[aritzo]

Spoke with a Pentax rep today and was told that not only is the 645D dead, but there are no plans to produce any medium format digital bodies.

A full frame 35mm digital does seem to be in the works...

[anomaly]

I find these Pentax reps hardly ever know what is really going on and seem to enjoy screwing with you guys' heads.

[konraDarnok]

What would be the *purpose* of a medium format camera? Why would they invest in that technology? Modern DSLRs are capable of fulfilling the resolution that used to be the larger formats foray.

I also dislike the talk of "full frame." I see no reason to let a dead technology dictate the technical development of digital.

The future of digital is going to depend on innovation -- not emulating past standards.

Look and Canon and Nikon. . . if they don't start producing some cameras with body based image stabilization, their market share is going to suffer – badly -- lens stabilization makes no sense in a digital world -- and neither does the endless discussions on the physical dimensions of obsolete film.

just saying.

[OniFactor]

What would be the *purpose* of a medium format camera? Why would they invest in that technology? Modern DSLRs are capable of fulfilling the resolution that used to be the larger formats foray.

I also dislike the talk of "full frame." I see no reason to let a dead technology dictate the technical development of digital.

The future of digital is going to depend on innovation -- not emulating past standards.

Look and Canon and Nikon. . . if they don't start producing some cameras with body based image stabilization, their market share is going to suffer – badly -- lens stabilization makes no sense in a digital world -- and neither does the endless discussions on the physical dimensions of obsolete film.

just saying.

film isn't obsolete, not by any standards. there are still LOTS of fields that require film, and cannot use digital. it may no longer be the standard, but i doubt we shall see film disappear in our life times.

also, if you ask what the purpose of MF digital is.. why not ask someone who owns a Hasseblad H3DII?

[Cideway]

What would be the *purpose* of a medium format camera? Why would they invest in that technology? Modern DSLRs are capable of fulfilling the resolution that used to be the larger formats foray.

I also dislike the talk of "full frame." I see no reason to let a dead technology dictate the technical development of digital.

The future of digital is going to depend on innovation -- not emulating past standards.

Look and Canon and Nikon. . . if they don't start producing some cameras with body based image stabilization, their market share is going to suffer – badly -- lens stabilization makes no sense in a digital world -- and neither does the endless discussions on the physical dimensions of obsolete film.

just saying.

Obviously you have never seen images from MF digital, i have seen shots taken from a P20+ Phase one back, it is 16mp and measures 36x40mm and made the EOS 1 DS MkII look like a point and shoot even though they are/were the same resolution.

[MRRiley]

And you think he has ANY idea what is coming up (or going into the dumpster) and if he did that he'd tell you. They are bound by NDAs just like a lot of the pros and semi-pros on this board.

Any major announcement that Pentax is definitively killing the 645D will come out of Pentax corporate, not some stray sales rep.

645D is the smartest path for Pentax right now. It allows them to leverage an existing stable of great MF lenses, and offers something that Canon and Nikon cannot touch. Would it be a sports shooters camera? No, but then I don't believe that Pentax is after that market. It would however excel in the studio and landscape fields, both of which are already familiar territory for Pentax.

Will the 645D become a reality? No way for any of us including the OP to know for sure right now, but I hope it does!

p.s. Cideway is right. MF sensors make so called "full frame, 35mm form factor" sensors look like tinker toys. Just like MF film made 35mm film look.

p.p.s. konraDarnok, a primary reason that there is so much talk about full format is compatability with previous lens technologies. Why not use that form factor if possible. I believe that APS-C has reached film quality, but if a simple size adjustment can get you campatability with existing lenses, why jump into yet a 3rd, 4th,or 5th sensor size. There are lens engineering issues to overcome each time you change the sensor size. This is exactly why I say 645D makes sense (see above).

[anomaly]

What would be the *purpose* of a medium format camera? Why would they invest in that technology? Modern DSLRs are capable of fulfilling the resolution that used to be the larger formats foray.

I also dislike the talk of "full frame." I see no reason to let a dead technology dictate the technical development of digital.

The future of digital is going to depend on innovation -- not emulating past standards.

Look and Canon and Nikon. . . if they don't start producing some cameras with body based image stabilization, their market share is going to suffer – badly -- lens stabilization makes no sense in a digital world -- and neither does the endless discussions on the physical dimensions of obsolete film.

just saying.

Actually, because of the larger photosites, medium format digital gives higher dynamic range and better colours, this is the main reason professional commercial shooters use them.

[lol101]

What would be the *purpose* of a medium format camera? Why would they invest in that technology? Modern DSLRs are capable of fulfilling the resolution that used to be the larger formats foray.

I also dislike the talk of "full frame." I see no reason to let a dead technology dictate the technical development of digital.

The future of digital is going to depend on innovation -- not emulating past standards.

Look and Canon and Nikon. . . if they don't start producing some cameras with body based image stabilization, their market share is going to suffer – badly -- lens stabilization makes no sense in a digital world -- and neither does the endless discussions on the physical dimensions of obsolete film.

just saying.

People talk (and lust) after bigger than APS-C format because of one good reason: bigger photosites give better results than small ones.

Progress in image treatment have led to excellent IQ in APS-C cameras (see the K20 and D300) but their are still trailing the 5D/D3 in the IQ dept., especially at high ISO.

See for instance these two 100% crops of ISO 3200 tests images from D300 and 5D: I don't think anyone would have any difficulty finding who is who, even if they both have 12+MP.

[konraDarnok]

. why not ask someone who owns a Hasseblad H3DII?

I don't know anyone with a 40,000 dollar camera. Do the pictures really look 39,000 dollars better?

i have seen shots taken from a P20+ Phase one back, it is 16mp and measures 36x40mm and made the EOS 1 DS MkII look like a point and shoot even though they are/were the same resolution.

Surely there are some files to download of a side by side comparison of the exact same subject to demonstrate what you're saying. I'd like to see this.

I believe that APS-C has reached film quality, but if a simple size adjustment can get you campatability with existing lenses

My 'full frame' lenses are fully compatible. I don't understand what you're saying. You can get a bit wider field of view with a 35mm sized sensor, but so can you with a different lens. It's just a size -- there's nothing more 'correct' about it.

Besides, I'd kinda like to see a super fast lens, that *should* be possible with a smaller sensor.



People talk (and lust) after bigger than APS-C format because of one good reason: bigger photosites give better results than small ones.

I buy this when you're talking about the *tiny* sensors found in point and shoot cameras. Is it really that different when talking about the difference between APS-C and 35mm sized sensors?

Furthermore this assumes that sensor's big difference is size. It's not. There are numerous ways that sensors are different. . from how they render color, to the size of the photosites, to the shape of the photosites, to the post processing that the raw data gets in the camera, and there are probably others.

That's why I think the comparison between the D300 and 5D is a bit misleading. There are a lot more differences between those two cameras than the sensor size -- I see no reason to assume the sensor size is the deciding factor.

And this completely ignores what photo paper itself is capable of resolving once you take these pictures from the computer to the real world.

Digital is in its infancy. . and the technologies of the sensors are changing all the time. This focus on size is bizarre. It shows a mindset that only thinks about film.. . where size did matter.

Personally I think people repeat a lot of common wisdom.

I like to take pictures. So I visit photo sites like this one read up on lenses and what not. . get tips.

I also listen to audio a lot. So I visit sites about audio equipment too.

Both of these communities are similar in lauding ridiculously expensive equipment, conflating analog and digital technologies, and repeating things that on their face may be true, but not entirely important as the sole measure of what the piece of equipment is supposed to do.

I'm not disagreeing with the majority opinion the subject in here, so much as questioning the wisdom.

Many of the reasons Medium format existed are not as true anymore.

DSLRs have long since surpassed 35mm film in most categories. . with the exception of dynamic range. . and even that is getting better with each new generation.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't see the endless debates on sensor size as being the future.

[lol101]

People talk (and lust) after bigger than APS-C format because of one good reason: bigger photosites give better results than small ones.

I buy this when you're talking about the *tiny* sensors found in point and shoot cameras. Is it really that different when talking about the difference between APS-C and 35mm sized sensors?

Furthermore this assumes that sensor's big difference is size. It's not. There are numerous ways that sensors are different. . from how they render color, to the size of the photosites, to the shape of the photosites, to the post processing that the raw data gets in the camera, and there are probably others.

That's why I think the comparison between the D300 and 5D is a bit misleading. There are a lot more differences between those two cameras than the sensor size -- I see no reason to assume the sensor size is the deciding factor.

And this completely ignores what photo paper itself is capable of resolving once you take these pictures from the computer to the real world.

Of course you are right.

My point was that there is a difference in IQ between APS-C and FF, and even more so between APS-C and MF.

This difference is real and is natural.

The real question is: do I need it?

It is true that that for people not in need of ultra large prints or using high ISO a lot, most of this difference is wasted and APS-C is more than enough.

But lust for big pixels won't stop until people stop comparing 100% crops... and I don't think we're about to see that happening.

[aritzo]

I make 24" x 30" and larger prints and have been using my Pentax 6x7 for 20 years. Prints from the Canon 5D at 12mp don't have the same level of detail as medium format film, though there's something to be said for lower noise, instantaneous review, no scanning, no development costs, etc.

There's also the temptation of re-using my medium format lenses, preferably at something close to their mf field of view. A 45mm 6x7 lens is like a 22mm wide angle on 35mm. On a "full frame" DSLR, with an adapter, the aspect ratio for 45mm is almost normal. On an APS sensor, its a mild telephoto.

And, finally, the 3:2 aspect ratio is a real turn off for me. There aren't enough pixels to start with and then you throw 30% away when you make a print.

So, a medium format sensor with 20+mp, would work really well for me. Absent that, if there's a 20+mp full frame available in the next year, with a focal reducer/adapter, that could keep me with Pentax.

[MRRiley]

....

I believe that APS-C has reached film quality, but if a simple size adjustment can get you campatability with existing lenses

My 'full frame' lenses are fully compatible. I don't understand what you're saying. You can get a bit wider field of view with a 35mm sized sensor, but so can you with a different lens. It's just a size -- there's nothing more 'correct' about it. .....

What I was trying to say was that existing 35mm format lenses can work with any sensor 35mm format sized OR SMALLER. This was really a response to your earlier comment:

"The future of digital is going to depend on innovation -- not emulating past standards."

leveraging an existing stable of lenses is a very good reason to emulate or follow those old standards. I didn't say those standards were intrinsically better, just that there is at least one good reason to follow them.

p.s. Aritso.... welcome to the forum! Please realize many of our responses are due to the wild rumors which fly around here sometimes...

[OniFactor]

. why not ask someone who owns a Hasseblad H3DII?

I don't know anyone with a 40,000 dollar camera. Do the pictures really look 39,000 dollars better?

i have seen shots taken from a P20+ Phase one back, it is 16mp and measures 36x40mm and made the EOS 1 DS MkII look like a point and shoot even though they are/were the same resolution.

Surely there are some files to download of a side by side comparison of the exact same subject to demonstrate what you're saying. I'd like to see this.

I believe that APS-C has reached film quality, but if a simple size adjustment can get you campatability with existing lenses

My 'full frame' lenses are fully compatible. I don't understand what you're saying. You can get a bit wider field of view with a 35mm sized sensor, but so can you with a different lens. It's just a size -- there's nothing more 'correct' about it.

Besides, I'd kinda like to see a super fast lens, that *should* be possible with a smaller sensor.



People talk (and lust) after bigger than APS-C format because of one good reason: bigger photosites give better results than small ones.

I buy this when you're talking about the *tiny* sensors found in point and shoot cameras. Is it really that different when talking about the difference between APS-C and 35mm sized sensors?

Furthermore this assumes that sensor's big difference is size. It's not. There are numerous ways that sensors are different. . from how they render color, to the size of the photosites, to the shape of the photosites, to the post processing that the raw data gets in the camera, and there are probably others.

That's why I think the comparison between the D300 and 5D is a bit misleading. There are a lot more differences between those two cameras than the sensor size -- I see no reason to assume the sensor size is the deciding factor.

And this completely ignores what photo paper itself is capable of resolving once you take these pictures from the computer to the real world.

Digital is in its infancy. . and the technologies of the sensors are changing all the time. This focus on size is bizarre. It shows a mindset that only thinks about film.. . where size did matter.

Personally I think people repeat a lot of common wisdom.

I like to take pictures. So I visit photo sites like this one read up on lenses and what not. . get tips.

I also listen to audio a lot. So I visit sites about audio equipment too.

Both of these communities are similar in lauding ridiculously expensive equipment, conflating analog and digital technologies, and repeating things that on their face may be true, but not entirely important as the sole measure of what the piece of equipment is supposed to do.

I'm not disagreeing with the majority opinion the subject in here, so much as questioning the wisdom.

the wisdom lies in that, as of right now, larger sensors are the ONLY way we can reduce noise, as MP saturation goes up. if you look at an ISO 64 shot from a medium format digital, compared to that of a FF DSLR, and down to that of a APS-H, APS-C, or any other smaller sensor, cropping so that pixel density stays the same, you will NOT see a difference. BUT, if you have a 20mp APS-C vs a 20mp FF vs a 20mp medium format, the fact that the pixel density drops, helps decrease noise, and therefore produces a smoother, crisper image. it's the same reason why the smaller mp numbered *ist and k100d's seemed to have less noise at high ISO, the smaller pixel density helps reduce noice, which increases sharpness and definition..

Many of the reasons Medium format existed are not as true anymore.

DSLRs have long since surpassed 35mm film in most categories. . with the exception of dynamic range. . and even that is getting better with each new generation.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't see the endless debates on sensor size as being the future.

until we find out some better way to reduce noise, without increasing size, then yes, increasing size is going to be the future.

[PDL]

With the H3's and this guy:
PHASE ONE 645 CAMERA PLATFORM

Why would Pentax enter such a small market that these guys already have well in hand? The Pentax 645D did not have interchangeble backs - the Hasselblad's, Rolli's, Minota's and now Phase One all have them. Buy a MF digital that I can not chage backs on - or put on my 4x5 monorail.

I don't think so. I think the Pentax 645D is dead.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL