[mikeodial]

As everyone else seems to be having fun guessing what is coming with the FF, it seems interesting to ponder how the FF will co-exist with the 645D. This camera is likely to be close/maybe bigger on the pixel front, but will there be differentiation between DR and other important image quality issues?


The existing Pentax digital community has invested in DA lenses, the FF lenses out there were not designed for digital for the most part, (exception the DFA 100mm Macro), but will still work beautifully I am sure, just as they do on the current ASPC bodies.


If the FF comes closes to the price of the 645D, I certainly might consider moving to that format, even with it's speed limitations.


I guess my personal opinion is not really the point, but where is Pentax going to put it's investment for the future. They seem to be very pleased with market acceptance for the 645D and 645Z, which is selling better than they thought.


This product line seems like it's a great value, if you can afford the entry price. With legacy 645 glass seems this is still an attractive solution, with prices of the 645D now in the 3k range for a lightly used version.


Thoughts?

[jrpower10]

From Pentax's perspective, I don't think the 645D and FF will compete. New 645D's still cost almost $5000 and the speculation I've read so far seems to believe the FF will be half that (of course, it's just speculation). Used prices are good on the D but that doesn't help Pentax. I'd be inclined to think the 645D will be discontinued after the FF is released, particularly if the FF sensor resolution is up around 36 mp. At that point new buyers are either going to save for the Z or go FF, and I can't see D sales staying strong enough to justify continued production.

There, you now have my totally uninformed wild guess.

[pentax67shooter4life]

I would expect the 135/FF format to be more practical than the 645D for most purposes.


You've already mentioned the limited ISO with the 645D. The 645D has roughly 12.5 stops of DR; even the current Super35/APSC sensors are already at 13 stops or so. There's no live view on the 645D, which makes it cumbersome to use for product work. Also, don't forget that shots on the 645D will take a few seconds to finish saving to card. The 135 body should (hopefully) have better AF capabilities than the 645D as well.


Typically medium format sensors from PhaseOne and Hasselblad have better color fidelity than 135 sensors, due to the narrower band-pass of color filter arrays they use. However, I'm not sure the 645D's CFA is any better than the existing pentax S35 sensors. The 645D would be slightly higher resolution, especially if the 135 sensor turns out to be 24MP or so. But even then, the difference between 24 and 40 isn't THAT huge.


Like all things medium format, you're really paying for the ergonomics and the showmanship of using a giant sensor. Most of the folks I personally know (including a couple of big-budget ad campaign shooters) are using strictly 135 sensors for their work. Some still have their P1 gear, but only because they enjoy using it for personal projects.


I suppose it's like an old classic car vs new models: the new model is objectively better in most ways, more affordable, and more maintainable. But the classics have that touch of nostalgia that appeals to those who can afford it.

[robertchow999]

645D would be slightly higher resolution, especially if the 135 sensor turns out to be 24MP or so. But even then, the difference between 24 and 40 isn't THAT huge.


Like all things medium format, you're really paying for the ergonomics and the showmanship of using a giant sensor. Most of the folks I personally know (including a couple of big-budget ad campaign shooters) are using strictly 135 sensors for their work. Some still have their P1 gear, but only because they enjoy using it for personal projects.

Ergonomics on medium format cameras is not that good. Pentax 645D/Z would be the exception. The draw for MF is resolution and depth of field. DSLR's are closing the resolution gap but DOF will only be addressed by sensor size.

I have both the K3 & the 645D and there is still a significant difference between 24 and 40 MP. If the upcoming Pentax FF has a 36MP sensor, the gap in resolution compared to the 645D would be almost negligible and the newer sensor should have better ISO range as well. For a 36MP or higher resolution sensor, Pentax will need to upgrade its Prime processor's capability and data throughput to get a reasonable framerate and write performance because most photographers would not stand for 645D level of performance.

[gofour3]

In the film days Pentax had four formats going, with bodies and lenses.

- 110
- 35mm
- 645
- 6x7

This wasn’t an issue back then and shouldn’t be in the digital age.

Phil

[mikeodial]

Ergonomics on medium format cameras is not that good. Pentax 645D/Z would be the exception. The draw for MF is resolution and depth of field. DSLR's are closing the resolution gap but DOF will only be addressed by sensor size.

I have both the K3 & the 645D and there is still a significant difference between 24 and 40 MP. If the upcoming Pentax FF has a 36MP sensor, the gap in resolution compared to the 645D would be almost negligible and the newer sensor should have better ISO range as well. For a 36MP or higher resolution sensor, Pentax will need to upgrade its Prime processor's capability and data throughput to get a reasonable framerate and write performance because most photographers would not stand for 645D level of performance.

So if the FF has these specs would you stick with the 645D? Do you overcome the DR issue by bracketing on the 645D?

[Rondec]

The thing to me about the 645D is that it is a camera that seems to do best at a few specific things, particularly landscape and portraiture, while the full frame will be a jack of all trades. The biggest difference to me isn't cost of the camera, but cost of lenses, where the medium format portfolio is really pricey.

[aleonx3]

Why not? Aside from the price difference, the lenses for 645D/Z and FF are not interchangeable.

[Wired]

To not cripple 645z sales, the camera will be either 24mp or 36mp. Most likely 36mp due to the 16/20/24/52 mp ranges all ready present in the lineup.

Anyone who thinks the FF will be 50mp is smoking something wicked, and I want some.

[kooks]

Is not just a matter of MP .. size, portability, available lenses, etc ... and other features that MF are not the best.

[Wired]

Is not just a matter of MP .. size, portability, available lenses, etc ... and other features that MF are not the best.

not to mention skill level.



We saw this already from K5 to K3 (the sharpness concern)

Now when people move upto 35mm format they will see how forgiving APS-C is compared to a FF body, especially at 36mp sensor resolution. (took me about 2 months to fully settle in with my D800)

For those that have tried medium format, digital or film, know how unforgiving the format is.

[pete-tarmigan]

From Pentax's perspective, I don't think the 645D and FF will compete. New 645D's still cost almost $5000 and the speculation I've read so far seems to believe the FF will be half that (of course, it's just speculation). Used prices are good on the D but that doesn't help Pentax. I'd be inclined to think the 645D will be discontinued after the FF is released, particularly if the FF sensor resolution is up around 36 mp.

Are you saying the 645D is still being manufactured?

[kooks]

not to mention skill level.



We saw this already from K5 to K3 (the sharpness concern)

Now when people move upto 35mm format they will see how forgiving APS-C is compared to a FF body, especially at 36mp sensor resolution. (took me about 2 months to fully settle in with my D810)

For those that have tried medium format, digital or film, know how unforgiving the format is.

exactly...

[6BQ5]

As everyone else seems to be having fun guessing what is coming with the FF, it seems interesting to ponder how the FF will co-exist with the 645D. This camera is likely to be close/maybe bigger on the pixel front, but will there be differentiation between DR and other important image quality issues?

The existing Pentax digital community has invested in DA lenses, the FF lenses out there were not designed for digital for the most part, (exception the DFA 100mm Macro), but will still work beautifully I am sure, just as they do on the current ASPC bodies.

If the FF comes closes to the price of the 645D, I certainly might consider moving to that format, even with it's speed limitations.

I guess my personal opinion is not really the point, but where is Pentax going to put it's investment for the future. They seem to be very pleased with market acceptance for the 645D and 645Z, which is selling better than they thought.

This product line seems like it's a great value, if you can afford the entry price. With legacy 645 glass seems this is still an attractive solution, with prices of the 645D now in the 3k range for a lightly used version.

Thoughts?

I thought the 645D is out of production. Whatever is being sold as "new" is really "new old stock". Once store stock is sold then it's gone for good.

If you meant the 645Z then that's a different topic. The recent interview with Ricoh posted on Imaging Resources highlights how the FF and MF formats can co-exist. The cameras are made for different applications, different customers, and different glass. All of this results in two different image renderings.

[filoxophy]

Are you saying the 645D is still being manufactured?

My impression is the same as 6BQ5's. Still sold new, but not being manufactured.