[Big Dave]

How about a mirrorless body with EVF. It could take lenses from Pentax, Hazelblad, Mamiya, Kowa, Boronica and Penticon with simple inexpensive adapters. It could accept 35mm lenses as well. A electronic view finder with focus peeking and magnify would make manual focusing more accurate then auto focus. The technology already exist with full frames and asp-c cameras from Sony, Fuji, Olympus and even Pentax. This could even cut the cost in half and it would be much more compact. Is this were we are headed, a medium format that is small enough to take along with you often?

[Adam]

This could significantly reduce the depth of a 645D, up to around an inch.

But now that the 646z is out, I guess Pentax decided to stick to the dslr format. Perhaps heat is still an issue with such a large sensor.

[jrpower10]

I hear rumors Sony may jump into medium format. Maybe that's where they're headed.

[DSims]

I hear rumors Sony may jump into medium format. Maybe that's where they're headed.

Some think Fuji may do this as well.

How about a mirrorless body with EVF. It could take lenses from Pentax, Hazelblad, Mamiya, Kowa, Boronica and Penticon with simple inexpensive adapters. It could accept 35mm lenses as well. A electronic view finder with focus peeking and magnify would make manual focusing more accurate then auto focus.

Roger Cicala of LensRentals thinks Adapters significantly harm the precision of the lens to body mount. Don't you think the situation would be worse with MF? It might not bother everyone, but I think it would be a problem for some - especially those spending that much money.

Roger Cicala investigates accuracy of lens adapters: Digital Photography Review

[wombat2go]

Big Dave,
I have been working on that for about 2 years in my little hobby machine shop and if they ever let me retire fully maybe I will crack it.
Unlike, say, the auto industry, there was no rhyme or reason for the plethora of designs and standards used by the camera designers.
For example the amazing range of metric, USA, British and Japanese threads and adaptors since the late 1800's
Another example is the basic way the different companies did things all differently.
The Mamiya Sekor C 1:3.8 90mm on the left is about the same as the SMC Takumar 6x7 1:2.8 90mm shown second right on my favorite home brew camera, but the design of lens and camera bodies are totally different, and neither is based on the standard 'lensboard" design that preceeded.

Of course each contact surface of adaptors adds variations in the register tolerance.
The small "thin" body I am presently working on ( shown in the centre) is having jackscrews to finely adjust the register for the various "front ends " I am making to cope with various standards.

(edit)
The 4x5 Speed Graphic ( shown on right) may have been the most versatile camera of all time for medium format. it can handle lenses with or without shutters.
Here it has an unusual Computar variable focal length barrel lens, which it can handle easily, unlike possibly any other camera.
(As far as I researched) . That Speed should work with any MF provided a lensboard could be made to fit.
Regards.

All the home built cameras i am making use the 'standard" Graflex Roll-Film back, that I understand was continued by Mamiya and others, but not by Pentax, in the hope (maybe forlorn) that will endure with the future medium format digital backs.

[Big Dave]

This could significantly reduce the depth of a 645D, up to around an inch.

But now that the 646z is out, I guess Pentax decided to stick to the dslr format. Perhaps heat is still an issue with such a large sensor.

I think senor heat generation has more to do with rapid burst shooting then size. Pentax designs have been more conservative due to finances. The K01 being an exception and even it avoid the adapter concept.

---------- Post added 07-04-14 at 12:10 PM ----------

Big Dave,
I have been working on that for about 2 years in my little hobby machine shop and if they ever let me retire fully maybe I will crack it.
Unlike, say, the auto industry, there was no rhyme or reason for the plethora of designs and standards used by the camera designers.
For example the amazing range of metric, USA, British and Japanese threads and adaptors since the late 1800's
Another example is the basic way the different companies did things all differently.
The Mamiya Sekor C 1:3.8 90mm on the left is about the same as the SMC Takumar 6x7 1:2.8 90mm shown second right on my favorite home brew camera, but the design of lens and camera bodies are totally different, and neither is based on the standard 'lensboard" design that preceeded.

Of course each contact surface of adaptors adds variations in the register tolerance.
The small "thin" body I am presently working on ( shown in the centre) is having jackscrews to finely adjust the register for the various "front ends " I am making to cope with various standards.

(edit)
The 4x5 Speed Graphic ( shown on right) may have been the most versatile camera of all time for medium format. it can handle lenses with or without shutters.
Here it has an unusual Computar variable focal length barrel lens, which it can handle easily, unlike possibly any other camera.
(As far as I researched) . That Speed should work with any MF provided a lensboard could be made to fit.
Regards.

All the home built cameras i am making use the 'standard" Graflex Roll-Film back, that I understand was continued by Mamiya and others, but not by Pentax, in the hope (maybe forlorn) that will endure with the future medium format digital backs.

Thanks for an fascinating post. I bought my first MF camera back in 1973, a RB67 with three lenses and two backs. I made a Polariod square shooter back from a Square shooter body and a Mamiya 7 back adapter. I wanted quality instant pictures and the Polariod film was expensive. Dymamic range on Poliroid film was poor. The Square Shooter film was about $10 for ten shots. It worked great. I still have my Mamiya C330 outfit which I went to for portability in the field. I recently bought a Sony A7 FF mirrorless camera which is fantastic. I now can use all of my legacy lenses and even my Canon 50/0.95 range finder lens. This thing is the answer to precise manual focusing. Some think that the adapters may create a quality issue. Actually they only add one more connection. Camera makers, including Pentax have been making tele-coverters for decades, but no one has questioned how they would effect the lens physically. Of course they will degrade the image by expanding it. The mirrorless camera adapters have no optics to degrade the image and are simply an extension of the dark chamber. I mic my adapters for correct reference distance and flatness. I find the quality on the inexpensive ebay adapters to be fine, since they are all made on CNC computer controlled mills etc. I do spray paint the interior of the adapters with Krylon ultra flat black paint to stop reflections and internal flare. Of course I still use my K5 II all the time.

[Big Dave]

Some think Fuji may do this as well.



Roger Cicala of LensRentals thinks Adapters significantly harm the precision of the lens to body mount. Don't you think the situation would be worse with MF? It might not bother everyone, but I think it would be a problem for some - especially those spending that much money.

Roger Cicala investigates accuracy of lens adapters: Digital Photography Review

Adapters have been used for decades in the form of extension tubes,bellows,reflex housings for Leica's and tele-converters with excellent results. It is just an extension of the camera dark camber. The manual focusing on a evf camera with focus peeking and focus magnify function is far Superior to manual focus on the very best FF ovf camera. Most of the negative comments come from those who have never owned one or even used one. There is a lot of money made in the propitiatory lens market. They want to sell new lenses, not inexpensive legacy glass. Planned obsolescence is the name of the marketing and adapters throw a monkey wrench in it.