Full Frame or Digital Medium Format - it's Time to VOTE!

[Gio 645]

645D for me too.

--
Best regards

Giorgos
My blog: http://rhodesnature.blogspot.com

 

[loock]

645D for me too, but first FF 35.
I need a real viewfinder, for mai FF 35 lenses.

 

[ropen]

because I am not interested in any for my usage. But I notice that people with small to none investment in current Pentax gear shout the loudest about FF as a "fighting chance against future domination by C, N or S". People that stopped buying Pentax gear many years a go have the impression that Pentax owes them a FF camera. My take on this is:

-Well I say if Pentax is small compared to C, N or S they are giants compared to Hasselblad, Mamyia and the rest of MF gang;

• They have a line-up of lenses for those cameras and free access to a range of readily available sensors. Also the lens line-up for MF will be most probably comprised of a 7-8 lenses a lot less than a line-up for FF and the digital enhancement for such a smaller amount of lenses is easier probably;
• The economic risk is also way smaller than the FF because they worked a lot on this project and some things will remain for sure. Also they are just buyers for the sensors without any investment in it but a FF sensor atm is not available to buy for Pentax and must be made from scratch with a lot of effort for a foreseable small amount of cameras sold;
• With a MF camera they could use a "crop mode" for current and old FF lenses (a few of them really deserve the oportunity to meet such a sensor - FA31, 77 LTD anyone?). I may be wrong but for a 48x36 mm MF sensor with let's say 50Mp this will result in a FF equivalent of 25 Mp with a DR in the range of 12,5 stops for example. Also this mode will double the fps vs the native mode;
• A MF camera will be a really big "bragging rights" factor. Neither C, N, S have such a camera and for Pentax to leapfrog them would be nice. Anyway S for example have their FF probably for the same reasons and I doubt they'll sell more than 10-20K units per year. If I were Pentax I'll put a MF camera in every single comercial I print or put on the web. This is really a dream camera and the pinnacle of what's technically possible today not the FF ones.

My 2 eurocents,
Radu

 

[Jon Schick]

Realistically I'm not in the market for either of them, but I prefer the idea of niche marketing and going for the medium format.

That said, I have a nagging concern that full frame will increasingly become the norm in 3-5 years time, and wonder if APS-C will have had its day by then? If so, Pentax might ignore FF at their longer term peril.
--

http://jonschick.smugmug.com/

 

[Todd Ka]

As a working pro, I and many of my friends would really like to move up to MF digital. Digital MF offers a dramatic increase in image quality over FF 135. Think dynamic range, tonality, sharpness, and shallower DOF at normal apertures. Unfortunately, Mamiya currently sports the most affordable MF system available, which for us is still a little too high. There is a huge segment of pro's who are waiting for a really good, affordable MF digital camera. I mean affordable for the average pro not the high-end guys who already have an H3D.

 

[thecodthemullet]

some of us have interests in more than one photograhic interest. (and some of us can afford to have a system for each some can't)

now for me my interests are birding and landscapes. The requirements for such are completely different. Now maybe those who do portraits require the high FPS rate and greater(subjective) DOF control of a fullframe. I do not.

what i need (well want really) is faster focus tracking on a kxxd (k20 successor) for birding.

everything else the k20 already provides me (bar lenses there i have to look a bit)
now at the moment the k20 keeps me happy on landscapes but it could do better.

at the "present time" the "only" digital camera that interest me in the landscape area is the s5 fuji. quite simply it has the best dynamic range of anything in the market.

it looks at full frame and laughs. Unfortunately fuji dslr's look to be going the way of the dinosaur.

this to me is why i'd considering very closely a MF pentax the DR that such a system presents with the superlative metering they're known for would give me something that would capture the detail across a scene where currently the DR is the restrictive factor.
others mileage (kilometre-age? grin) may vary

Rohan (yep sign me up for 645D)
--
I hear birds out the window, quick i must grab my camera.

 

[dotnik]

But I would not buy one. I would not buy a FF DSLR either btw. I would not mind both types but MF should have first priority.

I do think that the 645D will attract more pro shooters than a FF DSLR. I also think the 645 niche is bigger from a business point of view and more predictable.

The Pentax 645 was a well established system.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture is worth a thousand words)
Jim

Link to Pentax SLR Forum Best images:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23551175

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 

[ropen]

Realistically I'm not in the market for either of them, but I prefer
the idea of niche marketing and going for the medium format.

That said, I have a nagging concern that full frame will increasingly
become the norm in 3-5 years time, and wonder if APS-C will have had
its day by then? If so, Pentax might ignore FF at their longer term
peril.
--

http://jonschick.smugmug.com/

Jon,

I guess about 100M people didn't noticed the fact that some APS-C dslrs are available for about 500 USD and bought a compact camera for 100USD and more. The argument that in some time FF will be "the norm" is 100% wrong. Guess what when a FF DSLR will be 1000 USD an APS-C one will be 250 USD and I can bet whatever you want that A LOT of people won't pay the difference. And about the Leica pressing on MF market is like saying the new Rolls Royce convertible will eat away Mazda's MX5 market.

Regrads,
Radu

 

[Genes Pentax]

1. As a consumer, going from current DSLR to FF DSLR is much much more economical and realistic. I never used, or even thought about using medium format when I was shooting film cameras and the fact that film has been replaced by digital sensors don't change that fact.

I have no intention of having two sets of lenses. Much prefer to have one set of lenses for two different bodies.

It'd be much much MUCH cheaper to have FF DSLR than MF.

2. As a long time Pentax fan and user (23+ years), I'd think that there's more room for Pentax in FF market. What I mean by that is this. I'm sure (guessing here ... but probably a good guess) that the market for FF DSLR is much bigger than MF DSLR. Even if the margin (in percentage terms) is smaller in the FF market, the total sum of money to be earned is probably bigger.

For instance, 10% of $10million market is still $1 million but even 50% of a $1 million market is only $500,000. Assuming the profit margin in FF market is only 30%, then profit would be $300,000. To match that profit, the MF DSLR profit margin would have to be double that, i.e., 60%.

For many of you non-professionals, I think you are fooling yourself if you think you'll spend $10,000 to buy ANOTHER camera system ... which is probably what it'll cost to have a MF system with some lenses. Doesn't it make more sense to have one set of lenses to use for both APSC sensor DSLR and FF DSLR?

How many of you guys have actually held a MF camera? Do you know how big it is?

How many of you guys have actually met or seen a photographer using MF camera? In my 23+ years, I think I can count them in my one hand ... literally.

Gene

This thread will focus on the possible introduction of the
long-promised 645D, either in parallel with a full frame pro-level
DSLR,
before the introduction of a full-frame system,
or instead of the FF system.

We are talking market research here - let's give Pentax some feedback
from the front lines...

This is a continuation of the earlier thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=29490241&page=1

I have suggested in the previous thread that we show Ned and the team
at Pentax how interested we are in the development and launch of the
645D...

Here are the basic premises of the original thread:

1. There are many advantages to each DSLR format - APS-C, FF, 4/3...
perhaps even the EVIL concept...

2. We assume that development of a refined K-series line, with faster
focusing and image tracking, as well as competitive features, will
result in a K20D “Super” (or a K30D), as well as enhancements to the
K200D and K2000D (K-M) models, within the APS-C format.

3. With so many 35mm system lenses still available, the introduction
of a full frame DSLR is a definite option...

4. With the 645, 645N and 645NII, medium format film SLR systems
still in use by many enthusiastic photographers and pros, the digital
645 is a totally viable project.

5. If Pentax introduces a full frame DSLR to go head-to-head and
toe-to-toe with Canon and Nikon, it would exceed the requirements of
most of the enthusiasts, whose K200D and K20D (and subsequent models
in the series) APS-C camera systems are outstanding performers in
most situations.

6. If Pentax goes for the gusto with a 645D launch, at a price
similar to the exceptional value that made the film versions of the
645 so successful, they could capture a very significant market share

• look at what Hasselblad just did - reducing the price on their

medium format digital systems... do you think this is a coincidence -
or a pre-emptive move to be more competitive just in case Pentax
jumps into the digital medium format market?

7. Pentax has an excellent track record with full-featured medium
format SLR systems - in both 6 x 4.5 and 6 x 7 formats that have
earned rave reviews FOR DECADES. Read Robert Mayer’s review on the
Shutterbug website:
http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/medium_large_format/0899sb_pentax/

8. Remember that The 645D would not be a brand new system launch,
with untried components - it would be the addition of a digital body
to an existing medium format system that has been renowned for the
excellence of its metering system, the exquisite lenses, and the
exceptional handling that was the class of the industry at a price
that was within reach of both enthusiast and professional
photographers.

For background information on the 645 medium format SLR system –
check out these pages:

The original press release describing the introduction of the 645NII:
http://harrysproshop.com/Pentax_645/Pentax_645N_Specs/pentax_645n_specs.html

For an overview of the Pentax medium format the range of lenses, and
their current value (used and new) here's a link to Harry's Pentax
645 web page:
http://harrysproshop.com/Pentax_645/pentax_645.html

Here is a link to views of the prototype 654D:
http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2008-03/07/p645d/

IF WE SHOW INTEREST IN THE PROJECT, perhaps this time around it will
come to fruition.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time to cast your VOTE!

I'm in for the 645D - can't wait for PMA... I will also continue to
operate a KXXD system, using whichever format best suits each
assignment.

Where do you stand? FF or MF DSLR? In conjunction with an APS-C
system, or instead of it?

My name is Norm, and I approved this message.

--
http://genespentax.blogspot.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/genespentax/
Brand New Sigma EF-530 DG SUPER for only $225.
Brand New Tamron 70-300mm Di LD Macro for only $135.

 

[KL Matt]

What I don't get is all these people here currently shooting Pentax 35mm gear who want a Pentax digital 645 system (maybe except for Thomas and a very very few others who would actually buy and use it, I know I couldn't afford it or justify it). I'm assuming most people saying they're "for" it in this thread will very likely not pony up when the time comes.

We all have k-mount lenses here, many if not most of them full-frame compatible. News flash: your k-mount lenses will be utterly useless on a digital 645! I can guess that there is a market out there, but why would they be on this forum?

And that's the problem --- they're two generally separate target groups. Purchasing this presumed 645d from Pentax would be in essence the same as switching to Canon or Nikon, except that there will be no adapter to allow you to use your FA limiteds like there is for Canon. The switch to a 645d system will likely be much more expensive. And the file sizes are going to be massive. Advanced amateurs are not going to have the PC setup to deal with them. They are not going to want this camera, mark my words.

The pro market on the other hand has very established competition, and Pentax willl need a full lens lineup to get any sales at all there. Just releasing the body and a single normal lens would be suicide. But it looks like that's what they were actually planning on!!! What pro in their right mind would buy into an expensive medium format system you can't switch backs on and only has one single lens in the lineup? I suppose if you need a high-resolution weather-sealed field camera. But oops, I forgot, it already exists and is called the 1ds MkIII...

The problem with the current Pentax k-mount lineup is that for someone looking to purchase a k20d and several lenses, there is no body upgrade path and now it is unclear if there actually ever will be. So you sink all that cash into their top-of-the-line lenses only to find out they are not going to actually provide the pro-level body they made the * lenses for in the first place. WHAT???

So why would anyone with aspirations of upgrading later even buy into the Pentax system in the first place? Mid-range customers need a pro-level model to attract them to the brand. No one is going to look at the 645d and say, "ok, I lust after that camera, but can only afford a k20d. I'll get the k20d for now and upgrade later." They simply won't because it would be stupid, they'd have to start their system all over again from scratch.

It's just a crying shame to see Pentax's crowning optical glories, the FA limiteds, being orphaned like this.

No matter which way I look at it I just can't seem to make any sense of what Pentax is doing at all. In 10 years, the current quality of digital medium format will easily be available in the 24x36 format I'm sure. And they're fighting against demographics on top of it all: the next generation of photographers doesn't know much about film anymore and doesn't care. They didn't grow up with a Rolleiflex and they will have a hearty laugh at the idea of lugging around that cavernous body to make digital images. But Pentax doesn't have the resources to supply a pro lineup anymore. My only explanation: the 645d is nothing but empty promises, just total BS vaporware to give sad people like us something to speculate about. At least I hope so for Pentax' sake.

-Matt

--

... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean? Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

 

[KL Matt]

I have no intention of having two sets of lenses. Much prefer to
have one set of lenses for two different bodies.

Yes!

It'd be much much MUCH cheaper to have FF DSLR than MF.

Of course. The difference is huge. Going from a k-mount dslr to the 645d would be like getting promoted from tee-ball straight to the major leagues.

For many of you non-professionals, I think you are fooling yourself
if you think you'll spend $10,000 to buy ANOTHER camera system ...
which is probably what it'll cost to have a MF system with some
lenses. Doesn't it make more sense to have one set of lenses to use
for both APSC sensor DSLR and FF DSLR?

How many of you guys have actually held a MF camera? Do you know how
big it is?

Precisely.

How many of you guys have actually met or seen a photographer using
MF camera?

Only when I went to get pictures taken of myself and family in a studio setting. Otherwise, practically never.

-Matt

 

[KL Matt]

• With a MF camera they could use a "crop mode" for current and old

FF lenses (a few of them really deserve the oportunity to meet such a
sensor - FA31, 77 LTD anyone?). I may be wrong

Yes, you are. Maybe that's it- people just don't get that will be physically, optically impossible to mount k-mount lenses on any future 645d.

Once again: K-mount lenses absolutely will not ever be mountable on a 645 from any maker!!

-Matt

 

[JensR]

The 645D should not be mothballed, but killed and forgotten ASAP.

FF should not be mothballed, but killed and forgotten ASAP.

Now that we have established our opinions, let's check why we have them...

The digital MF market of today is not the same as 24 (645) or 11
(645N) years ago. I am sceptical about the actual in-production
status of the 645 lenses, too. Especially with Pentax (Hoya)
relocating their lens assembly plants. Digital 24x36 is the new
medium format anyway.

This argument can be applied to FF just as well.

Yes, Pentax's decision concerning non-APSC lens production is poor generally.

Digital APS-C has already way surpassed 24x36 film with the K20D.

But not in DOF or wideangle.

I know there are a few good reasons to want digital MF, but I fear it
could kill Pentax. If Pentax really think they need to get out a
digital solution for 645 lenses, do a camera body that takes Leaf
backs or the like. Then make money with 645 lenses (if there are
any). And concentrate on FF from then on.

I'd say, concentrate on APS-C, as the above argument, again, can be
used against FF.

There are no backs that could shorten development risk for FF.

And what is a possible big market share of a tiny market compared to
a small market share in a huge market?

Until FF bodies can match the K100D in size, weight and price, it'll
remain a small market for a looong time to come.

Look at the size of APS-C bodies and how lots of people only started taking Pentax serious when the designed the K10D to be larger than necessary,

But, I agree with you: A compact FF soon would be Pentax's unique selling point and is one of the niches in FF that I was talking about.

I'd call both the MF and the FF market small.

FF small now, MF tiny now. Future = ?

MF has less than no appeal to me. There's nothing that interests me
that can be done with MF that couldn't be done with FF with more
ease. Size, cost, weather sealing, shallow DOF (, video, FPS, AF) -
all in favour of FF, even SR.

Again, I can substitute FF for MF and APS for FF in your above
argument to make FF have "less than no appeal", too.

This discussion is about FF vs. MF, not what you can or cannot substitute. Anyway, no chance to get the shallow DOF as with FF either in APS-C, or 4/3 or cropped MF.

For me, MF can give you wider DR, lower noise, higher resolution,
shallower DOF control.

This is not correct. Cropped MF has deeper DOF than FF.

Weather sealing is for anything from camera
phones to large cameras at very low cost, so it is not relevant at all.

There are no sealed MF bodies or lenses to my knowledge. So it is relevant.

Furthermore, current MF sensors
are excellent at base ISO and relatively poor at ISO 800+.
No guarantee that Pentax's implementation will change that.

Speculation rules the day I guess.

Just pointing out current state of the art. It can change, of course.

Go for the micro-K ONLY if it can surpass the G1 in terms of
processing speed and camera response. Pentax's past P&S cams have
all been very slow (and they did not give proportionately
better IQ). This kind of electronics is not going to compete in the
EVIL market, at all .

Right. I don't think it will be easy for Pentax. But I see the danger that Pentax will get trapped between FF cameras and EVILs.

The MF market, on the other hand, can tolerate slower bodies if it
can get the highest image quality in return.

While you are right, the MF market is also pushing towards speed and workflow.

My belief is that there is a market for FF cameras which have profoundly less features than the D700, 5DII or A900, at a lower price and smaller size. Pentax could do this. But in a few years, the big three will have closed that niche.

Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

 

[thecodthemullet]

as someone who isn't necessarily interested the physics all the time i don't follow the physics that often in this case i'll make an exception. (do i understand yes i have some engineering backround) can you tell us why it would be impossible to have an adaptor.

Rohan

• With a MF camera they could use a "crop mode" for current and old

FF lenses (a few of them really deserve the oportunity to meet such a
sensor - FA31, 77 LTD anyone?). I may be wrong

Yes, you are. Maybe that's it- people just don't get that will be
physically, optically impossible to mount k-mount lenses on any
future 645d.

Once again: K-mount lenses absolutely will not ever be mountable on
a 645 from any maker!!

-Matt

--
I hear birds out the window, quick i must grab my camera.

 

[Augustmoon]

too late to vote.....

This thread will focus on the possible introduction of the
long-promised 645D, either in parallel with a full frame pro-level

6. If Pentax goes for the gusto with a 645D launch, at a price
similar to the exceptional value that made the film versions of the
645 so successful, they could capture a very significant market share

Price similar to the film version ?????????????????

I thought Pentax already did market research and the reason they were putting the 645D on hold was because people DID think that the expected price would be around what the film version cost or similar to what C and N are selling their FF's for and not the 15K or 20K it more realistically would have to sell for.....

Pentax is already last in the MF game, and bordering on being too late to even afford to play at all.

Capturing a significant market share????

If market share was 100% about price, AND Pentax came out with a $2500 645D, and sold lenses around $600 or $800, AND most folks who want a medium format digital camera have not yet bought one, AND Pentax came out with one in the next year, Maybe Pentax could capture a significant market share.

But being realistic, Pentax will at best be a #3 or #4 or #5 Player (Leica is in the MF game, even before Pentax)

100% of potential customers, however, will not choose solely based on price, so right there, given Pentax will be last to enter the market, no way can expect to have a large share.

Especially when you get to this price range, and you either have the need and money or you don't and if you do, then other considerations weigh more heavily than price alone, especially if you are making your living at it, then you gotta choose the best quality, not the cheapest, and also the best track record, and gotta choose a company that knows how to take care of the working pro, has a proven track record doing so and can offer some comfort and security about their financial well being and their commitment to spend money now and in the future in all aspects of their product line present and future and a proven commitment to stay on top and ahead of the competition (not dead last).

So I'm afraid that at this price level, you remove the working pro's from the equation, you are only left with advanced amateurs and enthusiasts with lots of disposable cash, who are not interested in the highest developed model (Leaf or Hassy right now), who are not interested in the bragging rights or sex-appeal (Hassy or Leica) who are solely supporting the Pentax brand out of loyalty.... Don't see how that will capture even a mentionable market share, let alone a significant one.

And if the entire reasoning for Pentax capturing a big share is out of price alone, well those folks may buy a 645D body, but they will go to extra efforts to figure out how to mount a second hand ebay russian lens designed for a post WWII Kiev or something equally ridiculous on the 645D, just so they can keep their lens costs below $100, then post threads trying to prove how much better it is than the Pentax lens costing $2000.

Pentax has been too cost-conscious and not a significant enough of an investor or developer (and now has a parent company that seems to hold even a tighter financial leash) to ever develop or win over and pro status.

I bought my first large format digital back (leased actually) 12 years ago and my first medium format digital back for my mamiya 6x7 9 years ago, and have gone through a few of each of the years. I just finished selling off the last of my LF and MF systems and digital backs for all that stuff, and have a good chunk to invest in a new higher end MF system in the next few months. Sorry to say it won't be Pentax, why, because I'm some snob or jerk? Well, mostly because Pentax does not and will not have a single thing to sell me or even to tempt me to wait .... I'm on the waiting list for a new Leaf AFi-ii, but might postpone it until I have a look at the Leica, sadly no such temptation from Pentax.

In these days, you will lose money being #3, below breaking-even, and I can't see how a company would ever knowingly go forth in that direction (especially when the prospect is to start out at #5 or even below, UNLESS that company wants to spend a LOT of money and research to become eventually #2 or #1, but then they will end up with a camera system that won't be the cheapest anymore, so the whole argument goes down the drain again. I doubt that today's Pentax parent company (an optics company who admits buying Pentax for its medical-related optics) nor tomorrow's Pentax parent company will ever have that goal.

There's lots of offerings currently in the MF, especially used, and even more so with backs that fit onto existing film-era MF bodies. So, there again, price isn't gonna cut it.

--
Brian

 

[Todd Ka]

We all have k-mount lenses here, many if not most of them full-frame
compatible. News flash: your k-mount lenses will be utterly useless
on a digital 645! I can guess that there is a market out there, but
why would they be on this forum?

Because this is the Pentax SLR forum. And the 645D is an SLR.

And that's the problem --- they're two generally separate target
groups. Purchasing this presumed 645d from Pentax would be in essence
the same as switching to Canon or Nikon, except that there will be no
adapter to allow you to use your FA limiteds like there is for Canon.
The switch to a 645d system will likely be much more expensive. And
the file sizes are going to be massive. Advanced amateurs are not
going to have the PC setup to deal with them. They are not going to
want this camera, mark my words.

Incorrect. Not many amateurs will buy it, but some will. Plenty of well funded amateurs bought Hasselblads back in the day. It also is possible that the camera will be PTTL compatible so our flashes will work with it.

The pro market on the other hand has very established competition,
and Pentax willl need a full lens lineup to get any sales at all
there. Just releasing the body and a single normal lens would be
suicide. But it looks like that's what they were actually planning
on!!! What pro in their right mind would buy into an expensive medium
format system you can't switch backs on and only has one single
lens in the lineup?

This is foolish speculation. Obviously Pentax would not just release a single lens. I suspect that they would just up-date their 645 FA lenses. The specs have not been released, so we do not really know whether or not it will have an interchangeable sensor module. It also important to remember that the whole camera is supposed to cost less the then competitions digital backs.

I suppose if you need a high-resolution

weather-sealed field camera. But oops, I forgot, it already exists
and is called the 1ds MkIII...

The 1ds MKIII dose not really compete with MF digital.

The problem with the current Pentax k-mount lineup is that for
someone looking to purchase a k20d and several lenses, there is no
body upgrade path and now it is unclear if there actually ever will
be. So you sink all that cash into their top-of-the-line lenses only
to find out they are not going to actually provide the pro-level body
they made the * lenses for in the first place. WHAT???

It is true that Pentax does need a "pro" K-mount body. And that eventually they will need to go FF. But trying to compete with Canon and Nikons high-end would be a mistake at this point. There is much more room and profit in the MF digital market then there is in the pro APS-C or FF market, provided the price is right.

So why would anyone with aspirations of upgrading later even buy into
the Pentax system in the first place? Mid-range customers need a
pro-level model to attract them to the brand.

Not true. Pentax has only made two pro 135 cameras ever. The LX and the MZ-S. Both were great cameras, but did not really compete with the competitions high end models, yet they still managed to do ok. An affordable semi-pro body that can compete with the D300 and the 50D would be a good move on Pentax's part, and Pentax has said that it is coming. In the past when Pentax wanted to get into the pro-photo industry they correctly went in the MF business, and was able to compete very effectively in the MF world. This helped build the "Brand" so to speak.

No one is going to look
at the 645d and say, "ok, I lust after that camera, but can only
afford a k20d. I'll get the k20d for now and upgrade later." They
simply won't because it would be stupid, they'd have to start their
system all over again from scratch.

Yes that would be stupid. Fortunately many people are not that dumb. But because the 645D would certainly earn Pentax some praise and once again make Pentax a company that made real pro equipment, it would help build the brand which would help increase sales. When a person buys an D40 or whatever it is not because they some day hope to own a D3, it is because the brand is a brand that is used by pros.

It's just a crying shame to see Pentax's crowning optical glories,
the FA limiteds, being orphaned like this.

How are they being orphaned? Pentax has not stated that they are not going to be making aps-c bodies, nor have they stated that ff is not an option. In fact they have stated the exact opposite.

No matter which way I look at it I just can't seem to make any sense
of what Pentax is doing at all. In 10 years, the current quality of
digital medium format will easily be available in the 24x36 format

They have also been saying that four thirds will will equal APS-C, and the APS-C will equal full frame. So far none of has happed, and their is an even bigger difference between full frame and 645 then their is between 4/3 and APS-C. But you never know, some day when intergalactic travel is possible and when we have solved the problems of oil dependence, poverty, and famine, maybe 135 will be able to equal MF.

I'm sure. And they're fighting against demographics on top of it all:
the next generation of photographers doesn't know much about film
anymore and doesn't care. They didn't grow up with a Rolleiflex and
they will have a hearty laugh at the idea of lugging around that
cavernous body to make digital images.

Their is not that big a difference between the mass of a D3/1ds MKIII and a 645 digital camera.

Pentax will be fine with or with out a 645D. Provided they continue to develop APS-C/ff cameras.

 

[Augustmoon]

How many of you guys have actually held a MF camera? Do you know how
big it is?

Yes, Mamiya RB67 with a bracket and winder and once that bellows gets racked out, it is big and heavy, but I was able to hand hold it, with two hands at chest level against the body and a support brace, not at eye level. Works fine if your lights are powerful enough. And that was when you had to switch the film magazine after 10 or 20 shots (120 or 220 film)

My 4x5 and 8x10 Cameras stayed on their tripods.

How many of you guys have actually met or seen a photographer using
MF camera? In my 23+ years, I think I can count them in my one hand
... literally.

Gene

Well, actually until the higher-end Canon DSLR's started making their appearance in 2000-whatever. I never saw, met or worked with a photographer who shot anything below 645, and those were wedding and event photographers. In my circuit, it was 6x7 for fashion and 4x5 or 8x10 for product, some of the higher end clothing catalogs like Jessica McClintock, wanted staged shots with at least 4x5 and usually 8x10. (this was back in the late 90's)

Except when I was at the Zoo or Seattle Center or wherever, then there were lots of 35mm cameras around, but I was assuming you were referring to people who were working.

Ad directors and art directors would insist on seeing portfolios that were 6x7 or larger and only in the form of transparencies only (along with attached tear sheets from the publications those transparencies where published in. You wouldn't even get considered for a catalog or magazine shoot with 35mm or even 645 slides, or if your portfolio consisted of prints.

I still had my 35mm MX that I bought in 1979, so that was 29 years ago, and I would take that camera with me on trips and family events.

 

[JensR]

as someone who isn't necessarily interested the physics all the time
i don't follow the physics that often in this case i'll make an
exception. (do i understand yes i have some engineering backround)
can you tell us why it would be impossible to have an adaptor.

K mount needs a register distance (mount to film/sensor) of 45.46mm

645 mount has 70.87mm which is more or less typical of MF SLRs. (Mamiya 645 has "only" 63.3mm)

This would act as a 24mm extension tube to all lenses and thus only allow macro and close-up work.

Unless someone comes up with a MediumFormat EVIL camera that needs no mirror and thus can have a smaller register, it is practically impossible to use 24x36 lenses on MF.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de

 

[Todd Ka]

Pentax has significantly more experience in the digital world then Leica. The 645D will certainly offer significant advantages over the other manufactures current offerings. If they can get a decent service network rolled out they could really score big in this market.

 

[MightyMike]

full frame for me or an adapter to put my full frame lenses on a medium format and use a crop of the image
--
Mike from Canada

'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote '



http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=