[DSims]

Well the problem that MF cameras have is that they haven't had the same level of R&D invested in their sensors so I would expect the Canon sensor to perform better in terms of noise. 16 bit RAW is potentially the part which will help the MF sensor stand out.

At the moment I'm not sure the situation is disastrous, but I think the next generation of MF sensors are going to have to improve in order to remain competitive with high resolution 35mm sensors

I'm not sure this statement is fair, or even accurate. The Phase One IQ180 has impressive design and outstanding performance. As we know, it is a CCD, and CCD has its advantages. There's an amazing amount of photography that occurs in good light. Even a Nikon D4 shooter will choose low ISO when possible, and the K-5 gives better color when shot at ISO 80, so anything else is a bit of a compromise.

In appropriate conditions the IQ180 would be my first choice. I'm sure many shooters would agree with me - it's more a matter of budget and availability (having to purchase or rent it ahead of time). But to imply that the first choice it is inferior just doesn't make sense.

[Caat]

I'm not sure this statement is fair, or even accurate. The Phase One IQ180 has impressive design and outstanding performance. As we know, it is a CCD, and CCD has its advantages. There's an amazing amount of photography that occurs in good light. Even a Nikon D4 shooter will choose low ISO when possible, and the K-5 gives better color when shot at ISO 80, so anything else is a bit of a compromise.

In appropriate conditions the IQ180 would be my first choice. I'm sure many shooters would agree with me - it's more a matter of budget and availability (having to purchase or rent it ahead of time). But to imply that the first choice it is inferior just doesn't make sense.

Maybe I should have been clearer and written my last sentence as follows:

At the moment I'm not sure the situation is disastrous, but I think the next generation of MF cameras are going to have to improve in order to remain competitive with high resolution 35mm cameras

The problem that MF has is that it costs vastly more than 35mm based cameras. My point was that the IQ of MF currently may be good enough in certain contexts to offset it's price but for many applications it's simply too expensive for what it offers to make economic sense.

The IQ180 costs, what, about four times the 645D and six or seven times more than the D800. It's ultra niche.

The 645D competes way more with the 35mm FFs than it does the IQ180 because of it's price if nothing else.

[DSims]

The problem that MF has is that it costs vastly more than 35mm based cameras. My point was that the IQ of MF currently may be good enough in certain contexts to offset it's price but for many applications it's simply too expensive for what it offers to make economic sense.

Yes, this is true - thanks for the clarification.

The 645D competes way more with the 35mm FFs than it does the IQ180 because of it's price if nothing else.

Oddly, in some ways this puts it in a more difficult position than the Phase One backs - simply because it does appear to compete with 35mm FF DSLRs!

[richard balonglong]

Upgrade from what..? Are you currently using a Pentax 645D? Or are you currently using a Pentax film 645 or 6x7? The true reason of "upgrading" is based from what your needs are. If it just plainly talking about just the technicalities of hardware stuff of cameras, well, in that 'medium format' type cameras, that's still a good upgrade.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think that the most important change is the size of the sensor. It's very, very close to the size of the original 645 film size, so roughly double FF.

Now Pentax need to release a fast new true normal lens, aproximately 70mm and f/2.4 or faster, for that sensor to really show it's potential.

[RonHendriks1966]

Now Pentax need to release a fast new true normal lens, aproximately 70mm and f/2.4 or faster, for that sensor to really show it's potential.

Well next to the 55mm/f2.8 and new 90mm/f2.8 they might do a remake for the 75mm/f2.8.

[ElJamoquio]

I think that the most important change is the size of the sensor. It's very, very close to the size of the original 645 film size, so roughly double FF.

<engineer>It's 2.09x the sensor are of 36x24. 'Real' 645 (I'm using 55.6x41.8 for my dimensions) has 1.288x the area of the proposed sensor. </engineer>

[JinDesu]

I think it's a homerun for the MF people if it is priced not too much more than the original 645D's price.

[Winder]

The next 645D is going to have competition from the new round of high res FFs like the D800 and the rumored 46/47MP Canon. Hopefully by the time my Contax 645 dies the price of digital 645 systems will have fallen down to the $6,000 range and lenses will be more common.

People keep claiming APS-H is dead, but Canon just released a 120MP APS-H sensor. What is the target market for this sensor. In a studio with controlled lighting and good glass, a 120MP APS-H sensor is more than competition for a 40MP 645D.

[TomTextura]

I think the next generation of MF cameras are going to have to improve in order to remain competitive with high resolution 35mm cameras

One area that 135 format can't compete with medium format is in the fast flash sync speeds that the leaf shutter allows. Hasselblad and Phase have 1/800 and 1/1600 sync speeds, respectively, when using leaf shutter lenses. That has practical and artistic applications that are hard to match with any DSLR. The Pentax 645D is completely out of the loop on this.

[ogl]

Canon just released a 120MP APS-H sensor. What is the target market for this sensor. In a studio with controlled lighting and good glass, a 120MP APS-H sensor is more than competition for a 40MP 645D.

This sensor is not for serial photocameras. IMO.
It's just test of manufacturing capability of sensor department of Canon. It was 2 years ago. We don't even know how good this sensor.

[Smolk]

Well, I will never spend THAT amound of money on any camera like the 645D. But I do shoot film 645. And don't have the foggiest clue why I would ever want AF for medium format type of shooting.

But I understand that cameras that cost THAT much, have to have everything onboard. Even if you know that it will be stuck in the OFF postion forever.

Well, I shoot film with the 645N and sometimes, just sometimes, AF is a godsend. And the old AF of the 645N works just well for me. Of course I do not shoot formula 1 racing cars, but making that a requirement seems silly to me anyhow.

I do agree, btw, with your later post that MF specs have to be revved up in order to compete with the Nikon D800 and like. Even though there will be a difference in tonality and DOF, the difference of price and convenience requires more distance. A;l the same, I'd love a 1.1 645D. Can't afford it right now, but good enough reason to keep most of my lenses.

[Mistral75]

HD Pentax-D FA645 Macro 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR has just been leaked.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/198170-q-telephoto-da-...ro-leaked.html

"SR" probably means the lens benefits from an internal shake reduction system.

Could "HD" point out a new generation of 645 lenses designed for highly pixelized 645 sensors and mean that the 645D II or 645DN or whatever its name is would have more than the rumoured 50 Mpixels, knowing that some Teledyne Dalsa 645 sensors have as much as 80 Mpixels?

[Jonathan Mac]

I recently got a 645 (original) with the 75/2.8 and worked out it has around the same FoV and DoF as a 50mm f/1.8 on FF. So with Pentax MF limited to a maximum aperture of f/2.8, the DoF advantage goes to FF, for which you only need a good 50/1.4 to get shallower DoF with that FoV. That's why Pentax need a faster standard lens, to pull some of the DoF junkies away from FF.

[leeonmaui]

Aloha,

The Pentax 645D is the finest camera I have ever owned, and more broadly and not less in importance is the lens line up!
As a system, which is how I think about things, it really seems unrivaled
I'm sure the 645D II will be even more awesome.

I've shot with the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D mark II
prior to the 645D I shot with the Canon 1ds Mark II, it was my first digital camera after using film; it was a love hate relationship. During the last year of using the 1ds i keep hoping it would break, but no such luck, its built like a tank!

Canon 5D mark II forget it not even close!

Nikon D800 or D800E is a serious camera to be sure and the lens line up of Nikon is vast, when you start adding lens to the system, the price quickly puts you into the 645D system territory. In terms of cost there is little gain to be had. in terms of image quality I don't think there are many people that shoot for a living and know how to get everything out of their cameras in regards to image quality; that would seriously put forth the notion that the the Nikon could outperform the 645D in regards to IQ
but image quality is just one factor, lens selection, AF speed/accuracy, frame rate, quality of build, and menus functions are a number of issues each photographer needs to ponder when choosing a system.

Would 50mp be enough to move me off of my 645D onto the 645D II probably not, maybe when it breaks down completely.

Although one of the primary reason I bought the 645D was large file sizes for bigger prints, when taken as a whole system it offers so much more, and frankly it is an absolute pleasure to shoot with. 50mp won't make that big a difference in that. But, then again when you are always working to the limits of your equipment every little bit helps.