Marty4650: This could have been the camera of the year in 2008!
Lol, I suspect you may have nailed it. My guess is that this will be a very good, well-made camera but so hemmed in by the cautious conservatism both of its userbase and of Ricoh, and also hemmed in by lack of lenses compared to competitors, that it will never really gain any traction in the wider world.
ulfie: Landscape photography is, IMHO, the most challenging type. To portray the vast 3-dimensionality of real, naked-eye seeing onto a 2-dimensional print or screen is daunting. I have in storage in my basement a whole box of 35mm Kodachrome 25 and 64 slides, many taken hiking with a teeny but very capable Rollei 35S w/ 40mm f2.8 Sonnar lens. When I view them I always feel something is lacking even though they are quite decent exposure and composition-wise. What's missing? The feeling, visual and physical, of the vast 3-D space at the original site(s). This cannot be replicated in prints or on screen.
It could be as easily argued that landscape photography, at least of the kind described in this article, has become a huge cliche and rather a ramp for the selling of vastly expensive master classes and workshops in exotic locations. I suspect that in time folks will come to see that there is something inauthentic and curiously lifeless about many contemporary landscape works, though that's not a comment on the ones in this article. None of this is really directed at the writer of the article but much of contemporary landscape photography has become an industry of slick sales and marketing, with the camera-makers piling in for their $$$, and to be treated with some caution, imho. "Landscape pornography" after heavy photoshopping is nearer the mark in the worst cases.
The image released suggests a classic DSLR. It's pretty brave of Ricoh to do this since technology and perhaps the market point the other way, towards smaller, mirrorless cameras with better IQ from new-gen sensors. Only time will tell whether this is a Quixotic gesture since Ricoh will need to sell several tens of thousands of these beyond the couple of hundred gear heads and their test charts on an Internet site. The quality of the two newly announced FF telezooms will be crucial in this regard. If they are anything less than stellar then some of the fans on here will start to drifts away. Still, who wouldn't applaud a Quixotic gesture from an industry short on romance and pizazz.
LensBeginner: A 645Z is a portable option compared to other MF alternatives.However Dpreview seems to always find the way to insert a derogatory remark aimed against Pentax...
The Pentax forum seems to be doing very well in that department without any help from dpreview
Holding $4K' worth of kit in your hand rather than $1K or $500 changes the dynamics of everything both for the photographer and for the subject. Be careful it isn't for the worse. I've always felt better and got better results from something smaller, simpler and more informal than a big beast, so APS-C is fine for me. Look at the work of some of the masters you admire: in many cases, their images were taken using equipment far, far inferior to even a middle-rank APS-C camera, by today's standards, and using film stock modern digital sensors greatly outperform. "Gear" is hugely overblown, imho.
Mescalamba: It kinda reminds me James May and his Dacia news in a lot of TG episodes. :D
Pentax releases "yet-another-good-for-nothing" APS-C dSLR. Like, seriously why? Whats wrong with them, that in age of things lik D610/D750 or 6D. Or various A7x models they release APS-C dSLR.
A lot people which would like to have Pentax camera waits probably since 2003 to finally get that mythical Pentax FF camera.
And still nothing..
Yea sure, they make 645Z, which is pretty amazing thing. Also bloody expensive (not considering MF terms, but as normal camera, its isnt cheap system by any stretch).
Affordable FF camera is whats "cool" today. So, Pentax, how about some FF?
Why? Because Ricoh have a business to run and scores of camera division staff to pay might have something to do with it. Allegedly affordable FF cameras are cool for about half a dozen collapsed old hipsters with too much money and a sad obsession with gear, compared to the vast mass of buyers who want a reasonably sized camera they can afford. FF is not remotely representative of or even suitable for the market at which this particular camera is aimed. And given the huge slide in camera sales over the past few years, FF may not be a suitable business venture at all for many companies, the Pentax brand included.
marc petzold: Dear RICOH, you badly missed the point - we, the Users don't need especially a very slow 18-50mm f/4-5.6 zoom, especially not colappsile - if i need something way handy, i take a DSLM mirrorless anytime with me, over a DSLR, when space is an issue. But a traditional DSLR-styled body, with small lenses, especially F4 starting range....for whom is it made for? Take a NX3000 for instance with the PZ 16-50, and you do have a very nice Zoom Range from 24.5-83mm, starting at F3.5 to F5.6. Or any small NEX 3N to NEX-5N,R,T or A5x00 Series (Alpha) with the matching 16-50/3.5-5.6 PZ (the IQ is worse than the Samsung equivalent).
If you can't work out who a solid, mid-range, consumer camera with a kit lens is made for then there isn't much anyone can do for you, I'm afraid.