Donnie G: Now this is the kick ass Pentax that I've been waiting for. Not some wannabe medium format pretender dressed in FF 35mm clothes, but the real deal at an enthusiast accessible price point. Ricoh! You done good baby!
actually... some would say it's not "real" medium format just because its numbers don't match (the 645 part)
in essence though, it IS one. But anyways, once the second gen of this camera comes around, let's see how many 645Z's will sell at an even lower price.
Damn you, Pentax. Forcing competition again! =))
CameraLabTester: Yep... then reduce everything back on the computer to "manageable" sizes...
for Facebook, apparently? hehe
jodvovauk: Its back panel with buttons looks like from 1999, it's ugly.
well, beauty is subjective..
RichRMA: A very good and fair review for THE BEST sub-FF camera around. Sorry Nikon, still think no "real" successor to the D300s is a travesty..
@samfan: Yeah when salaries all over the world go dramatically higher too to suddenly afford FX lenses yes.
Frank_BR: Ove Bengtson, Hasselblad Product Manager said: "… This CMOS sensor model represents a major leap forward in camera development and breaks new grounds for medium format photographers…"
It sounds almost ridiculous when someone says in 2014 that CMOS sensor is a "major leap forward in camera development". In 2000 the Canon D30 already had a CMOS sensor! That is, the sensor technology of medium format is lagged 14 years compared to other formats. The technology in the MF field develops so slowly that in 2028 Hasselblad (if it survives until then) will be bragging that its MF cameras can shoot 1080i video…
MF technology has not lagged.
It's the price adjustments (and performance evaluation) between CCD and CMOS of that SIZE.
SDPharm: Here's my question: take an identical scene with this new Hassy and a Nikon D800, process them to the best one can, then print each to a reasonable size, say, 5 ft wide. Then hang them in a gallery with controlled lighting. Will I be able to tell which one is which when viewing them from a comfortable viewing distance of 3-5 ft?
No, print one like 30 feet wide and you will see the advantage of medium-format over the over-glorified "full-frame"
Imagine how a highway billboard 60 feet wide will look like if it were shot with an FF vs MF. You'll see the reason to go beyond 135.
SF Photo Gal: With 36 MP FF now available, I wonder if the need for this kind of beast really exists?
Dear SF Photo Gal,
Megapixels don't make a camera... 35mm and medium-format are "different animals" if you'd like to refer to them as such.
e.g. like a Lynx (35mm) to a Lion (MF) - same cats (cameras) but of different breeds and environments as well as characteristics
JaimeA: Please do not post any comments until we get a full review of the Fuji X-E2. How long can we wait??? The camera appeared months ago and has been on sale since. No excuses please.
lol winter's over and still no in-depth review for the 1Dx and D4 after what, 3 years? :)
and someone complains about the absence of a review for a camera that's a few months old? No excuses please.
Fuji doing a Pentax move :)
...or OK, Leica. (or H'blad, to a lesser extent)
parkmcgraw: 3 of 3
The camera body offerings today, somewhat analogous to how a fledgling and or pretentious cook, as appose to a skilful chef, creates a "what is that" sort of desert, not being knowable or skillful enough in the arts to produce a basic though very high quality cake or seasoned pie with ice cream.
In closing, please STOP removing basic system hardware functions and or options without first insuring that what is being selected to be the replacement item is superior on most all respects to the predecessor.
Do a job, big or small, do it right or not at all.
Dear Mr. McGraw,
Welcome to the world of capitalism.
Ayoh: Looks like it might do video judging by the Mic and Speaker holes visible on the left side of the body
And the new zoom has built in stabilization too looking at the switches
Should be a really impressive piece of kit, and 1/2-1/3 the cost of the competition.
don't forget it's medium-format, with an even wider field of view than 135-format. Do you know how thin DOF will look like (due to increased field of view) if you put an f1.8 lens on a 44x33 sensor? The subject will look blurred silly, perhaps only the tip of the nose will be good enough to view.
I've tried a 645D with a 150mm f2.8 lens and wide-open it's hard to get both eyes in focus if the subject isn't facing the camera directly
No interchangeable focus screens and no focus assist...
I hope it has focus peaking.
VirtualB: Aesthetically disappointing. Nowhere near the beauty and high quality look of an F3 or F2. Stamped metal look similar to the lower range FM and FE. Then there is the schizophrenic combination of a retro-design top with a modern-DSLR back...I very much doubt that a sophisticated industrial design house was involved with this abortion. Very disappointed as I was looking forward to this camera...
If they took out the LCD at the back then maybe it'll be a lot thinner and would need less buttons.
Then you'd have to go home and "develop" your photos in your digital darkroom. That'll be as nostalgic as design can get, wouldn't it?
OK, so just get a Pentax K3 (or K5 for that matter). Everything this is and more, minus full frame sensor. (Just get a KPS viewfinder magnifier for a full-frame sized view.) Backward lens compatibility. Amazing set of metal limited primes.
Perhaps DPReview might be reminded of this in their comments. Pentax rarely gets a mention with reference to the other companies and really that's forgetting some very relevant quality options.
Which Pentax? The only Pentax camera that went over $2500 is the 645D...
...with exception of the Titanium and Gold LX's collector's items from way back then
Doesn't Pentax have a camera that's also named Q?
Hate to say this, but it's too expensive :(
and the diffraction limit for the Q is around f/8. They could've just made a fast wide prime (that is not under "TOY" and not a fisheye) to make it smaller... and probably cheaper too
it better be convincingly good wide open
Thoughts: Who is still doing metal AF lenses these days? Simply beautiful !
Uhm, Leica I think? Zeiss? But I don't think they're AF.
Anyways, even Canon/Nikon have metal in their AF lenses, but not "all-aluminum" or something
Carlos Loff: I m a Nikon Lover but since I lost my D200 to the ocean waves, I m just getting tired of waiting for the Nikon D400. Im seriously considering the purchase of a Pentax K-3 because reading carefully all the specs it just suits my best dreams for such a selling price
Now this lens is one more reason to keep thinking about, why not a Pentax ?
It would be a very nice lens to start, suitable for some landscape and portrait near the sea or in light rainy days
Try a K-3 at the nearest place you can, and once this lens comes out (or at least the price goes down)
... your wallet will decide :D
Zvonimir Tosic: It's 30-60 mm in 135 format terms — it covers both classic 35mm and 50 mm FoV, with extra few mm on both ends. To many this could be the only lens they'd ever need. And it's WR too.It also has a classic touch to it, with a Super Takumar focus ring type.
by the laws of GBA, nope, this is not the ONLY lens one can ever need...
there's the DA70 Limited too...and the DFA100... and the DA15... and the list goes on :D
PK24X36NOW: Sorry, but I don't get it, Pentax. This is a 2:1 zoom ratio, relatively slow, variable aperture lens that isn't very wide on the wide end, isn't very long on the long end, and you want 849 POUNDS for it (I don't even want to think of what that is in dollars)?!
The main thing that's "limited" about this lens is what - range, versatility??
You would think that for your top-line lenses, you should be able to muster a 3:1 zoom ratio, constant aperture, and a focal length range that isn't boring.
Hmm, I don't get it, how can a focal length range be boring? Or even exciting for that matter? What's exciting about a range of numbers? Unless you're a math-o-phile...
Perhaps 'useful' is a more appropriate term?