[lytrytyr]

What a good idea to call lenses instead of names like 35mm f2.8 or 55mm f2 or 135mm f3.5, names like 01 02 03 04.


This is a remarkable improvement over that stupid naming system that told you the focal length the aperture and other worthless pieces of information like smc, as if youd ever want to know the focal length or aperture of a lens.


Its much easier to write 02 or 06 short and snappy that's what I want.


Can we call the takumars similar names for consistency, its much better to just call the 55mm f1.8, lens 57, and the 55mm f2, lens 58, and the 135mm f3.5, lens 81, can someone start work on it as soon as possible.


I very much hope that pentax wont rename the excellently named lenses 01 02 03 etc to those ridiculous mm and f numbers names, someone might actually know what the lens is, and we cant have that.

I realize that you omitted the <sarcasm> tags,
but just stop and think for a moment
about the problem that Pentax had with naming these lenses.

With the new format,
the actual focal lengths are not numbers that most people could relate to,
and they can't even be given reasonably accurately without a decimal point,
at least for the wider angles.

Yet if they'd followed other manufacturers by giving FF equivalents,
they would have the problem of trying to decide whether to relate those
to the original 1/2.3" format of the original Q, soon to become obsolete,
or to the current 1/1.7" Q format, which would have prematurely revealed the upgrade.

---------- Post added 08-14-14 at 12:11 PM ----------

For price I did a quick look at Google shopping. It shows a price range of $97 to more than $100 on evilBay.

With Pentax, it pays to time your lens purchases
and catch the special offers that are part of their
"mark up to mark down" sales philosophy.

[Aristophanes]

But the 645 is a crop sensor...

Even then you need a mule to carry it.

[Rondec]

Pardon me for being obtuse but


If large sensor size were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not appeal, that has an even larger sensor and the images are incredible.


If shallow depth of field were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not entice, that has shallower depth of field than an FF would have.


If low noise were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not enthral, that has lower noise and images are clean.


If the high pixel count were important to the FF user, why doesn't the 645 inspire, that has huge megapixel count.


Im confused, isn't the 645 a FF on steroids?


If the 645 rocks why doesn't it rock your boat FF users.

The issue is that the k mount is the same whether you use an APS-C sensor or full frame sensor with it. Same lenses mount (whether or not they cover the sensor well). A lot of people own lenses that would work without any problem.

The 645 uses a different mount. It might just as well be a D800 or a 5D Mk III, in that it would require a completely different lens line up from whatever lenses you currently own.

For certain niches, landscape in particular, the 645D/Z are cameras that really can't be beaten, except when it comes to price, where they are still pretty steep when you factor in lenses.

[cali92rs]

Pardon me for being obtuse but


If large sensor size were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not appeal, that has an even larger sensor and the images are incredible.


If shallow depth of field were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not entice, that has shallower depth of field than an FF would have.


If low noise were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not enthral, that has lower noise and images are clean.


If the high pixel count were important to the FF user, why doesn't the 645 inspire, that has huge megapixel count.


Im confused, isn't the 645 a FF on steroids?


If the 645 rocks why doesn't it rock your boat FF users.

$$$$$
The cost differential from going to a high end APS-C kit to a high end FF kit would be smaller than going from a high end FF kit to a Digital 645 kit.

Also, you lose the flexibility the a FF kit from canikon would bring when going to a 645 kit.

[IchabodCrane]

Pardon me for being obtuse but


If large sensor size were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not appeal, that has an even larger sensor and the images are incredible.


If shallow depth of field were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not entice, that has shallower depth of field than an FF would have.


If low noise were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not enthral, that has lower noise and images are clean.


If the high pixel count were important to the FF user, why doesn't the 645 inspire, that has huge megapixel count.


Im confused, isn't the 645 a FF on steroids?


If the 645 rocks why doesn't it rock your boat FF users.

It just might have something to do with the fact the 645Z weighs almost 3.5 lbs (body only ) and is very large. Oh, there's that price thing, too.

[boriscleto]

Even then you need a mule to carry it.

But if you can afford a 645 then you can afford a sherpa too.

[Aristophanes]

But if you can afford a 645 then you can afford a sherpa too.

Of course. You need a sherpa to carry the mule. My bad.

[ElJamoquio]

If large sensor size were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not appeal, that has an even larger sensor and the images are incredible.

If the high pixel count were important to the FF user, why doesn't the 645 inspire, that has huge megapixel count.

True.

If shallow depth of field were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not entice, that has shallower depth of field than an FF would have.


If low noise were important to the FF user, why does the 645 not enthral, that has lower noise and images are clean.

With available lenses, FF has shallower-possible DOF and lower noise.


So the 645 has higher IQ for a given aperture, but the widest equivalent apertures are actually available for FF. Throw in the 1/5th cost and lower weight and size, and not many people will go for the 645.

[mecrox]

What is a field camera, as mentioned by NCG above? It's a new one on me. Yes, I know where those gorgeous Guernseys and frisky Friesians roam but like most folks, maybe, I prefer shooting landscapes, portraits, street and so forth. Who shoots field?

[lytrytyr]

What is a field camera?

According to Wikipedia, this:

[Kunzite]

I'd say we can extend the term to cameras like the 645D; it was initially used to differentiate between large, heavy monorail cameras and foldable cameras which could be easily carried "in the field".
The 645D is also meant to be taken "in the field" - with its rugged, weather sealed construction. And it's small enough so it doesn't require a foldable design We would need to differentiate from the context.
But perhaps you can think of a better description? Outdoor camera? Something else?

[thibs]

According to Wikipedia, this:

Hey, Rock on, Wista ( but I like my RF model better )

Beleive it or not this can be hand held. So those who think the 645 is a beast, well.. you dunno what you're talking about. Simple.

[mecrox]

According to Wikipedia, this:

That looks fab! I was watching a documentary about Vivian Maier last night and thought the Rolleiflexes she used look the bomb too.

[lytrytyr]

Beleive it or not this can be hand held.

Yeah, back in the day, those press togs could do wonders with a Speed Graphic.

[monochrome]

These days it seems to be all about lightweight.