[falconeye]

At 50MP and the processing required it a mirrorless MF would get about 10 shots on the RX-1 battery and the lenses would break the mount out of the frame! Not to mention processing power and heat (video).

The idea of an RX1-sized 645Z-mirrorless came up rumouring from Pentax at CP+. The idea isn't mine.

Technically, your arguments don't hold true. An RX1 has an F/2 lens, so a 645Z-mirrorless with F/2.8 would have a lens even smaller than RX1, not to mention that there is no lens mount ...

Physically, the 645Z sensor is just 8mm wider than RX1's. Also, 50MP @ 3 fps and the RX1's 24MP @ 5 fps are the same processing required. So, what are you talking about?

Eventually, a Pentax-style compact 645Z-mirrorless with tack-sharp fixed 43mm F/2.8 lens for, say $3900 may be genius. The RX1 sold better than anticipated. Point is, people fork out this much money for a unique product. While they would still refuse to be drawn into another proprietary system of lenses.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 04-15-2014 at 08:16 AM.

[Kunzite]

Eventually, a Pentax-style compact 645Z-mirrorless with tack-sharp fixed 43mm F/2.8 lens for, say $3900 may be genius.

A medium format camera with a lens for less than half the price of a body-only 645Z? Interesting...

[VoiceOfReason]

I'd take it with a zoom. I know the tech is there to do a fixed, fast zoom lens that is sharp on such a beast. Imagine that for something like 3500 dollars. I wonder what that would do to the FF market.

[monochrome]

Won't it be an interesting story three years from now if it turns out to be Pentax that squeezes CaNikon FF from above and below and not the other way around?

[falconeye]

A medium format camera with a lens for less than half the price of a body-only 645Z? Interesting...

Well, it would be along the lines of what Sony did for the RX1 which includes a lens worth the asking price alone. A question of volume too, of course. And if Pentax would get the same kind of deal for the sensor Sony got from Sony SC.

I just added a good $1000 to the price of the RX1 to accomodate for the 11mm or 5/4 larger sensor diagonal (68% larger surface). In terms of area, the steps from APSC to FF and from FF to 645Z are about the same (about 500 sq.mm). So, a $1000 price increment may be adequate.

MF camera prices are mostly arbitrary anyway. After all, it is Pentax offering a better camera for 1/3 the price of its peers. So, I totally ignored the 645Z price in my consideration.

The 645Z is worth its price because it makes you look so much more professional vis a vis your clients. Not because it is this expensive to make. Let's be honest here.

[Pål Jensen]

Huh? The camera cost millons of dollars to develop and each sensors cost thousands. It IS expensive to make and the volume is relatively low.

[falconeye]

each sensors cost thousands

I remember that kind if discussion.
Let me quote for reference:
-> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/76980-ff-2010-a.html#post781761

I won't repeat the full argument here, but out of curiosity ...

A 300mm wafer holds:
- APS-C: 160 chips (good and bad ones)
- FF: 66 chips
- 44x33: 36 chips

0.01/cm^2 defect rate (an estimate for 5 year old processes), we get 7 defects/wafer. Triple it and you get 22 good sensors/wafer rather than 145 APSC, making it 6.6x the price of an APSC sensor).

APSC sensors are around 100$, so Sony obviously was able to offer the 645Z sensor for 990$ or less.

[Kunzite]

Falk:
The RX1 has a street price of $2800, while the body only A7 is $1000 cheaper. You could say that for $1000 you're getting an excellent lens, and I won't argue with that. However, you're not asking Pentax to do it for more than a body-only 645Z, but for less than half the price.

By the way, the cost of the sensor and its contribution to the final price are different things.

Wait, the 645Z's price is arbitrary, right? Convenient... but not acceptable, I'm afraid.
Pentax is indeed able to make a much cheaper camera, but there are factors working in their favor:
- not having to develop a complete electronics+software for the 645Z, instead reusing/adapting the ones made for APS-C
- sharing various costs with APS-C (e.g. production space, distribution, support etc).
With the very low volumes of the DMF market, I think that's a better explanation than "the prices are arbitrary"

[falconeye]

Wait, the 645Z's price is arbitrary, right? Convenient... but not acceptable, I'm afraid.

What I meant was the price is arbitrary as far as the argument for a possible fixed lens mirrorless 44x33mm camera is concerned. Just like the price of a D4s is irrelevant when it comes to the RX1. And here I still stick to my claim it should be feasible for the price of an RX1 + $1000 (same speed of lens, same processing speed, no focal plane shutter, just bigger silicon area). Why not? Right, there is no reason why not.

I am aware that cost of sensor isn't its share in the asking price, but RX1 has a sensor too. Using the same data as above, the cost difference should be around $600.

To repeat: Ricoh could do a fixed lens 656Z-mirrorless for $3900. It would be an aggressive product (like the RX1 was and even more so). Ricoh would earn money with it but not much. No cash cow. But what a bold statement if they are serious to reconquer lost territory in the marketplace...

I didn't mean by arbitrary that the 656Z price by itself is arbitrary. It is a sweet asking price for a "must have" medium format digital SLR where everything else is MUCH more expensive. But that's a different market.

[Aristophanes]

APSC sensors are around 100$, so Sony obviously was able to offer the 645Z sensor for 990$ or less

Some APS sensors are probably less than $70 now (Canon's constantly recycled ones).

FF sensors are the ones levitating.

0.01/cm^2 defect rate (an estimate for 5 year old processes), we get 7 defects/wafer. Triple it and you get 22 good sensors/wafer rather than 145 APSC, making it 6.6x the price of an APSC sensor).

You have to factor in the 6.6x with another multiplier and that is the diminished market size that a larger product and lenses brings as baggage. Volume down = an even smaller market, increasing the cost/unit beyond just the sensor.

Eventually, a Pentax-style compact 645Z-mirrorless with tack-sharp fixed 43mm F/2.8 lens for, say $3900 may be genius

Teeny, tiny market. Not feasible.

The RX1 sold better than anticipated. Point is, people fork out this much money for a unique product. While they would still refuse to be drawn into another proprietary system of lenses.

I suspect RX1 sales have already peaked and declined. For all the hype, very limited appeal.

I think the system to emulate is the Mamiya 6/7 with just a few lenses. The Mamiya 6 with only 3 lenses sold unexpectedly well being exremely compat for a 6x and led to the Mamiya 7 with a couple more lenses. A company with the discipline to make only a few, phenomenal lenses and stick to that formula, may be able to succeed.

No doubt the 645z is intended for a tripod. Big camera. Already we are talking how to "small" the medium format sensor body!

[Kunzite]

I am aware that price of sensor isn't the asking price, but RX1 has a sensor too. Using the same data as above, the cost difference should be around $600.

Aristophanes already mentioned it, but: you should factor in the lower volumes.
And "same speed of lens" - the lens will have to cover a larger area (even if "just" 1.7x). And "same processing speed" could be too slow, limiting again the sales. How many other things are missing?

[falconeye]

You have to factor in the 6.6x with another multiplier and that is the diminished market size that a larger product and lenses brings as baggage.

That's true. But one has to start somewhere and cost of components is a good option.

Eventually, the market (demand) determines the price and your margin may be larger or smaller or even negative. And price determines volume too.

At Flickr, the RX1 has about 10% of uploads of RX100, Sony's top performer there. That's not bad and would be huge for Pentax.

So, I don't know which factor Pentax would have to add to this 6.6 in the end. But I found it interesting that the idea isn't out of this world at all. And again, it isn't my idea, but rumoured to be Pentax' one ...

[Kunzite]

Which means it's probably completely made up

[Na Horuk]

Is there any handy chart comparing this camera to the other MF with the same sensor? Just in terms of features, size,..

[rawr]

a Pentax-style compact 645Z-mirrorless with tack-sharp fixed 43mm F/2.8 lens

So a 645 Ricoh GR ... except with a $4000 price tag. Hmmm.