[Zygonyx]

Major disadvantage to me is the battery drain.

Yes, and consequently the impossible use of your glass, once power has gone.

If you go to long walks, not to mention if you have to wait for hours and even days for wildlife's interesting behaviour observation through big and powerfull prime glass :
- once power drained off, you might prefer OVF only for that reason.
- and that may also help you save on your power capacity, as the Pentax switch on/off present on the shutter button, alows that (while your eye is not quitting your OVF).
Therefore for wildlife shooters and observers, OVF is globally better because anytime usefull.

Sony alone is OK for EVF, let Olympus and Panasonic even aside...

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 12-27-2013 at 02:40 PM.

[Kunzite]

The controlling operand being "according to RH".

They're doing a FF. Ity will be released when they get the technology right. It will be different - we already have CaNikon, we don't need another.

It probably will be after the 645D - but that could be next month. It will be sooner than you think and later than you'd like.

Photokina happens in 2014, I believe.

Oh, yes. Pentax/Ricoh themselves said repeatedly they are working on "full frame", I'd believe that rather than what a known Pentax-hater says. He's even contradicting himself, and claiming that the Ricoh's official did... which I'm sure it's not the case.

I agree, and it makes sense. 645D II - it's easier lens-wise, maybe even technology wise (e.g. no SR to take care about, more space for components); and it would put to rest claims that the small format is about as sharp. This should go first (maybe I'm too optimistic, but CP+ seems like a good target).
Then, the small format camera - when it's ready. I'd say Photokina, too; we'll see. It's not just the interviews, there are "hints" they're working towards this goal.
This, and let's say 2 APS-C cameras (plus, of course, the lenses) would keep them very busy.

[RobA_Oz]

Flucard for PENTAX in February!!

I thought they'd delayed it until March, but amen to that, anyway.

There's a thought for the next 645D: leave a cradle for your smart phone on the top, with a flip-up shade, of course, and the LCD Finder can be an option (like the mirror and OVF). Flash can stay on the side, like it should be. Now there's a modern system camera for you, especially if you throw in further OVF options…

[jsherman999]

You and me both. Is there anything an FF does better than APS that MF doesn't do even better?

If your question is not theoretical, then the answer is "yes". I think the D800 for example does just about everything better than the 645D at a much lower cost/size tax.

Here's a question for the "aps-c is good enough for Pentax to continue" crowd: FF DSLR is, now, for all intents and purposes, very close to the same size and cost that upper-end aps-c DSLR was a few years ago. How does a company keep folks buying upper-end aps-c DSLR in that world, without sacrificing margins or volume, or both?

Remember, the "even a small size difference is important to me" crowd can now get their needs met better with aps-c or m43 MILC or even fixed-lens. How does a company who's mount (K) needs a longer register distance move big into MILC without changing the mount?

Think about this ^^. Pentax needs FF to survive - or, more accurately, for K-mount to survive. Thinking otherwise isn't thinking, it's wishing.


.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 12-27-2013 at 05:34 PM.

[Uluru]

I think the D800 for example does just about everything better than the 645D at a much lower cost/size tax.

I'm not so sure you have some clear idea about what you're talking about when comparing the MF with 35mm format.
From the unique picture characteristics and quality perspective — which is the only one that ultimately matters — no 35mm camera is nowhere near the MF, nor it will ever be.
It's all in the lenses.

[dosdan]

I think the D800 for example does just about everything better than the 645D at a much lower cost/size tax.

Problem here is that the performance of the Kodak 39MP sensor is unimpressive in 2013. Let's make some assumptions:

1. MF will be used mainly for static stuff so burst rate & AF tracking will probably never be impressive.

2. I think the next Pentax MF sensor will be either an industrial sensor or perhaps stitched together from standard sensors. The sensor area may even be bigger than what's in the 645D.

3. I'd expect Pentax to go 60-90MP to differentiate the camera from the D800E.

4. Hopefully there will be a commensurate increase in CPU power to handle the monster files, with perhaps lossey raw being offered too.

With the reduced stress on the quality of the glass with an MF-sized sensor, I think MF will always have the potential to look better than FF.


Dan.

[jsherman999]

I'm not so sure you have some clear idea about what you're talking about when comparing the MF with 35mm format.
From the unique picture characteristics and quality perspective — which is the only one that ultimately matters — no 35mm camera is nowhere near the MF, nor it will ever be.
It's all in the lenses.

Are you referring to the 645D? Not from what I've seen, not from what folks I know who've shot both say, and not according to DxOMark.

The 645D can make some nice images, but the sensor is way behind in some key areas, and the body performance (AF, frame rate, etc) is sub-par compared to the D800 and above.

.

[jsherman999]

Problem here is that the performance of the Kodak 39MP sensor is unimpressive in 2013. Let's make some assumptions:

1. MF will be used mainly for static stuff so burst rate & AF tracking will probably never be impressive.

2. I think the next Pentax MF sensor will be either an industrial sensor or perhaps stitched together from standard sensors. The sensor area may even be bigger than what's in the 645D.

3. I'd expect Pentax to go 60-90MP to differentiate the camera from the D800E.

4. Hopefully there will be a commensurate increase in CPU power to handle the monster files, with perhaps lossey raw being offered too.

With the reduced stress on the quality of the glass with an MF-sized sensor, I think MF will always have the potential to look better than FF.


Dan.

You note that I was talking about non-imaginary products in my subject header?

It's hard to see how it could ever be more economically viable for Pentax to concentrate on a major, major MF initiative (as you describe) than selling an affordable FF DSLR body that mounts their bread n' butter product, K-mount.

The product you describe is still a $10,000 + item, and it's lenses would not be any cheaper than they are now. Still the definition of niche/halo only.
.

[Uluru]

The product you describe is still a $10,000 + item, and it's lenses would not be any cheaper than they are now. Still the definition of niche/halo only.

It's the 10,000 rare professionals who know that they cannot obtain desired image quality and characteristics in any other possible way.

..
The 645D can make some nice images, but the sensor is way behind in some key areas, and the body performance (AF, frame rate, etc) is sub-par compared to the D800 and above.
.

You use AF performance and DSLR gimmicks to cloud your own judgment.
AF has nothing to do with the ability of lens to render a specific kind of image unobtainable through any other kind of lens and sesnor combination. I am truly confident now that you really do not understand the MF.
It is pity, though.

[jsherman999]

It's the 10,000 rare professionals who know that they cannot obtain desired image quality and characteristics in any other possible way.



You use AF performance and DSLR gimmicks to cloud your own judgment.
AF has nothing to do with the ability of lens to render a specific kind of image unobtainable through any other kind of lens and sesnor combination. I am truly confident now that you really do not understand the MF.
It is pity, though.

You seem to have given up the grasp of market realities you had only a few pages ago.

A few givens: The 645d can not sell in enough volume to make a real difference to Pentax's bottom line or keep it afloat. And: a major MF initiative or reboot doesn't change this fact, because you can't suddenly make a MF body for $4000 or under. And: AF and "DSLR Gimmics" as you put it matter more to more people than the small IQ deltas between current MF and FF.

[Uluru]

You seem to have given up the grasp of market realities you had only a few pages ago.
A few givens: The 645d can not sell in enough volume to make a real difference to Pentax's bottom line or keep it afloat.

All reality is a matter of perspective.
I shall say it again, but in different words; as long as there is just one MF camera and lens provider, that one will have a constant demand for the tool. Never ever underestimate the demand for quality, as quality has no substitutes.

[jon404]

@uluru -- well, you are right about that. The question is whether Pentax/Ricoh wants to spend the money to stay in the MF market... to 'own' the lower end of it, at a lower price point and MP count than what, Mamiya/Leaf, Hasselblad, Phase One? I haven't kept up since retiring... and I have no idea what studio people want these days -- but I'd bet on seamless integration with iPad or Android tablets for viewing, composing, lens and shutter remote control, etc. And the ability to send a fairly lo-res proof JPG immediately to a distant client for approval. So a big part of this would then be app development to control the camera, and to communicate the results... easy enough (in the USA) to bring along a Verizon mi-fi 4G hotspot gadget to handle the data transmission.

[y0chang]

If people think that MF sensor is equal to FF sensor quality...

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/05/05/an-unfair-fight-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2-p/

Pentax 645D Review: Initial Test

MF is in a different league than FF. Much more so than FF from crop. This is because of the amount of magnification and the fact that digital sensors will always have aliasing. if you are judging by some spec sheet, you cant see the difference...Now imagine a even better sensor. Look, I would like a FF pentax camera, but there is no reason to trash MF...saying that FF is the equivalent of MF is ignorance.

[pinholecam]

If people think that MF sensor is equal to FF sensor quality...

An unfair fight? 35mm vs Medium Format: Nikon D800E and the Leica S2-P ? Ming Thein | Photographer

Pentax 645D Review: Initial Test

MF is in a different league than FF. Much more so than FF from crop. This is because of the amount of magnification and the fact that digital sensors will always have aliasing. if you are judging by some spec sheet, you cant see the difference...Now imagine a even better sensor. Look, I would like a FF pentax camera, but there is no reason to trash MF...saying that FF is the equivalent of MF is ignorance.

+1 to that.
And one just needs to get full sized samples off the net to tell that the MF IQ is better in tonality and resolution.
Its hard to describe it in words, but to me the D800E files looks like pixels at 100%, the 645D ones look like it can go a bit more (say. 125-150%)

Usage wise, they are different enough.
I don't see a reason why there is a need to talk down MF.

My DP1m is as sharp if not better than the D800e for low ISO and slow stuff, at a fraction of the cost and far smaller/lighter.
But that does not mean I need to go about talking down the D800e.
For me it (this combo+a pano head) works better than lugging around a D800e+lens and I don't need to spend as much on my pauper's budget.
(That's just me)

As of 2013, there are lots of choices for the photographer.
He/She just needs to choose whats suitable for him/her.

[philbaum]

If your question is not theoretical, then the answer is "yes". I think the D800 for example does just about everything better than the 645D at a much lower cost/size tax.

Here's a question for the "aps-c is good enough for Pentax to continue" crowd: FF DSLR is, now, for all intents and purposes, very close to the same size and cost that upper-end aps-c DSLR was a few years ago. How does a company keep folks buying upper-end aps-c DSLR in that world, without sacrificing margins or volume, or both?

Remember, the "even a small size difference is important to me" crowd can now get their needs met better with aps-c or m43 MILC or even fixed-lens. How does a company who's mount (K) needs a longer register distance move big into MILC without changing the mount?

Think about this ^^. Pentax needs FF to survive - or, more accurately, for K-mount to survive. Thinking otherwise isn't thinking, it's wishing.


.

J - i think one error you are making is your comparing one sensor size camera (the D800) with an Aps camera, and drawing your conclusions from that comparison and your own use of that camera.

You know nothing of how various people on this thread use their cameras. What you consider important about a camera may not be what all the rest of us consider important and vice versa.

I can tell you right now that there's a ton of smart phone users out there that don't consider it necessary to have a D800 in order to upload pictures to facebook. the old design mantra: form follows function - still works. If one doesn't need FF functionality, then why buy one.

Not even wall street seemed that enthralled with Nikon's FF mantra when its share price dropped 33% precipitously early this year.

I think your post should have better been addressed to Ricoh corporation. I personally don't pretend or care to make decisions for them. I decide at any particular time what my photographic needs are and then go buy that product irregardless of mfr. Its Ricoh job to worry about their K-mount and what happens to it.