As a former owner/user of the C645, I can say the set as listed is a very useable kit. Even though I had every lens they made for that camera, those 3 lenses were the most used by far, (depending on your personal intent and applications). $15K seems about right in this crappy economic environment, IF the kit isn't in "beat to death" condition (which makes newer offerings seem outrageously expensive ).
If I did that deal, I'd immediately look for a second C645 body to protect the investment longer term and set it aside for future ... the P45+ back is interchangeable.
If you depend on AF for your type of work, the C645 AF is no-where near the performance of your Nikon. To get closer "usable" performance (but still not equal), you'd need one of the more modern MFD cameras. It was the main reason (maybe the only reason), I opted out of the Contax system in favor of the Hassey H. Slow, but accurate is not how I would describe the C645 AF ... in any slightly challenging light where the fast aperture Zeiss lenses came into their own, it hunted like crazy ... and I had 3 different bodies ... all performed the same. I found the viewfinder a bit to dim to use Manual Focus well in those type conditions, even with a Bright Screen installed. But in good "fat" light, it performed okay, not fast, but well enough.
If Kyocera had continued developing the C645, and utilized advancements in AF sensor technology among other modern developments, IMO, they would be the market leader, Hassey would be scrambling, Phase One probably would have hooked up with Contax leaving Mamiya to fend for itself ... and personally, I would be shooting with a Contax 645/MKIII and Phase One P65+ back
As a former Nikon D3X shooter using the best optics Nikon now produces (AFS 14-24, 24-70, 100/2.8 Macro VR, 200/2 VR with nano coatings and all that), I'd fully agree with Jack's assessment of the difference between a top pro DSLR, and a MFD 39 meg back (which I also use). The caveat to that would also be dependent on the shooting conditions you tend to face in terms of high ISO response. But at base ISOs for pure IQ there is no comparison IMHO ... everything we technically look for in a photo is improved: DR, tonal gradations, color, minute detail, blah, blah, blah ... and the more you crop or enlarge, the more the differences become apparent. MF files are also more data rich for further creative manipulations and applications in post.
-Marc
If I did that deal, I'd immediately look for a second C645 body to protect the investment longer term and set it aside for future ... the P45+ back is interchangeable.
If you depend on AF for your type of work, the C645 AF is no-where near the performance of your Nikon. To get closer "usable" performance (but still not equal), you'd need one of the more modern MFD cameras. It was the main reason (maybe the only reason), I opted out of the Contax system in favor of the Hassey H. Slow, but accurate is not how I would describe the C645 AF ... in any slightly challenging light where the fast aperture Zeiss lenses came into their own, it hunted like crazy ... and I had 3 different bodies ... all performed the same. I found the viewfinder a bit to dim to use Manual Focus well in those type conditions, even with a Bright Screen installed. But in good "fat" light, it performed okay, not fast, but well enough.
If Kyocera had continued developing the C645, and utilized advancements in AF sensor technology among other modern developments, IMO, they would be the market leader, Hassey would be scrambling, Phase One probably would have hooked up with Contax leaving Mamiya to fend for itself ... and personally, I would be shooting with a Contax 645/MKIII and Phase One P65+ back
As a former Nikon D3X shooter using the best optics Nikon now produces (AFS 14-24, 24-70, 100/2.8 Macro VR, 200/2 VR with nano coatings and all that), I'd fully agree with Jack's assessment of the difference between a top pro DSLR, and a MFD 39 meg back (which I also use). The caveat to that would also be dependent on the shooting conditions you tend to face in terms of high ISO response. But at base ISOs for pure IQ there is no comparison IMHO ... everything we technically look for in a photo is improved: DR, tonal gradations, color, minute detail, blah, blah, blah ... and the more you crop or enlarge, the more the differences become apparent. MF files are also more data rich for further creative manipulations and applications in post.
-Marc