price as the D5??? … You bet I would!!!! …

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

User - I don't think square area of the format is mentioned in any camera ads I've ever seen.

But when you use square area measurements, of course - it makes it easier to see the difference.

864 sq. mm. is Full Frame … 225 sq. mm. is MFT … one can easily see it works out to be 1:4 ….

User ID

`



Ads don't quote actual area measure. They DO use
area measure, same as you did, when they claim
that "our 645 gives you a format 2.5X bigger than
35mm" ... example in film terms there, and that
is acoarst 2.5X by area.

By linear measure, the 645 format is 1.6X bigger
than 35mm. Given the ratio of prices, for similar
features on both cameras, you couldn't buy a 645
for only 1.6X the price of that similar 35mm, so a
larger claimed difference in size helps, somewhat,
to justify the disproportionate increase in price to
drive a 645 rather than a 35.


=============================


I'm not gonna repeat here the rationale for using
linear measure as more realistic than area ;-) I'd
just wanted to clarify that I hadn't meant that the
ads ever quoted area by actual dimensions. They
just based their "degree of biggerness of format"
on area measure. As in the example above where
645 is a "2.5X bigger" format than 35. As I wrote
in that earlier post, this whole thing began way
before digital came along. The "area mentality"
seed was planted back then, well watered, and
is now the default "think mode" size-wise. But in
practice, it's bogus. Again, I won't regurgitate my
prior post. Don't wanna be a cut-and-paste troll !

.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Based on that, then, User - 6x7 is 4x larger than 35mm. Yes?

User ID

`


4x if you're a marketeer.

6x7 vs 35mm, the area is about 4X,
the linear is about 2X. Advertisers
will prefer "4X the size of 35mm",
but the actual diagonals are 88mm
and 43mm for a "crop factor" of 2X.

That means 6x7 relative to 35mm
is the same as FF relative to m4/3.

Found this interesting view:

(Download)

tomcat

This is a great shot. The world's first "uncrop" camera??? lol

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, this is neat, USER … a 35mm film cassette being loaded into a Pentax 6x7!!!

Fat lotta good THAT'll do !!!!!

Just to show the comparative size of the frames, huh?

Just shows you - huh? … And, to think - most folks on the planet, are happy with 35mm / FF - or, even SMALLER!!!! …

Wouldn't it be great, once Pentax gets off its butt, reviews their past successes, and makes a 6x7 Digital?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

This, the E-M1X, is probably going to start poping up where all the pro cameras are. It is so robust weather and dust wise. The E-M1mrII shows up occasionally at pro spots for sports and wildlife, but this review and the one other review show the E-M1X is totally a pro camera. ChrisT is right that this camera has only been designed for the professional photographer or a cash-rich savvy advanced amateur photographer. Although I would love to have such a powerful camera in my hands, I do not need such a powerful camera at this time. Maybe once I retire and can really get out and shoot.

tomcat

Better buy it now, because when you retire, you either won't have the money or you'll be saving it for something more practical. Trust me, if I was still working, I would have a D5 and that new 300 mm PF lens. But with SS, there's no budget for it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You are probably right but, fortunately, I have the more practical - the E-M1mrII. Even after a year, I'm still not finished finding all the neat "bells and whistles" that camera can supply. Then I have to finish up the 3 custom setting buttons along with setting or changing the function buttons. The E-M1mrII can be considered a lower end professional camera. It is very customizable. I just need to get out more so I can really test the changes that I think would make the camera even better for my shooting. But I am still going to go to the E-M1X launch event here in Denver to see how see how it feels in one's hands. I still have 2 to 5 years to go before I retire. Maybe I will end up with the E-M1X mrII.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Did I say that, WD? … Must've forgotten. Anyway, it clearly IS aimed at the market you've defined. But, as Sony broke down some walls, introducing FF MILCs - about four years ago, now, Olympus has, also. Just as Nikon, Canon and Panasonic have now followed suit with their OWN FF MILCs, they will also follow suit with cameras with integrated AI, no doubt!!! And so will Sony - mark my word!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Well, Tom … the D5 is $6500 … not so sure about the lens. But, if you go back to work for a while, even though you're on SS … you may be able to bump up SS, in order to be able to afford the D5, anyway ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

You anticipate an E-M1x Mk. II, do you, WD? … Give it a break!!! … They've only just released the E-M1x!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Tom … without knowing WHICH post you referred to, here … I'm in the dark, literally, on this one.

The soon-to-be discontinued (if it hasn't been, already) K-3 II, probably sells for about that, right now.

The Pentax KP retails at $799.95. The K-70 is a little less - about $600 Body Only.

The Pentax 645Z (Medium Format Digital) sells for $7995 Body Only. Or, $8000 (near-enough.)

Is that the one you mean? … Perhaps, I left off a zero - did I?

The K-1 II, btw (Pentax FF entry) is - just about - $1800 … so, perhaps, I left off the "1" … dunno …