[Nesster]

Just throwing the thought out there - why not combine two speculations, that of the 35mm FF sensor, and the MF camera.

A 35mm full size sensor (in a different aspect ratio) is roughly equivalent to an 'APS' size medium format sensor. So why not bring out such a camera?

(I know, I know, there's more demand and equipment out there for 35mm)

[thibs]

Just throwing the thought out there - why not combine two speculations, that of the 35mm FF sensor, and the MF camera.

A 35mm full size sensor (in a different aspect ratio) is roughly equivalent to an 'APS' size medium format sensor. So why not bring out such a camera?

(I know, I know, there's more demand and equipment out there for 35mm)

I don't understand what you mean. If you refer to a camera using MF format (645 I suppose) but using a sensor slightly smaller than the plain 645 Format, well this is exactly what the 645D is supposed to be.

[eurostar]

Maybe he means a camera with 24x36 sensor and 645 bayonet.

[Nesster]

yeah, something like that... As soon as I wrote it I realized it's a silly idea, most likely.

[thibs]

yeah, something like that... As soon as I wrote it I realized it's a silly idea, most likely.

Happens to everyone

[eurostar]

I don't think it's a silly idea.

So called "full frame" sensors are said to be able to reach, today, the quality of medium format films.

Sensors need large bayonet for the design of telecentric lenses.

Full frame digital cameras are very expensive and most of them are bought and used by professionals.

There are much more professionals that owns 645-mount Pentax lenses than k-mount ones.

So, I think a 24x36 sensor camera with 645 mount wouldn't be a silly idea.

[noblepa]

I've watched the full frame frenzy lately, and I've wondered if FF digital cameras might become the new "medium format". By that, I don't mean any particular change in the aspect ratio or lens mount, or anything like that. I mean that, just as 35mm film captured the amateur and some types of professional markets, while 120/220 cameras, such as Hasselblad and Pentax 67 and 645 were used almost exclusively by pros, might not 24 x 36 digital become the new format of choice for studio pros, with APS-C cameras continuing to dominate the amateur market?

In this scenario, APS-C would continue to be made in huge numbers, while FF would remain a low-volume, high-price market. Some of the FF fanatics have predicted that APS-C would die out, to be replaced by FF digital. I don't think that will happen. I think that FF will continue to be developed and the price will come down, but that FF will always cost 2 - 3 times what a typical APS-C SLR costs.

Full frame cameras will probably always be more expensive that apsc cameras. Given that today's cameras are largely computerized electronic devices, rather than the mechanical ones of the past, the lion's share of the production costs are in the design and testing of the circuitry and software. The actual materials cost that goes into building the camera is a much smaller part. In this world, deleting a feature doesn't lower the cost of production by much. It probably doesn't physically change the camera at all, since it is probably just a matter of deleting a menu item and the software that supports it. The problem is that the cost to develop that software has already been spent, so there's no saving there, either. So, those who have called for the digital equivalent of a K1000, are probably doomed to disappointment. Likewise, a bare-bones FF camera won't cost much less to manufacture than a full-featured one.

Paul Noble

[thibs]

I don't think it's a silly idea.

So called "full frame" sensors are said to be able to reach, today, the quality of medium format films.

Sensors need large bayonet for the design of telecentric lenses.

Full frame digital cameras are very expensive and most of them are bought and used by professionals.

There are much more professionals that owns 645-mount Pentax lenses than k-mount ones.

So, I think a 24x36 sensor camera with 645 mount wouldn't be a silly idea.

I think that using a 24x36 sensor without gaining the lens compatitiblity of K-mount is suicide.
Also, if using a smaller than bayonet allows sensor is not stupid, the projected 645D already did that, it used a smaller sensor than 645 film format size.

It may be cool for those owning 645 lenses. But it immediately excludes anyone owning K-mount lenses the envy of upgrading...

[eurostar]

Sure, but my question is if a 3000$ camera interests most to 645lens owners or K-lens owners.

Also, since Pentax has been able to squeeze 14megapixel in an APS-C sensors, with a better quality than a 10MP one, wouldn't be better to have a high quality, relatively cheap 24x36 sensor than a 36x48 from Kodak VERY expensive in the professional camera with 645mount.

[mattdm]

I think that using a 24x36 sensor without gaining the lens compatitiblity of K-mount is suicide.
Also, if using a smaller than bayonet allows sensor is not stupid, the projected 645D already did that, it used a smaller sensor than 645 film format size.

It may be cool for those owning 645 lenses. But it immediately excludes anyone owning K-mount lenses the envy of upgrading...

So, they could make a K-mount adapter.

[thibs]

Sure, but my question is if a 3000$ camera interests most to 645lens owners or K-lens owners.

Also, since Pentax has been able to squeeze 14megapixel in an APS-C sensors, with a better quality than a 10MP one, wouldn't be better to have a high quality, relatively cheap 24x36 sensor than a 36x48 from Kodak VERY expensive in the professional camera with 645mount.

Or make themselves the needed "645" sensor but then Samsung has no interest at all in this and would be reluctant (or be nicely paid for it).
But maybe Samsung will have interest for 'FF' in a couple months/years...

[thibs]

So, they could make a K-mount adapter.

Not sure it is easily doable.
645 and 67 lenses are inter operable but if you can't use a 645 lens on a K mount body with any sort of electrical or mchenical linkage, I do not see why iy would be easier to do the opposite ...

[falconeye]

Not sure it is easily doable.
645 and 67 lenses are inter operable but if you can't use a 645 lens on a K mount body with any sort of electrical or mchenical linkage, I do not see why iy would be easier to do the opposite ...

For a 645-to-K adaptor, no optical element is needed for the 645 image circle is larger and the flange to film distance longer. This does not hold true in the opposite sense.

So, if Pentax would care about 645 in combination with a 24x36 sensor, at all, they would build a 645-to-K adaptor with electrical and mechanical linkage to make them function like FA rather than M lenses. A 645D with a 24x36 sensor is silly indeed.

[quarc]

For a 645-to-K adaptor, no optical element is needed for the 645 image circle is larger and the flange to film distance longer. This does not hold true in the opposite sense.

So, if Pentax would care about 645 in combination with a 24x36 sensor, at all, they would build a 645-to-K adaptor with electrical and mechanical linkage to make them function like FA rather than M lenses. A 645D with a 24x36 sensor is silly indeed.

They could sort out the compatibility by having a moving sensor that moves forward when using K-lenses. Issue is with the mirror. BUt if they decide not to use the mirror for one of the lense types, it could be done. Only live view if you use K-mount, full SLR if you use 645....

[Photomy]

It is my understanding that modern medium format digital cameras are designed to surpass medium format film in resolution as well as being able to handle a wider scene contrast range than even the best APS-C or 24x36 digital cameras (but less high ISO capability and speed). This is the new expectation for professionals that want the best image quality and can spend the money.

Not sure that a 24x36 sensor could compete in this arena. If Pentax eventually does a 24x36 digital with K-mount I would guess adapters would be available for Pentax medium format lenses. This would probably make more sense.