Pentax 645Z Officially Announced

Cannikin · 04-17-2014, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Cannikin, the answers to your points (and - again - the attempted usage of real standard systems of measurement to support "equivalency") is in my previous posts. I will not repeat them.
And since you used a keyword ("narrowminded"), it's time to end our discussion.

All I have left to say is you should take a good look at your own posts and see if there is anything someone can learn from them, such as what you mean by "fragility" or why 35mm should not be used as a standard, or are they simply a collection of snide remarks, attempts to display "logical objectivity", and assertions without reasoning or example.

normhead · 04-17-2014, 07:58 AM - **9 Likes**

Lets say the 645Z is a full frame sensor. After all, you can't be bigger than Full. Full means Full, honestly, in English you can't be more full, you're full, or you aren't.. so a 35mm image is a 1:1.5 crop and an APS-c is a 1:2 crop. Personally I'm not looking at any calculations that don't adhere to this standard. It's time for the English language to re-assert itself. I's also suggest that equivalency is a concept put forward by one of those engineering types from high school who could neither comprehend nor write English, even though it was their first language.

All this argument for FF equivalency is based on abuse of the English language. I know the engineers think they are communicating, someone should tell them, without understanding the language, you can't tell anybody anything no matter how smart you are. Ability to put forward any concept is dependant as much on skill in the language as it is in theoretical correctness. With a theory as fuzzy as equivalency, you need really good communication skills. Because you're going to have to "sell" some stuff.

The sad thing is, is that the value (if any) of equivalency is lost by confusion caused by it's use of the term "ƒ-stop", which means something completely different. Coin a new term for ƒ-stop in equivalency , and no one cares about equivalency, at least I don't. Only by trying to weasel it's way to legitimacy by co-opting one of the founding guiding terms in photography has this concept gained any following at all. It's a marvellous theory, but on it's own, pretty much irrelevant.

No one who can look through a lens, needs to know anything about calculating equivalency. And it's always been that way. When I looked through my dad's 2 1/4 or my sisters 110, I never thought for a minute about working out "equivalency". There was no need then and there's no need now. This is a bunch of navel gazing hogwash. Look through your lens and see what you've got. You don't need to know about lenses you don't have, and you can evaluate a lens by looking through your viewfinder, with the lens on the camera. There are way more factors in lens selection than what it's equivalence in another format might be. The guy who learns to look for what he likes in a lens is way further ahead than a guy who selects lenses based on a lens with a different formula, a different number of elements, and many different optical characteristics on a different camera that uses a different format. I regret to have to inform the enthusiasts... but this is pure hogwash.

Lens selection can not be reduced to the numerical equivalence of simple lenses and then applied to complex lenses. If you were a real engineer, a real photographer or a real anything you'd know that. NO, there is no where in the real universe where a Carl Zies 100 Makro Planar on my K-3 is in any way equivalent to my Vivitar 135 on an FF.. in what kind of mindless theory would you be able to say such a thing.. and what possible use could that concept be to you?

Parallax · 04-17-2014, 08:13 AM - **1 Like**

Perfect, Norm. Simply perfect!

Kunzite · 04-17-2014, 08:26 AM

Perfect, indeed.

K-9 · 04-17-2014, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

FWIW everything should be equivalent to 6x7.

I'm still waiting for the Pentax 67IID.

ogl · 04-17-2014, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by K-9

I'm still waiting for the Pentax 67IID.

Never be.

VoiceOfReason · 04-17-2014, 10:10 AM

I siimply need the 645z and a few lenses and I'll be quite happy.

Parallax · 04-17-2014, 10:19 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

I siimply need the 645z and a few lenses and I'll be quite happy.

I'm not sure that even if I were given a 645z and a few lenses I would be happy, but I'm willing to conduct the experiment.

VoiceOfReason · 04-17-2014, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

I'm not sure that even if I were given a 645z and a few lenses I would be happy, but I'm willing to conduct the experiment.

I like that. Experimental photography as it relates to personal satisfaction and how it contributes to an individual sense of well being. I could write a paper on it. Now I need some equipment for myself, you, and a few others as test data. I'll use those complaining about crop factor and full frame as the control group!

jogiba · 04-17-2014, 10:45 AM

You Tube

Na Horuk · 04-17-2014, 10:48 AM

I really am interested what the 645Z and its pricing will do to the 645D. Will the 645D become more affordable? Will its price sink like a rock? Or will it ride on a cult status and stay relatively expensive?

Cynog Ap Brychan · 04-17-2014, 01:02 PM

Well, that Pentax v Panasonic was full of inaccuracies....

Tanzer · 04-17-2014, 01:08 PM

Uggh, don't watch that video, much of the info is incorrect. We don't need to promote that YouTube channel.

---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 04:13 PM ----------

And it's beyond me, why anyone would seriously need to compare these totally different cameras.

jon404 · 04-17-2014, 01:16 PM

@Na Horuk -- The 645D -- can't see it gaining cult status, as the new one is so similar. Hope the price drops, though. Like a rock, which it should do soon.

Question: will the old film-645 lenses still deliver sharp photos on the new 50 MP 645Z? Isn't there something about how lenses have to get better to keep up with the new, larger sensors?

Re equivalence -- all that got me laughing, as I'm reading a dense international-finance book, and the currency exchange part -- their 'equivalence' -- really goes round and round. Seems like gold is the base point, with all the dollars and euros and yen being pumped up and down against it, for all the best of reasons, and some that aren't. But our photography is even more complicated. Guess our base point is the largest mass-produced sensor available? And that would be a shifting target. Too much for me. I'm with the above post, just look through the viewfinder, and take your pictures...

Parallax · 04-17-2014, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by jon404

Isn't there something about how lenses have to get better to keep up with the new, larger sensors?

They don't have to get better if they're good enough to begin with. the sensor is the same size as the 645D. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the current lenses are maxed out now.

04-17-2014, 07:58 AM - 9 Likes	#152
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Lets say the 645Z is a full frame sensor. After all, you can't be bigger than Full. Full means Full, honestly, in English you can't be more full, you're full, or you aren't.. so a 35mm image is a 1:1.5 crop and an APS-c is a 1:2 crop. Personally I'm not looking at any calculations that don't adhere to this standard. It's time for the English language to re-assert itself. I's also suggest that equivalency is a concept put forward by one of those engineering types from high school who could neither comprehend nor write English, even though it was their first language. All this argument for FF equivalency is based on abuse of the English language. I know the engineers think they are communicating, someone should tell them, without understanding the language, you can't tell anybody anything no matter how smart you are. Ability to put forward any concept is dependant as much on skill in the language as it is in theoretical correctness. With a theory as fuzzy as equivalency, you need really good communication skills. Because you're going to have to "sell" some stuff. The sad thing is, is that the value (if any) of equivalency is lost by confusion caused by it's use of the term "ƒ-stop", which means something completely different. Coin a new term for ƒ-stop in equivalency , and no one cares about equivalency, at least I don't. Only by trying to weasel it's way to legitimacy by co-opting one of the founding guiding terms in photography has this concept gained any following at all. It's a marvellous theory, but on it's own, pretty much irrelevant. No one who can look through a lens, needs to know anything about calculating equivalency. And it's always been that way. When I looked through my dad's 2 1/4 or my sisters 110, I never thought for a minute about working out "equivalency". There was no need then and there's no need now. This is a bunch of navel gazing hogwash. Look through your lens and see what you've got. You don't need to know about lenses you don't have, and you can evaluate a lens by looking through your viewfinder, with the lens on the camera. There are way more factors in lens selection than what it's equivalence in another format might be. The guy who learns to look for what he likes in a lens is way further ahead than a guy who selects lenses based on a lens with a different formula, a different number of elements, and many different optical characteristics on a different camera that uses a different format. I regret to have to inform the enthusiasts... but this is pure hogwash. Lens selection can not be reduced to the numerical equivalence of simple lenses and then applied to complex lenses. If you were a real engineer, a real photographer or a real anything you'd know that. NO, there is no where in the real universe where a Carl Zies 100 Makro Planar on my K-3 is in any way equivalent to my Vivitar 135 on an FF.. in what kind of mindless theory would you be able to say such a thing.. and what possible use could that concept be to you? Last edited by normhead; 04-17-2014 at 08:17 AM.

04-17-2014, 08:13 AM - 1 Like	#153
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Perfect, Norm. Simply perfect! Last edited by Parallax; 04-17-2020 at 11:16 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PENTAX-DA 1.4X Converter is announced officially	Grokh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	02-05-2014 04:53 PM
HD Pentax 55-300mm WR Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	53	10-15-2013 11:00 AM
Pentax HD lens series officially announced for Switzerland and Germany	RKKS08	Pentax News and Rumors	9	09-14-2013 12:04 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced!	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	245	09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax X-5 officially announced...	JohnBee	Pentax News and Rumors	103	09-06-2012 07:34 AM

04-17-2014, 07:57 AM	#151
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by Kunzite Cannikin, the answers to your points (and - again - the attempted usage of real standard systems of measurement to support "equivalency") is in my previous posts. I will not repeat them. And since you used a keyword ("narrowminded"), it's time to end our discussion. All I have left to say is you should take a good look at your own posts and see if there is anything someone can learn from them, such as what you mean by "fragility" or why 35mm should not be used as a standard, or are they simply a collection of snide remarks, attempts to display "logical objectivity", and assertions without reasoning or example.

04-17-2014, 08:26 AM	#154
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Perfect, indeed.

04-17-2014, 08:32 AM	#155
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Originally posted by monochrome FWIW everything should be equivalent to 6x7. I'm still waiting for the Pentax 67IID.

04-17-2014, 09:26 AM	#156
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by K-9 I'm still waiting for the Pentax 67IID. Never be.

04-17-2014, 10:10 AM	#157
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I siimply need the 645z and a few lenses and I'll be quite happy.

04-17-2014, 10:19 AM - 2 Likes	#158
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason I siimply need the 645z and a few lenses and I'll be quite happy. I'm not sure that even if I were given a 645z and a few lenses I would be happy, but I'm willing to conduct the experiment.

04-17-2014, 10:25 AM	#159
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	Originally posted by Parallax I'm not sure that even if I were given a 645z and a few lenses I would be happy, but I'm willing to conduct the experiment. I like that. Experimental photography as it relates to personal satisfaction and how it contributes to an individual sense of well being. I could write a paper on it. Now I need some equipment for myself, you, and a few others as test data. I'll use those complaining about crop factor and full frame as the control group!

04-17-2014, 10:48 AM	#161
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I really am interested what the 645Z and its pricing will do to the 645D. Will the 645D become more affordable? Will its price sink like a rock? Or will it ride on a cult status and stay relatively expensive?

04-17-2014, 01:02 PM	#162
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Well, that Pentax v Panasonic was full of inaccuracies....

04-17-2014, 01:08 PM	#163
Tanzer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Perrineville, NJ Posts: 1,375	Uggh, don't watch that video, much of the info is incorrect. We don't need to promote that YouTube channel. ---------- Post added 04-17-14 at 04:13 PM ---------- And it's beyond me, why anyone would seriously need to compare these totally different cameras.

04-17-2014, 01:16 PM	#164
jon404 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 696	@Na Horuk -- The 645D -- can't see it gaining cult status, as the new one is so similar. Hope the price drops, though. Like a rock, which it should do soon. Question: will the old film-645 lenses still deliver sharp photos on the new 50 MP 645Z? Isn't there something about how lenses have to get better to keep up with the new, larger sensors? Re equivalence -- all that got me laughing, as I'm reading a dense international-finance book, and the currency exchange part -- their 'equivalence' -- really goes round and round. Seems like gold is the base point, with all the dollars and euros and yen being pumped up and down against it, for all the best of reasons, and some that aren't. But our photography is even more complicated. Guess our base point is the largest mass-produced sensor available? And that would be a shifting target. Too much for me. I'm with the above post, just look through the viewfinder, and take your pictures...

04-17-2014, 01:19 PM	#165
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by jon404 Isn't there something about how lenses have to get better to keep up with the new, larger sensors? They don't have to get better if they're good enough to begin with. the sensor is the same size as the 645D. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the current lenses are maxed out now.