[jogiba]

Full Size (ISO 200): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/0593b9a5f1c1f90178d4a445f484a8a1/forPri...IMGP2229_m.jpg
Full Size (ISO 200): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/b5f7adcff2681a2fe012dd1033b88250/forPri...IMGP0865_m.jpg
Full Size (ISO 400): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/4ea64818eccfb3c6020f7655bc0b4231/forUnd...__IMGP0426.jpg
Full Size (ISO 400): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/c639d7b647213ef6649afb5df5a6685b/forUnd...__IMGP0190.jpg
Full Size (ISO 1600): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/d941a0d7bc63895434b4b575933c0ad7/forUnd...__IMGP0144.jpg
Full Size (ISO 600): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/b7fa91bef690590db1163f43810e8b07/forUnd...__IMGP0001.jpg
Full Size (ISO 800): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/f275220f29cf1ed805e6686cd0963632/forUnd...__IMGP0034.jpg
Full Size (ISO 6400): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/1b72b9fc196770e6591d35a6b96878a6/forUnd...__IMGP2382.jpg

[Uluru]

I just added a good $1000 to the price of the RX1 to accomodate for the 11mm or 5/4 larger sensor diagonal (68% larger surface). In terms of area, the steps from APSC to FF and from FF to 645Z are about the same (about 500 sq.mm). So, a $1000 price increment may be adequate.

MF camera prices are mostly arbitrary anyway. After all, it is Pentax offering a better camera for 1/3 the price of its peers. So, I totally ignored the 645Z price in my consideration.

The 645Z is worth its price because it makes you look so much more professional vis a vis your clients. Not because it is this expensive to make. Let's be honest here.

It is all feasible. It is the same thing I have heard from some sources: that the 645Z is not a single whistle in using that new MF sensor by Pentax.

They are able to release a 645Z with such a price ($8500, and still make a good profit!) not only because of relatively lower sensor cost than before possible by Sony, but because of the inside economy of their own camera development. All grouping and reorganising they have accomplished during the 2012 and finished in early 2013 was aimed towards that goal. Ricoh's US marketing told that although ideas for 645Z started in 2010, the development of the 645Z took some 1.5 years, which places its beginning to early 2013. Bingo! Exactly as suspected.

645Z has, practically, the whole innards of the K-3, even including the new mirror mechanism adapted for it. And the derivatives of the K-3 in lower-end DSLR bodies will share same that tech as well. Similarly, the 645 mirrorless fixed lens camera(s) will have all the innards of the GR, plus more, because the classic 28mm GR is now expanding further within the APS-C derivatives.

I suspect two: (1) a fixed focal length 645 mirrorless at f2.8 (hard to guess which focal length, but something close to 40mm I presume), and (2) a 28-60-ish / f4 zoom are all highly possible. Nothing more is needed because, well, just imagine cropping possible with such MF cameras!

Less than 30% of that sensor area gives you the full resolution of the D4, X-T1, X100s and the K-5! Even with a single focal length lens, one practically has all the virtual lenses and usable cropped sizes all up to 135 mm, even more.

The 28-60-ish zoom enables practically same, at much lower cost than making a far more complex, longer, heavier and far more expensive zoom for a 24MP FF. So why bother with 24 MP FF at all (and even 36 MP, which is already verging with unstable)?

It's unbelievable what a game changer that would be. And from what I have heard, the price should be a real surprise, that will allow users pondering a D800 plus a lens think twice — and even the RX1 prospective users too.In other words, why beg for an FF sensor when they are able to give you much better than that?

[Pål Jensen]

All Pentax MF cameras since 1968 have been based on 35mm cameras (or APS). The Original 645 shared the innards with the Super A; the 645N with the MZ-5; the 645D with the K-7 and now the 645z with the K-3....

I will believe in an MF fixed lens Pentax the moment I see one. It will find a very small marked and will be expensive. If it would be released it will be a Ricoh....

[Adam]

Full Size (ISO 200): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/0593b9a5f1c1f90178d4a445f484a8a1/forPri...IMGP2229_m.jpg
Full Size (ISO 200): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/b5f7adcff2681a2fe012dd1033b88250/forPri...IMGP0865_m.jpg
Full Size (ISO 400): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/4ea64818eccfb3c6020f7655bc0b4231/forUnd...__IMGP0426.jpg
Full Size (ISO 400): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/c639d7b647213ef6649afb5df5a6685b/forUnd...__IMGP0190.jpg
Full Size (ISO 1600): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/d941a0d7bc63895434b4b575933c0ad7/forUnd...__IMGP0144.jpg
Full Size (ISO 600): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/b7fa91bef690590db1163f43810e8b07/forUnd...__IMGP0001.jpg
Full Size (ISO 800): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/f275220f29cf1ed805e6686cd0963632/forUnd...__IMGP0034.jpg
Full Size (ISO 6400): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/media/1b72b9fc196770e6591d35a6b96878a6/forUnd...__IMGP2382.jpg

There's remarkably little background noise in that ISO 200 shot, and stunning resolution. This looks like the ultimate landscape camera...

Not too shabby at ISO 1600 either. Light years ahead of the 645D hehe

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Adam]

It's unbelievable what a game changer that would be. And from what I have heard, the price should be a real surprise, that will allow users pondering a D800 plus a lens think twice — and even the RX1 prospective users too.In other words, why beg for an FF sensor when they are able to give you much better than that?

Pentax's ability to market the 645Z for just $8499 is impressive- we're talking tens of thousands cheaper than competing medium format cameras, and not too far away from FF's as you've mentioned. I'm sure they can re-use that same pipeline to come out with a killer FF camera, as compactness and versatility in the field is something MF cameras can't quite offer.

Once Pentax sees the response to the launch of the 645Z I'm sure they'll consider entering other markets (i.e. FF and more mirrorless) if they can make an offering just as competitive as this one.

[6BQ5]

All Pentax MF cameras since 1968 have been based on 35mm cameras (or APS). The Original 645 shared the innards with the Super A; the 645N with the MZ-5; the 645D with the K-7 and now the 645z with the K-3....

I will believe in an MF fixed lens Pentax the moment I see one. It will find a very small marked and will be expensive. If it would be released it will be a Ricoh....

A high resolution fixed focal length camera...

Sounds like something Nokia did with their 40 MP phone camera.

[Aristophanes]

It is all feasible. It is the same thing I have heard from some sources: that the 645Z is not a single whistle in using that new MF sensor by Pentax.

They are able to release a 645Z with such a price ($8500, and still make a good profit!) not only because of relatively lower sensor cost than before possible by Sony, but because of the inside economy of their own camera development. All grouping and reorganising they have accomplished during the 2012 and finished in early 2013 was aimed towards that goal. Ricoh's US marketing told that although ideas for 645Z started in 2010, the development of the 645Z took some 1.5 years, which places its beginning to early 2013. Bingo! Exactly as suspected.

645Z has, practically, the whole innards of the K-3, even including the new mirror mechanism adapted for it. And the derivatives of the K-3 in lower-end DSLR bodies will share same that tech as well. Similarly, the 645 mirrorless fixed lens camera(s) will have all the innards of the GR, plus more, because the classic 28mm GR is now expanding further within the APS-C derivatives.

I suspect two: (1) a fixed focal length 645 mirrorless at f2.8 (hard to guess which focal length, but something close to 40mm I presume), and (2) a 28-60-ish / f4 zoom are all highly possible. Nothing more is needed because, well, just imagine cropping possible with such MF cameras!

Less than 30% of that sensor area gives you the full resolution of the D4, X-T1, X100s and the K-5! Even with a single focal length lens, one practically has all the virtual lenses and usable cropped sizes all up to 135 mm, even more.

The 28-60-ish zoom enables practically same, at much lower cost than making a far more complex, longer, heavier and far more expensive zoom for a 24MP FF. So why bother with 24 MP FF at all (and even 36 MP, which is already verging with unstable)?

It's unbelievable what a game changer that would be. And from what I have heard, the price should be a real surprise, that will allow users pondering a D800 plus a lens think twice — and even the RX1 prospective users too.In other words, why beg for an FF sensor when they are able to give you much better than that?

If Pentax is looking to start another product line it will not be a fixed lens medium format product. If you are thinking a digital Fuji GW670 equivalent that's not going to happen. Those camera were primarily sold to people who had subjects ready for that frame and FL. They were used for tourist groups and postcard manufacture. Those markets have largely disappeared and stitching obviates the need for something like the X-pan.

A mirrorless medium format with an EVF makes sense on the design side, because all your doing is leapfrogging Fuji/Sony/Olympus on the mirrorless front, and Canikon on FF. Also, with a medium format system pricing will limit the need for as many lenses as FF would require. People will pony up for resolution not lens system (no T/S, very limited macro, very limited long zoom).

While the 645z is a tripod camera, the goal of a medium format mirrorless should be to make a handheld beast. It would still cost at least what the 645z costs now. I still say the Mamiya 6/7 series is what can be emulated.

It won't be much of a game changer because the mark for such costly cameras is still tiny. When you hit the sweet spot on the price curve (Apple iPhone) with the right stuff, then you change the game.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 04-16-2014 at 04:25 AM. Reason: tpyos

[monochrome]

There are 5 people in my Plan. I've bought 12 iPhones. I've never paid more than $199 for an iPhone current Generation - once a little as 1 cent 2 Gens old - so that's a pretty tall order.

[lytrytyr]

If Pentax is looking to start another product line it will not be a fixed lens medium format product.
While the 645z is a tripod camera, the goal of a medium format mirrorless should be to make a handheld beast.
It won't be much of a game changer because the mark for such costly cameras is still tiny. When you hit the sweet spot on the price curve (Apple iPhone) with the right stuff, then you change the game.

A real game-changer would be an MF mirrorless with the K-mount,
and of course the option to use old FF lenses with the MF sensor cropped to FF.

The Leica M bayonet register distance (27.95mm) is less than the 36mm width of an FF sensor,
while the K-mount register distance (45.46mm) is more than the 43.8mm width of the 645Z sensor.
So it seems like it should be feasible.

[Cannikin]

A real game-changer would be an MF mirrorless with the K-mount,
and of course the option to use old FF lenses with the MF sensor cropped to FF.

The Leica M bayonet register distance (27.95mm) is less than the 36mm width of an FF sensor,
while the K-mount register distance (45.46mm) is more than the 43.8mm width of the 645Z sensor.
So it seems like it should be feasible.

The register distance (flange focal length) has nothing to do with coverage. The thing you're looking for is the lens mount throat diameter, which for the Leica M is 44mm, the K-mount is 44mm I believe, and the Sony (F)E is 46mm for example. Also, the relevant value for image circle is the sensor diagonal, not the horizontal, which is 55mm for the 645Z, and 43mm for FF 35mm.

It's not a hard and fast rule that the throat must be bigger than the sensor, but being significantly smaller brings into play a lot of complications and limitations with lens design and body design. Also I'm pretty sure that most current 645 lenses, which were designed with a huge 645 mirror box in mind, will end up being physically vignetted by having a small K-mount occupying space that was previously open.

[Uluru]

A mirrorless medium format with an EVF makes sense on the design size, because all your doing is leapfrogging Fuji/Sony/Olympus on the errorless front, and Canikon on FF. Also, with a medium format system pricing will limit the need for as many lenses as FF would require. People will pony up for resolution not lens system (no T/S, very limited macro, very limited long zoom).
While the 645z is a tripod camera, the goal of a medium format mirrorless should be to make a handheld beast. It would still cost at least what the 645z costs now.

It will not. You'll be surprised.

When you hit the sweet spot on the price curve (Apple iPhone) with the right stuff, then you change the game.

With iPhone we also talk software convenience — many are buying it because it is also an iPod, and a shabby camera. And an organiser and a compass, and the web browser. Unfortunately, that what is performing worst of all, is being a phone; it's not even a decent quality one. And is popular not because it is of a good price — it is overpriced in fact. But it is available / included in 1-year or 2-year mobile plans. A real camera is impossible to be sold or used in such a fashion.

[climit]

well is it really medium format? Just a litle bigger than full frame, more like a four thirds full frame, I suspect some 20% more horizontal resolution than full frame. Hopefully the new Sony sensor shall be super capable in dr, noise etc. I supose this format works well in the sweetspot of legacy 645 lenses.

[Cannikin]

well is it really medium format?

Is it bigger than small format (36x24mm, a.k.a. "full frame")? Is it smaller than large format (4x5 inches)? Then yes, it is medium format.

Now whether this is a true "645 format" is a different question...

[jon404]

So... if you're betting on inflation in the near future, acquiring a 645Z could be a good hedge. Less than the price of your average generic high-mileage used car. And, you can make some money with a 645Z, even if only low-priced exterior real-estate shots. Whatever.

Question -- could Ricoh sell these to us on credit, with in-house financing? Something like $1000 down, the rest at 5% interest, with insurance packed into the payments? I'd do everything I could to get these cameras into photographers' hands ASAP -- with the huge profits just waiting from sales of all those existing 645 lenses. Ooohhh...

[Mistral75]

The register distance (flange focal length) has nothing to do with coverage. The thing you're looking for is the lens mount throat diameter, which for the Leica M is 44mm, the K-mount is 44mm I believe, and the Sony (F)E is 46mm for example. Also, the relevant value for image circle is the sensor diagonal, not the horizontal, which is 55mm for the 645Z, and 43mm for FF 35mm.

It's not a hard and fast rule that the throat must be bigger than the sensor, but being significantly smaller brings into play a lot of complications and limitations with lens design and body design.
(...)

It certainly is not. Just consider the M42 mount, the L39 mount of older Leica cameras or the M37 mount of Asahiflex, all 24x36 cameras with a "sensor" diagonal of 43mm.