[normhead]

Does Ricoh know we are willing to run their marketing department for almost for free... I'm surprised they haven't contacted PF with an offer to hire 20 of us at great salaries and lots of free gear.

[Kunzite]

Yes, they could get some very interesting marketing messages, like:
"The new Pentax 645Z. Why isn't this a K-mount MILC instead?"
"Just sell it half the price, I don't care if it's possible or not"
"Where the h*ll is our full frame?"
"I want a Sony camera, only cheaper"
How many Pentaxians around here are actually happy with what Pentax/Ricoh is making? Can they find 20 of them/us?

[philbaum]

What is the projected sales numbers for digital MF?

It's a struggling market, no matter where you look. Leaf/Aputs/Mamiya/whatever they call themselves these days is barely making it. Hasselblad is not doing that much better, and they have the best brand recognition in the industry. No matter how you look at it, something that, even after cost cutting and mass manufacturing to reduce cost, would still retail for $5k. The market is just not strong enough to support that on its own, and would require as much engineering common sense and subsidizing with other products to capture the market.

I think it's best for Pentax to stick to what they know, and what they do well. The one reason I ended up with Pentax a few years ago was lens compatibility. They have the best lens compatibility in the industry, allowing metering, AE with A series and newer, AF with all AF lenses (they don't leave motors out like Nikon), and shake reduction with any lens that will fit on the front of thing thing.

.

There was a lot of emphasis in the video above and elsewhere, that Pentax chose to reuse a lot of K3 elements to save costs of 645Z. One of the few new features they added, was the tilting screen, which was an interesting choice and one i applaud.

But for the reasons of economy, Pentax does not have the best recent design experience to build a mirrorless MF camera, despite some K01 experience.

No, if any mirrorless MF gets made, its likely to be by Sony - and i'm not sure that makes sense either. But look at it this way, I can't recall any recent Sony camera sensors where they have't used it in one of their own products. But they could design a new short Sony mount which would accept (with appropriate adapters) longer registration distance lenses from other MF makers - as they did with the first Nex cameras. They may also have 3 prime MF lenses already in the works.

The chance of this happening anytime soon is probably no better than 50/50. But Sony has surprised the market before. The case against this mirrorless MF camera with an adapter for use of other mfr lenses, is that few studio shooters would be willing to spend this kind of money on the camera and lenses from other companies - that will only shoot in manual mode. (IMHO)

[normhead]

But for the reasons of economy, Pentax does not have the best recent design experience to build a mirrorless MF camera, despite some K01 experience.

Given that one of the Pentax execs said the K-01 was terminated because of a design flaw that prevented updating it, rather than lack of sales, it sounds like the K-01 wouldn't provide much of anything.

[Kunzite]

I don't see Sony entering the DMF market, and I don't see the previous rumored camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Samsung - i.e. most of them) doing it either. If they could buy a DMF maker, maybe Hasselblad (with which they already have a deal - Sony is giving them NEX cameras to sell and Hasselblad are making fools of themselves), OK, that could work; they would have the same benefits as Pentax. But starting a new system, I'm not sure about that; after all DMF is at the opposite scale from the consumer gadgets Sony is making.

PhaseOne and Hasselblad - I don't think they have the strenght to launch a new system by themselves.

The one to do it could be Pentax/Ricoh, after all, but - I'd say - not before the MILCs would reach a point where they would be generally accepted (and that means significant technical progress). There are technical advantages - lack of mirror vibration, more freedom in lens design - but also disadvantages which might be more important to the medium format market than for the typical MILC-lover consumer.

In the end, the best bet is a 645 DSLR - nice optical viewfinder, backwards compatibility, as modern as it gets. And this is what they did.

[Uluru]

Ah, no, not fair.
When measuring mirrorless designs from Pentax + Ricoh, you need to evaluate Q, GR, GXR, MX-1.
They are all damn amazing cameras, best user experience ever.
Sony's designs are a total turd compared to them.

The K-01 was indeed just a quick diversion, a run for the sake of grabbing attention. A deliberate joke people can not understand. Pentax was laughing in the face of the whole morbid and brainless industry crazed by the retro virus.

The K-01 sold 120,000 or so of the K-mount lenses, and kept the company on radars during transition when any new development was impossible.

Another amazing camera that comes close second to GR and Q experience is Leica XVario. If you have not tried it, please do. Leica has done an outstanding job.

Who can design best cameras for photographers? Leica and Pentax / Ricoh, no doubt about it. Just pure adrenaline, pure photographic thinking.

[Aristophanes]

Another amazing camera that comes close second to GR and Q experience is Leica XVario. If you have not tried it, please do. Leica has done an outstanding job.

For US$2,300.

The "best user experience" that is far too expensive for most users, even skilled and naturally talented ones, is the reason why lower priced models outsell most of the models you've listed about 10,000:1.

[jon404]

Wouldn't be hard to have that back screen flash RICOH in huge letters, even when the camera is off, unless turned off by the user via some very obscure menu setting, which would also have a Subliminal option, to flash RICOH at just above the level of perception, maybe 1/30 second.

I like the idea for a car battery adapter... something that could plug into those 12V sockets that used to be called cigarette lighters. So that in the field, you could always have a battery charging in the adapter.

EDIT -- Uluru & Aristophanes, is that Leica XVario actually some kind of Panasonic that can be bought for much less under the Japanese brand name?

[Uluru]

For US$2,300.

The "best user experience" that is far too expensive for most users, even skilled and naturally talented ones, is the reason why lower priced models outsell most of the models you've listed about 10,000:1.

That is the 1/2 price one would pay for a camera with a prime lens in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s — judging by today's equivalents in $. So indeed, people were paying more for cameras and lenses in decades ago. Plus film, development, etc.

That today Leica is able to do it in half the adjusted price, suggests that world has changed a lot. And also that have been plagued by cheapshots. Is Leica's XVario worth it? Absolutely. Many enthusiast will spend more than $2300 on different cameras and lenses and smartphones in 4-5 years of constant change and "jumping ships", and 1 in 100 of them will ever reflect that all that energy could have been saved if they invested in a good deal from day one.

Some companies attract with low prices, the so-so experience and quality that isn't quite right — and which cannot be for such an asking price. Oftentimes just a little of investment on top of average experience provides much more. And saves money in the long run.

[WerTicus]

Why do we feel that this camera will better the DXO scores of the D800s and D600s if the 80 megapixel Phase One IQ180 sensor does not?

Because of it being from Sony and from a newer generation of sensor probably.

I expect it will probably match the d800 with more megapickles.

[mecrox]

That is the 1/2 price one would pay for a camera with a prime lens in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s — judging by today's equivalents in $. So indeed, people were paying more for cameras and lenses in decades ago. Plus film, development, etc.

That today Leica is able to do it in half the adjusted price, suggests that world has changed a lot. And also that have been plagued by cheapshots. Is Leica's XVario worth it? Absolutely. Many enthusiast will spend more than $2300 on different cameras and lenses and smartphones in 4-5 years of constant change and "jumping ships", and 1 in 100 of them will ever reflect that all that energy could have been saved if they invested in a good deal from day one.

Some companies attract with low prices, the so-so experience and quality that isn't quite right — and which cannot be for such an asking price. Oftentimes just a little of investment on top of average experience provides much more. And saves money in the long run.

I paid about £250 for a Nikon FE2 and 50mm lens in 1987. Depending on how you calculate it, the cost of that commodity today would be around £600 to £800. The closest Nikon equivalent today would not be less - a D5300, e.g. - and possibly a lot more, in the case of a D610. It would be much, much more capable, thanks to modern electronics, but it would also not be nearly so well made. And on its own, of course, it won't take better photographs. That requires a photographer, always a bit of a problem in these matters.

So then factor in that one would probably go through two or three modern bodies and perhaps wear out one set of modern lenses over the productive lifetime of that FE2. I'm leaving out film costs of course, but then on the digital side you need to add in PC or tablet developing stuff. Suddenly modern electronics don't look so cheap. The problem is that they are simply not built to last and the chances are that they can't last anyway because their components - circuit boards et al - will eventually run out of stock. That is likely to apply just as much to modern lenses, too, with their motors, chips and stabilizers.

One is essentially renting modern digital equipment. The rental cost is the cost new less the second-hand value over, say 3-5 years if you use the item a lot, longer if you don't. And it ain't cheap. In this regard, there are no good deals with modern electronics. In my view, the best modern deal is probably a fairly inexpensive body replaced quite often - you'll have access to newer sensors for a lower overall outlay - combined with classic quality lenses either old or, in the case of Zeiss and co, their new equivalents. MF most likely, the fewest gizmos, less stuff to wear out or go wrong.

For solid value, a film-era 645 (one of the later ones with good metering) in above-average condition and a three-lens set ditto cannot be beat, imho. Provided one is not insanely hooked on digital, nothing new comes anywhere close.

[Aristophanes]

For solid value, a film-era 645 (one of the later ones with good metering) in above-average condition and a three-lens set ditto cannot be beat, imho. Provided one is not insanely hooked on digital, nothing new comes anywhere close.

You'll need this to scan those 645s:

Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanner 70380201 B&H Photo Video

[RonHendriks1966]

You'll need this to scan those 645s:

Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanner 70380201 B&H Photo Video

As expensive as a 645Z, 55mm lens and the scannerthingy from Pentax.

[mecrox]

You'll need this to scan those 645s:

Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanner 70380201 B&H Photo Video

Lol, I am sure Boots the Chemist or perhaps Tesco would do a perfectly decent job for £2.50

Seriously, you'd only need to splash out on premium scans for the few shots which have worked pretty well perfectly. Everything else is going to hit the great photobucket in the sky sooner or later.

[fretlessdavis]

You'll need this to scan those 645s:

Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanner 70380201 B&H Photo Video

Who says we'll be scanning, though? Printing in the darkroom gives fantastic results with 645. Also, there are high-end scanners that will do fantastic work with 120 film for a fraction of that price, and you can scan in multiple passes to capture all the dynamic range.

Or, you could buy a 645Z, and use HDR to capture negative films in all their glory.